Good evening. We just established quorum and so people are going to please take their seats. Thank you for joining us this evening. We'd like to start this evening's City Council meeting. And Councillor Bartlett, are you on? Yes, I am. Okay, thank you for turning on that. Councillor Bartlett will be a teleconferencing from a remote location and I believe it's 3 a.m. where he is currently teleconferencing from a remote location. And I believe it's 3 a.m. where he is currently teleconferencing funds. So thank you being here and participating in this important meeting tonight. So good evening. I'd like to call to order the special meeting of the Berkeley City Council for Monday, August 5th, 2024 at 6 p.m. The first order of businesses roll call if the city clerk can please call to work. Okay, council member Kisalani is currently absent. Council member Tapplin is currently absent. Council member Bartlett. President Begum, Rose. Council member. Khan. President. Lengrap is absent. Loonopara. Kim. Convert. President and Mayor Aragon. President, the Court of theopara. Here. Comvert. Present. And Mayor Aragon. Present. A quorum of the City Council's present. Thank you. This is a special meeting to take up two items. Item 1A is placing the Berkley-Ten placing the Berkeley tenant protection and right to organize act on November 5th, 2020 for ballot submitted by Councilor Luna Parr and item 1B is an amended version of that which I submitted on behalf of Councilor Haan as well. So we're going to provide opening comments on both those items. We have a presentation with a rent board and then we'll open up for public comment thereafter. So just first to open on this item, then I'll turn over to Councillor Rue Nopara, and I would thank everyone for being here tonight. So as we know, the rent stabilization board earlier this year had proposed a number of important changes to the rent ordinance that are now being presented before us tonight. Item 1b is an attempt to find a milk path to ensure that we can move this measure forward, to be submitted to the voters this November and I think the key aspects of item 1B are as follows. It uses the version of the rent ordinance changes that Councilman Riluna Parra had introduced that makes several substantive changes. One, it does not include, it retains the current exemption for gold and duplex properties. Two, it makes a slight change to the section under tenant rights to organize by requiring that the tenant rights to organize would kick kick in for properties of tenants or more or properties of one to nine units if they're managed by a property manager. And, um, or major change. A number of other clarifying changes that were made with the input of the City Attorney's Office. There was one substantive change that we did propose, which was to strike the language under the applicability section, which is Section 050 under, I guess, that's 050B3,-owned and government subsidized rental units. So, rent board previously proposed that certain government subsidized rental units be covered under rent control. Initially, we proposed to strike that in conversation with the rent board and with further explanation about the why this change was proposed. I'm proposing that we restore the rent board's previous language. And we'll hear from the one board later about why they're proposing this specifically and why it's important. Just want to emphasize that anything that's newly constructed is exempt from rent control. We're talking about things that are pre-cost to Hawkins and where they either were previously government subsidized and no longer have those subsidies. I think of Redwood Gardens, here at Tub and Terrace, which were built with certain federal funds that had certain affordability covenants. Those are now gone. They've been bought by private entities. I think it's certainly appropriate in those cases that those properties be covered under rent control. In 2004, the voters of Berkeley, voted in amendment to the rent ordinance to say in for section 8 tenants in cases where the exceeded the federal payment standard that tenants were recovered under rent control. I think it's consistent with that. They can show that in cases of people that were in subsidized housing when the rent exceeds a certain amount that they be covered under rent control. I think those are all the major substantive changes. And this was in the packet that was released on Friday. One last subset of change. to change, which is that we added a new section which would put in the Berkeley Municipal Code, and show this. Section 3, adoption of chapter 13.85, the Housing Retention Program. This would add a new section to the Birkley-Mispoco, not in the Wendt control ordinance, but in the Birkley-Mispoco. To ensure that the city allocates reasonable funding from existing sources to an ongoing housing retention program. It sets a goal that the city should try to meet of allocating no less than 1.1 million to the housing retention program and includes language around the city manager, promigating rules and regulations, including eligibility criteria, application procedures, and other rules and regulations necessary to administer the program. We've had a very successful housing retention program in place for many years, that we have put in millions of dollars during the pandemic to help people who are facing housing and security stay-state-way-hows. We've been able to keep hundreds of households stay away house in Berkeley during during the pandemic and in recent years. I think we should we should build on that we should we should provide more resources we should expand that program and this this would put into the birth of this code a goal and a policy that we will maintain a housing attention program setting a goal of 1.1 million for the housing attention program. And I think it's important that we make that commitment. While we're strengthening the rent ordinance, while we're making important cleanup changes, while we're strengthening eviction protections, while we're strengthening tenant protections, also recognizing that housing preservation is a critical part of our cities of affordable housing strategy and our efforts to prevent homelessness that that needs to go hand in hand with our other housing policies like rent control. So those are the those are the major changes that we made to the diversion that was sent up by Councilman Luna Parra and I want to turn over to Councilman Luna Parra. Thank you. I want to thank our community for the letters of both support and opposition that we have received for this item. This body's fundamental job is to listen to the letters of both support and opposition that we have received for this item. This body's fundamental job is to listen to the will of the people and make decisions informed by that. So I want to thank Council Member Hahn and the mayor for bringing the supplemental material forward in the name of compromise. Based on my conversations with my colleagues and the messages we have received over the past couple weeks and with the ultimate goal of placing tenants rights on the ballot, I am prepared to accept the supplemental material and support it as it moves forward tonight. I would like to share that I brought this item forward originally because I recognize the urgency to protect and strengthen tenants rights, to ensure our regulations are aligned with new local and state laws, and provide voters the majority of which are renters the opportunity to advocate for their needs, particularly while misleading landlord sponsored measures on the ballot. I am still said fast in my dedication and commitment to strengthening tenant protections. Thank you all for coming out tonight and I'll turn it over to Remboard Legal Counselor Matt Brown for a presentation. Okay, and so we've invited Matt Brown, the general counsel of the Berkeley Rent Board, and we have Chair of the Rampwood Least, Simon Weisberg and the Brunt Board Executive Director, Kishana. Here's Williams here as well. To just go over the various amendments that were initially proposed by the Went Civilization Board to the Berkeley Rent Ordinance ordinance and as well as the new amendments. It's alternate over to Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Choir Lang. It's the opportunity to present. I prepared a presentation of Council Member Luna Pahra's proposal. I would leave it to you, Council Member Luna Pahra, to interrupt me if you don't want me to discuss anything in any particular slides given your prior statements. I'll be following your direction as it relates to what I present on. Okay, but I have here a full presentation of your particular proposal. A moment, I think, has River Han has something I don't know if I want to turn it over to the mayor. I'm just wondering, if since I think council member Lulipa has expressed that she would be supportive of the changes we put forward, if maybe we take a vote on a version since it's separate, right? Do we have to take a survey? No, I mean, we don't. Well, I don't know. I didn't recognize this one A or one B. We can approve one A, we can approve one B. Okay, I hope it gets five votes is what will be the action of the council. Okay, I thought we might have to take action on one in order to, okay. So, I guess I would maybe just suggest that we leave it open for maybe just suggest that we leave it open for questions, but I'll leave that to you, Mayor. I had misunderstood procedurally where we are. And if I may, when suggestion is that as we're going through it, we'll try and say, it's not, I think we were trying to explain. This PowerPoint was presented kind of prior to the recent changes. And that as Council Brown is explaining it, he will try and indicate where things have, it sounds like merged. So hopefully that'll be more efficient. Yeah, I think that's helpful. I think it's helpful for the council and for the public to know what was originally proposed, why it was proposed. I know we'll have questions for a Remboard staff about specific sections. I just wanna clarify the version that I've submitted. 1B keeps the current Golden Duplex exemption. We're not getting rid of the Golden Duplex exemption. So if you're a Golden Duplex owner, you still would be exempt. It also would keep the exemption for, it would include the language that was previously proposed around applying rent control for certain government subsidized housing. The language in the previous version that would allow for owners to be told to rent as a penalty for noncompliance with the registration requirements, that's stricken. So So if you are late in filing your registration statements, you would not be subject to additional penalties beyond the fees that the Board has currently established, which you have a way to appeal to the Board to consider hardship and make some slight changes to the section about tenant associations. And then includes the language around the allocation of U1 funds for housing retention programs. Those are the changes. So yeah, when we go to certain things, if you can just know what has changed, that would be helpful. Absolutely. If you don't mind, council, members, I am going to start to share my screen for a PowerPoint that we prepared for this. Okay. So here we are. There's a number of changes. I'm going to go through them sort of pretty quickly at the beginning. And if anybody has any questions about this, you can either interrupt me on various slides or I can take questions at the end. I will be giving the nuts and bolts of the proposal. Chair Simon Weisberg might chime in at the end of each slide with some sort of policy implication or goals associated with it. So we're going to be talking about sort of how we developed the proposed amendments. We'll be talking about expanded coverage and increased just cause protections for tenants, a new tenant right to organize, some miscellaneous amendments that don't really fit into any specific category, and then the Golden Duplex issue, which of course, Councilional Balloonapara and the mayor have indicated that we'll probably just brush over quickly. So as everybody knows, there are two ways to amend the rent ordinance. Rent ordinance is a vote or adopted initiative and can only be changed by the citizens of Berkeley during an even numbered election year at a state general election. There is no citizen initiative coming from the board this year. So the board has asked that the measure be placed on the ballot by council. So this process began about six years ago when the board began discussing how to expand tenant protections. It has been discussed at two rent board meetings, four ad hoc rent board committee meetings, considering amendments, one four by four housing committee, and rent board commissioners have gone to numerous community meetings to discuss these issues as well to get support for them. Any? The end result of these amendments would be that more tendencies would be protected. Our agency would have an increased ability to collect tendency and foe and provide important data to the community, including council. We would be able to adopt better policies in order to confront the data that we actually have, respond to the data that we have. It would strengthen just cause protections for tenants who live in Berkeley rental property. Sorry. It would again create an enforceable tenant right to organize, and then just some tweaks that we made to modernize and streamline their ordinance. So again, more tenants will be protected with the adoption of these changes. One of the primary goals of the changes is to bring under complete protection various government-owned and government subsidized housing where it's legally permitted. In other words, whether it isn't something that prohibits local price controls from attaching and or whether there aren't other exemptions that would serve to partially cover these units when they couldn't be fully covered. partially cover these units when they couldn't be fully covered. The other. An example. Sure. Yeah. So one of the reasons that we added that specifically and, you know, has been brought back. As the media had described is that I think it's everybody knows how your tub men is a perfect example of this. After this. You know, if this gets on the ballot and passes, then the seniors at Harriet Tubman and Redwood Gardens would be able to receive assistance from the remford. And as we know, we've seen an increase in full-profit companies buying properties that originated as HUD properties. And the reason that we weren't, the city had to spend $100,000 to get an embuttsman because there was nobody to that had jurisdiction over these properties and were able to take action. This would allow the remfort to expand and be able to provide those services. And obviously it's very concerning when most of, a lot of affordable housing is focused on seniors and that they don't have any local agency that they can obtain services from. The other way in which this particular proposal protects more tenants is that there is currently an exemption which exists in the ordinance or anytime a property owner shares a kitchen or a bath with any of the tenants in a unit. That unit is completely exempt from link control. This particular amendment would require that the landlord actually live in the unit at the inception of the tenancy so that a landlord wouldn't be able to move into a vacant space in the unit, share a kitchen and bath, and otherwise deprived tenants of protections that they had previously before the landlord moved in. So if the landlord lives there at the inception and the tenants understand that this is a completely exempt tenancy, that would remain the only thing that would be prohibited would be the landlord essentially moving into an existing tendency and depriving tenants of rights that they previously enjoyed. There is of course 15 year new construction exemption. This was a compromise. the board had proposed it as 10 years after discussions with various council members and the 4x4 committee. Councilman Luanaparo chose to forward the 15-year exemption. So all newly constructed units in the event that cost of Hawkins is amended or repealed would be considered new construction for 15 years at the end of that period they would be controlled by the ordinance. Again, the proposed amendments strengthen good cause that currently exists for a eviction or by a landlord is able to give a tenant a substantially identical lease and essentially compel them to sign that lease or be at risk of eviction. And the board has found that a number of students are sort of forced to sign leases that they can't afford or for terms which they can't satisfy. And so this particular proposal would eliminate that good cause for eviction and all tendencies would revert to months and months after their expiration. The nonpayment of rent would be adjusted to be more in line with what Oakland and Los Angeles currently have, which is that you are not able to be evicted until there's rental debt owed is at least one month fair market rent. Thirdly, the breach of lease has to be substantial and cause the landlord harm to be a basis for eviction. This still allows landlords to evict tenants who are otherwise disruptive or disturbing a piece of other tenants or neighbors. And then of course the last thing which is less of a good cause and more procedural, is that eviction notices would end and unlawful detainer complaints, which is an eviction lawsuit, would have to be filed with the board within three days of being served on the tenants. We found that tenants often don't have enough time. Our current ordinance says 10 days, they must file within 10 days, oftentimes that's after the lawsuit has long since progressed. Can it write to organ on these? Landlords have to confer in good faith with tenant associations. This applies to properties with five or more rental units, as the NAPARA has put forward or three or four if they're managed by management company mayor, and Council member Han have particularly fourth, of course, the substitute proposal that only units with 10 or more, sorry, only properties of 10 or more units qualify for this right, or one to nine if they are managed by a management company. And the housing service is considered would be subject to a possible reduction of there any violations. These are the miscellaneous changes that I discussed. One of the things that you all as a legislative body have dealt with for last few years is SB 330. And how it relates to the ordinance. This would put in permanently into the ordinance a fix whereby a council could choose between the two forks that 330 offers. The one create rent-controlled housing and the other create a below market rate housing for those units that the state code deems qualifying. So currently our ordinance exempts new construction and so it's incompatible with the state law. So this would simply provide a mechanism by which if council should so choose, they can choose to have those replacement units be rent controlled going forward rather than below market rate. It lowers the annual general adjustment from 7% to 3%, it still uses the same 65% of the inflation index, which is the consumer price index. It eliminates the boards authority to request that council remove rent control. This was something that was written in the very first iteration of the ordinance back when rent board was actually under the cities of Raleimbella. And so given that now council is unable to actually make any changes substantively to the ordinance as it relates to the rights and responsibilities conferred therein. There is not really a need for council to suspend or otherwise modify, um, when control unless it goes to the voters. So this just falls in line with way the ordinance and, and the city currently work. It also provides the authority for the board to find by schedule landlords who don't notify us of a new tendency after written notice. Similar to other jurisdictions, these are more of the changes that the mislead these changes. Similar to the other jurisdictions requirements, the landlord has to provide a notice of the tenants' rights. I don't know how many people know about the open rent adjustment program, but every tenancy there receives what's called a rap notice. And this would be similar to that. So if you're living in an exempt unit, you would be told, you're living in an exempt unit. If you're living in a unit that has run controls, you'd be told that you were living in a partially covered and will develop those forms for landlords to send out. One of the ways that Councilmember Gnipara's proposal differs is that her proposal would prohibit landlars from collecting rent unless they are fully registered before, unless they have violated the registration component of the ordinance in some way. Councilmember Haan and Mayor Erickins removes that particular paragraph. And then of course, the ratio utility billing is just essentially that landlords are able to charge or have tenants pay for utilities when it's either the utilities are in a tenant's name or if it's part of a shared meter, then the amount is provided for in the actual lease itself, but not a rolling number that could change month by month. So just to clarify what that means is that basically you agree at the beginning, maybe you say, okay, my rent is $5,000. Oh, $2,000. And I'm going to charge $2,200 and the $200 towards utilities. Lammers often think that what they're saying is somehow it's separate, but what that means is really your rent is $2,200. And that landlords can't later as utility prices go up, just continue to pass that on. That's been, we've had situations where tenants are paying more than double in utilities than what their actual rent is. This is for the folks who, folks who spayed, paid probably way more attention than you wanted to. We've reorganized the exemption section. We removed outdated and redundant language. We've standardized capitalization and we've updated the findings, which were findings from 1979 when they were initially proposed. And so Berkeley looks a little different than the findings reflect that difference. The last one is one where I'm just going to take questions. The last one is one where I'm just going to take questions if you have any on them. Councilmember Luna Paras, a proposal would phase out golden duplexes for those who currently own them and then after their transfer for, or after they are passed once to one of a designated air, they would expire. As I understand it, Councilmember Hans and Mayor Erickine's proposal eliminates any adjustment to the Golden Duplex exemption as it currently exists in our ordinance. And any questions? The whole questions to the after public comment, but thank you, Mr. Brown and Chair Simon Weiss for being here tonight and I'm sure we'll have questions later. I'll just say that on balance, this is modernizing our wet control ordinance to reflect best practices from recordual jurisdictions throughout the state of California. It is strengthening tenant protections, creating a way to organize. And so I think these changes are, many of them are long overdue. And really the goal of what Councilor Hahn and I put forward is to build on the good work that's been done by the rent board and by Councilman Lutapara. And to try to find a way for us to get by votes to put something on the ballot because ultimately the council has to put because this did not qualify as an initiative, five members of the council have to vote affirmatively to put something on the ballot. This is intended. It doesn't, it doesn't include everything everyone wants. But really tribalist state quarters, trying to include the most important provisions and making sure that we can actually have a path to move something forward and get on the ballot. And I'll just say that the step we're taking today is to put something on the ballot. Ultimately, it's up to the people of Berkeley to decide whether to approve anything that's on the ballot. There's another measure that's on the ballot that's been submitted by the Berkeley Properties Association. It would be up to the people of Berkeley to decide whether they want to prove this and make this a law of the city. We are not adopting it today to make it the law of city where we would just simply be sending it to the voters. So the voters can decide and make a decision between this and the other measure. What is the best policy for the city of Berkeley? So I know we have a number of people here in person who like to speak on this item. We have members of the public on Zoom, we'd like to speak. Can you give a show of hand? So those members of the public here in person, who'd like to speak, okay? And then if you're on Zoom and you'd like to speak, please raise your virtual hand. Thank you. So we're gonna first take public comment from members of the public here in person. Given the number of speakers, each speaker will have a minute, but you can yield your minute to a maximum of four minutes per person. So if you get through other people to yield you their minute, you can have four minutes. And so maybe if there's a representative of a particular organization, maybe people want to yield their minutes, they have more time. Otherwise, there'll be a minute per speaker. And so we can set the clock and you may begin, thank you. Carol Morassovick. So I was going to begin my statement by pointing to the letter from Julia Cato who wrote the City Council and also stated as Julia Cato BTU steering committee. In her letter, she proposed putting the tenant protections on the ballot, but eliminating, I will read directly. I am willing to eliminate this group from the measure in order to bring its benefits to the money tenants not living in Golden Duplexes. So she states it's my interest to end the primary opposition is from Golden Duke Lex owners. So she proposed upholding the Golden Duke Lex exemption but placing the other rights on the ballot. And I would support that. I am in support of the mayors and councilmember Hans Measurer, but I'd like to point out two gaps. One is the actual injury to landlords. Should tenants also not be protected? So if you had a tenant being harassed, if you can please wrap up on the screen. You have a tenant being harassed or otherwise injured on the premises does not the landlord have a duty to those tenants also in terms of discriminatory things going on. And just to end this also the issue with the rooms, what if the person is out of town for an extended stay on sabbatical or et cetera at the time that they rent out the property, that should be addressed to. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I am hoping that you can get this on the balance that people can vote to get rid of the Golden Duplex Exemption. I live in the Golden Duplex. I've lived there for 45 years and I have a life estate from the original owner saying I can live there for life. My curry landlord says, you know, I'm going to go to trial to challenge him, because if I lose, I get an eviction on my record and my daughter who goes with me gets an eviction on her record and will be basically homeless, because no one will rent to us. It is unfair. This golden duplex exemption, I want to go and please help me get this on the ballot so that the voters can decide whether to keep that golden duplex exemption in place. Thank you. Thank you. Before we proceed to our next Mr. Nessbitt, I need to read, I need to read a statement. Before I proceed to our next speaker, I just want to read a brief statement around our rules of the quorum. I know we all care very deeply about the city and very strongly held opinions. I ask that we be respectful of each other as we proceed with the public comment discussion tonight. And so I need, I need a minute. Let me find my statements. Okay. You see. Okay. Sorry. And while I'm doing this, people can line up. Okay. Here we go. To allow for full participation by all members of the community this, people can line up. Okay, here we go. To allow for full participation by all members of the community and to ensure that important city business is able to be completed, we ask that all attendees conduct themselves in an orderly manner and respect the rights of others participating in the meeting. Please be aware that the city council rules of decorum or hibbottom the disruption of the orderly conduct of the council meeting. In summary, these rules is available on the one page handout on the table in the rear of the boardroom. Distruptive behavior includes, but it's not limited to, shouting, making disruptive noises, creating or participating in a physical disturbance, speaking out of turn on violation of applicable rules, preventing or attempting to prevent others who have the floor from speaking, preventing others from observing the meeting, entering into or remaining in the area the meeting room that is not open to the public or approaching the council of days without consent. And we ask that you observe these rules so almost the public may observe and fully participate in tonight's meeting. Let's be civil, let's be respectful of all the speakers. Let's ensure that everyone has the right to be heard. Okay. Even 1B will reduce the availability of affordable housing because property owners won't have the incentive to rent. They won't take the risk of facing jail time if they mess up some very complicated law that they haven't even been informed about. I see the rest of my time, Tim Hasbit. been informed about. I see the rest of my time to Nesbitt. Second minute as well I believe. My name is Bryce Nesbitt. I am your time sir. Okay. But no one you're ready. Okay. Hello. My name is Bryce Mesbert. I work as a permit consultant fixing problems. Whatever the problem is building code went Sometimes I negotiate buyouts the most recent buyout that I negotiated resulted in a payment to a tenant of $98,000 Including the rent reduction. Now, so I end up in the world between and speaking to everybody involved in this. And my difficulty with what's been done with the ordinance is that much of it is fairly swappily drafted in terms of its actual effect on the ground. As an example, there's a new disclosure requirement, which I'm out for, but it's not a requirement to disclose to the tenants who need to know at the most, who are 80 tenants, or who will doplex tenants, who may read about these wonderful tenant protections, but they don't actually have them. And I'll be passing at the end to council a proposed form for reading into the record of what such a disclosure would look like for an exempt tenant. I think the reason is that this process has been largely done within the rent board and not spoken to the people who are on the ground doing things, insufficient discussion with the people who are actually offering housing, maintaining housing, repairing housing, and dealing with tenants. As an example, it is already illegal under state law to overcharge tenants through utilities, CPC rule. Those owners are already violating state law and Berkeley could be enforcing that without any need to change this rule. Throughout what this has done, for the missing middle housing. So we have a long tradition in Berkeley of missing middle housing. So thousands and thousands of almost rental housing have opened up a room or a basement or an in-ro unit. And all of this, even with the last minute removal of the golden deep wax is putting a chilling effect on that form of housing. I have been asked as a permit consultant in the last month to assist people in removing housing from the market permanently. Quite a few units. And this is a shame, and it's because of this adversarial landlords are evil approach to housing, but I feel really doesn't work and is a real chill on housing production and maintenance in O.C. I do have more to say. I thought I had an extra minute from somebody, but I'll wrap up per council rules. I'm pro housing, pro-lenter and pro-owner.owner hears your sample disclosure for exam units. Thank you. My name is Sharon Marcus and I've been an owner since 1980 and our tenants have the lease under the rent control guidelines of the turning even though we weren't required to do so. We believe that as why tenants stay five years on an average in our in law unit. In most cases tenants moved on their careers and mostly out of state, otherwise they would have stayed much longer. Let's see, since then the first wrong thing, the rental rules, classifieds are unattached in law cottage as a duplex. A duplex is only attached by a floor wall. So ours is not a duplex. Please think about that in contents to our bank contract. Our country taxes and separate house insurance policies for the two houses on the same property. This is recognized as the county register since the houses were built in 1920. So they're registered since 1920 as two separate homes. By taking away the independent land-on-merk title recognition for single unattached in-law house or cottages, makes unreasonable control of leases and when the lease termination is ordinary. For years ago we were both agile. My husband and I who will be speaking next. I have a multiple health issue. The worst is leukemia. So in the near future, we need to move into our cottage. What may be the end of our life for me. And I disagree with. into our cottage, what may be the end of our life for me. And I disagree with, I am toe housing, pro rancher, and pro owner. Thank you. Thank you. I, I, you're on a honorable council member, same mayor. I think I yielded my time to Mr. Nesbiz. Okay, thank you. Good evening, mayor and members of the city council or afternoon, I'm not quite sure. Thank you, councilman Bluena-Para for putting forward this measure. I am disappointed that Golden Duplexes won't be in the final measure, but I am glad that there will be something on the ballot. We know that the landlords lied to voters when they were circulating their tradition. They said this was a measure to protect tenants. When in reality, their measure will strip from the rent board the ability to protect tenants in uninhabitable living situations by reducing their rents. So I'm looking forward to working to protect hand and rights, particularly we know, and you all know, because you heard about it at Strawberry Creek Lodge, over 70 seniors were served a fiction note. These are low income seniors in affordable housing were served a fiction note as some for as little as $10 of rent. And one of the things that this measure will do is prohibit that kind of behavior. Rent that is owed is still owed. It can still be collected. Late fees can still be charged on it, but no one should be as addicted for less than a one month's fair market rent. So thank you very much. Thank you. I am Dominique Walker. I'm a mom, tenant, I live in district two. I'm also a rent board commissioner. I would like to thank council member, the open prior for bringing this item to council. I am here to let the Berkeley leadership know that they must step up tonight. To do what is merely right and to choose to protect tenants by voting yes to place the Berkeley to the protection right to organize act on the ballot. So the voters of Berkeley can decide we have to start prioritizing people over profit. We have to protect those who have no protections. This anti-tinent opposing measure would affect black, brown, persons with disabilities are elders and the work in class. The same people that have been historically displaced from the city of Berkeley. I had the opportunity to meet with the two-net-saharia typemen to hear their concerns. And if we had jurisdiction we would be able to better serve them. We must do as right and as necessary in the face of corporate money. Those who choose to manage property as their business and put the interest of those who meet at the most. We are counting on the City of Berkeley leadership to vote to protect tenants and we are letting you know that we are here. The tenants are here and our voices will be heard and we're going to continue to build power in the city of Berkeley and we're going to protect ourselves of the city. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Nguyen Mozada representing the Berkeley 10a union and it gives me great pleasure to speak after Dominic Walker. We have a proud tradition of tenant rights in Berkeley since Gus Newport and I want to say that the Berkeley Tenant Union and its totality supports Council Member Luna Paras' opposition. We also would have liked the totality of the Golden Dutrexes to be placed on that and be also part of the Tenant protections, although Julia Cater was quoted out of context about that. That is not correct. That is not the stance of the Berkeley 10A union and we also want to support our seniors, we are Harriet Tubman and other HUD housings to come under the purview of the Remproud under protection. Thank you very much. Good evening Mayor, Council, staff and voters, Minnes, Debra Matthews, and Canada for Berkeley City Council District 3. Club founder, South Berkeley now, President Berkeley Democratic Club. While I don't speak for these organizations, they do help to form my opinion. Let's say no to both alternative ballot measures, these measures pass, would have a significant impact on ADUs and whistle middle housing construction. According to state law everyone in Berkeley can have two accessory dwellings, one for free standing and one conversion of existing space. We face potential threat for affordable housing when we turn the property owners will then be placed under full-rate control. In addition to that, every ballot measure for 2024 completed the requirements for eligibility. The procedure for this measure in the ballot by holding the special meeting is not a democratic process for everyone to have an opportunity to review all the updates. It's around for our city. Let us remember, Jim Crow was legal, however it was run to mankind. Red line was legal. It was however restrictive to say where anyone should be able to live. Restricting gay union movies was it was legal yet it was run to test someone who they can love. Please consider the consequences of tonight's plan to action, vote no, and, on both measures. We cannot afford to continue with policy and business as usual. The time for a broader lens, which delivers fair process, and equitable policy is now. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers. Pao Lala, I live in District 5 from a Ramport Commissioner and a member of the Berkeley Tenants Union. I want to thank you very much for considering Councilmember Luna Paras a proposal, although I can show with you that my resident and my son were evicted in July of 2022 after my son graduated from Berkeley High School. They had no, they were evicted from a golden duplex after we had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent. So they had no relocation ordinance and no protections under the law. So although I will accept this, I really do hope that you consider and we need five votes to make sure that we do get protections for seniors. Seniors living in Harriet Tubman Terraces, Strawberry Creek Rodge. We have a goal. We actually have someone here in this office right now who won for our country a gold medal in the 1966 Olympics, Ms. Rosie Barnes. And she is facing, facing when increases because she doesn't have protections as a senior living in one of these buildings. And so we need to make sure that you, all of you, are protecting our seniors are most vulnerable, vulnerable renters in our city. So please vote yes on this proposal and please protect tenants. We are consumers in a rental housing industry. There are business owners, business owners. You know, we don't regulate how much they can charge for the initial rents. We don't. They can charge whatever they want. And someone can say a grace to that rent. They can charge your leave high rents. That is consumers we need protections. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hello, my name is Frederick Fierstein. Are there any statistics that you know of that count the decreasing minority in the city since you've been in office? I've been here for a long time. You're right, everybody out. Dole gone. Are your policies. Should any of you recluse yourself because there's a conflict of interest for statements making here today? Does anybody get kickbacks from the developers that come into this city? I can't believe what's going on here. And the rents are not her minorities. Many who are homeless have been priced out due to your policies. They're in a straight. Your taxes, your policies. This wasn't magic. This is simple economics. Golden dueplexes and prof 13 will protect it to protect people going into retirement. Me, your proposal, which you have already voted down many times, will impact people. It wasn't it wasn't intended to help. I'm glad that you're cutting the golden dewplexes out. That's a very same thing. This is private property. This is owned by people. We're not multi millionaires. We rent and we're good railroads. I am. Okay., liberty and pursuit of happiness or hate, anger, and trumpism. You guys decide and win me too. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker list. I would like to yield my minute to Avery. Hello, Council members. And thank you very much. Councilman Loonapara for bringing us item today. My name is Avery Arva. I am a formerly homeless tenant. I am a former president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats. I'm a student at UC Berkeley, and I'm a tenant in Berkeley. And I'm here to speak in favor of the Berkeley tenant protection and right to organize act. As you are well aware, there's already a measure on the ballot. This November, which would gut tenant rights and. Really make it so that the rent stabilization board of the city a measure on the ballot this November, which would gut tenant rights and really make it so that the rent stabilization board of the city is unable to function and provide services to tenants. And I believe that Berkeley residents and voters deserve an alternative. As a student with friends who have spent time homeless or been forced to drop out because of exorbitant housing prices, I support this item because even as amended, it would expand tenant rights significantly and create new rights for tenants to form associations and advocate for themselves. So the current version as amended by Mayor Ergen and Council Member Hahn, while it is a significant compromise from the original language, I think it should be past night. Because we need to have a version of this measure on the ballot in November that expands tenants rights doesn't restrict them. So I urge you all here tonight to pass the Berkeley tenant protection right to organize act because it would expand tenant protections, it would let tenants advocate for themselves have that right and it would most importantly give voters a choice. Thank you very much. Hello, my name is Debbie Sanderson. I'm here as a co-chair of the ADU Task Force. We encourage you to vote now on both of these options. A primary concern is the unintended consequences of the increased controls in both of these ordinances. We need small property owners to continue putting their units on the market to rent, and to continue building ADUs and other missing mental housing. These are not deep pockets. These are small homeowners who've thought that it would be good to help reduce the housing crisis. So we think that with these measures those homeowners are going to continue to pull their units off the market and will avoid building anymore. Thank you. Thank you. As we proceed, people have been leading signs up at the podium and ask that people take their signs when they leave. So I don't think they're yours, but they want to claim them they can have them. So yeah, if you have signs or other belongings, if you can please take them with you after you finish your comments. Good evening everyone. My name is Hall of the Moon. I'm an elected leader in UAW 4811 and researcher and teaching assistant in the chemistry department at UC Berkeley. I want to urge the council to vote yes tonight because I believe collective bargaining rights are essential in every aspect. As a researcher, having collective bargaining rights, which willing got in 2017 means that I've access to workers' compensation, protections against harassment, and wages that match the cost of living. Similarly, as a union member, I believe it is critical that tenants gain the same collective bargaining rights in order to have protections against unsafe living conditions, abusive landlords and rising rents. I support giving the rent board the authority to oversee collective bargaining rights the same way the national labor relations board does and I urge the council to vote yes. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Connor Broderick and I'm a worker and proud rank and file union member in UAW 4811 at UC Berkeley. I strongly support placing this measure on the ballot this fall, and I want to highlight my support for the inclusion of tenants associations with bargaining rights enforced by the rent board and the proposal. That my workplace, I've seen the power of enforced collective bargaining to recover paychecks unlawfully held by the boss and protect my co-workers from abusive supervisors. This measure would allow tenants the same power to protect each other without risking the expense of litigation from landlords engaging in unlawful behavior from 90% plus rental increases to threats of eviction with little to no notice that I've seen my peers experience. Just as my union allows for more equitable workplace, attendance association of the type outlined in this measure would help level the playing field between private for-profit landlords and tenants simply attempting to live and stay in their homes in Berkeley. Thank you very much. Good evening, Council. My name is Bryce Miller. I'm a renter in Berkeley District 4. I use you Berkeley undergraduate and the president of TeleGuy for people. Thank you to Councilmember Linopara for this measure up for proposal. It's disappointing that these measures may be compromised, but it's still a good thing for the city. Berkeley renters deserve a fair and affordable housing experience, which we currently do not have. Basic tenant protections and the right to organize should be the bare minimum for renters. The fact that there are so many exemptions to them having the right to fair housing and the right to organize is mind boggling. It should not be up to landlords to decide how fairly the tenants are treated. Give Berkeley voters a chance to decide whether or not they want these tenant protections by voting yes on this proposal. Thank you. My name is Mackenzie Farnell. I'm a worker in UH-W4811 at UC Berkeley and I'm speaking in support of tenants protections and right to organize. I broadly think we need more tenant protections in Berkeley, and I'm especially excited about the idea of times having a right to organize. Because as a union member, I've seen how organizing workers has improved our working conditions by getting things like roses and better protections for graduate student workers. An organizing tenants could have the same effect. While living in Berkeley, I've seen many of my peers and colleagues struggle for lack of tenant protections, including landlords suddenly raising their rent by over $1,000 or refusing to perform required maintenance. So I think more protections and having a right to organize is really essential and ask that you vote in favor. Thank you. Hello. My name is Jacob Sebastian. I'm a Berkeley tenant from District 3 and a proud union worker in UAW, 4011. So you're going to union with legally supported access to collective bargaining rights have radically improved my life and well-being. That's just a simple example. Identifies non-binary Jesus. And in our most recent contract, we won the right to have access to gender neutral restrooms. I personally work up the hill at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. So this institution built in the 1940s, tell them to have a lot of women's restrooms, much less gender non-conforming restrooms. But because it's in our collective bargaining agreement, my trans and non-binding colleagues were able to, you know, have access to those bathrooms. This was so groundbreaking because we hadn't been pushing on this for years, and it wasn't until it ended up in our contract that it ended up finally getting done. Despite their best intentions, the employer does not know what I need to feel safe and secure in my workplace. Similarly, landlords do not know what I need to feel safe and secure in my own home. We believe in the power of us working folks, then that needs to extend out of the workplace into our homes. Please support this measure. Hello, Council members. My name is Connor Lualan. I am a member of UWA 4811 and a graduate student researcher at UC Berkeley. I'm here to speak in favor of the tenant protection right to Organize Act, because I believe this measure is pro-labor. As a member of a large union, I can say that the majority of our members are rent burdened. They pay more than 30% of their income into rent. Because they figure it used to be higher until we use collective bargaining to make our employer at the University of California pay us higher wages. But there are still many things that we in our workplace union cannot win. For example, I live in a unit that is filled with mold. I have a partner who has severe mold allergies. This is something that we just can't really deal with as there's no health and safety standards about it at the moment. However, workers, you, or no, tenant unions in San Francisco have recently won similar protections against similar conditions there. I urge you to vote in favor of this measure to give tenants here the same kind of power to work for their own betterment. I'm a graduate student at UC Berkeley and a resident of district eight. The immense privilege that I have in claiming this residency is not lost on me. Since I first moved to Berkeley three years ago, I've lived in units operated by the Berkeley student cooperative. And I understand that this is the sole factor which has enabled me to comfortably afford being a member of this community, but many cannot say the same. Over the course of these past three years, I've witnessed many of my peers struggle to obtain housing face unsustainable rent increases and feel disempowered by their inability to organize around issues of housing. Further as a graduate student instructor at the University I've also supported many undergraduate students through housing precarity and have at the University of also supported many undergraduate students through housing precarity and avoidance the struggles of students as young as 18 years old as they are placed out of the city they attend the University in, taken advantage of by their landlords and forced into homelessness. As a member of UIW 4811 and a student worker understand the importance of collective bargaining both in the workplace and in the home. I implore you to support the placement of 10 of protection and right to organize act on the November 5th ballot. Thank you. Hi, my name is Liz Hosen. I am our researcher and teaching assistant at UC Berkeley and I'm proud member of UOW 4811. I'm a Berkeley tenant in a union in a unit that I can only afford because of the contracts that we were able to win through the getting rights granted to us by California law. And I believe that one of the most effective ways that we have to actually accomplish the thing that we're all here talking about, which is reducing rent prices and making Berkeley a place that more people can afford to live is if we grant those same bargaining rights to tenants in their homes as well. Thank you. Good evening Council. My name is Max Green and I'm a graduate student researcher at UC Berkeley, as well as a student with our union UAW 4011. Having the union means that my colleagues not have the right to bargain for better working conditions, and similarly, the tenant protection right to organize act would give renters like me a union at home and require landlords to meet with us over things like lowering rent and habitability issues. I also strongly support increased protections against unjust evictions and reducing the cap on rent increases. I urge the City Council to ensure that this measure is on the November ballot so that us tenants can have a democratic say in our living conditions. Thank you. of living conditions. Thank you. Hi, I'm Angel Oroco. I'm a steward at the UAW 484811. I am also a teaching assistant at UC Berkeley. And I'd want to thank you for first allowing us to have the civil discussion. I'd like to just share my benefits that I've had through being a steward. This meant we were able to discuss with our faculty about how we can actually improve the equality of teaching that we were able to do there. And it also allowed us to inform our fellow ASEs their rights. Now that's brilliant. There is a lot of worries today about unnecessary demonizations of landlords. That is a fair worry. And I actually think that unionization goes ahead and brings the civil discussion to tenants and to landlords. It allows us to expand that civil discussion between them. Now these discussions aren't always easy, the best ones never are. But I just want to thank you and I just bring thinking of those benefits and expanding those descendants makes me excited enough to encourage you to vote yes. Thank you for your time and have a good evening. time and have a good evening. Good evening, Councilor. I'm Jonah Bedouche. I'm a tenant and district four and I'm a computer science student at UC Berkeley. I'm also a student employee and a union member with UWA 4811 and I'm here to express strong support for putting the tenant protection and right to organize act on the ballot. Berkeley continues to wrestle with a housing crisis and the tenant measures are increasingly vital to ensure that renters can afford housing. The proposed measure not only accomplishes this by extending rent control, but it also advocates for a tenant's ability to organize and bargain with their landlords. Just as employees deserve the right to unionize and negotiate in good faith over the terms that govern their employment, tenancy deserves the right to negotiate in good faith about the terms that govern their living situations and this can only be achieved through collective organizations, like the ones protected in this measure. Well, I implore the council to allow the public to decide on a pro-tenant ballot member this November. Thank you very much for your time. Hi everyone, my name is Gabe. I'm a resident of district four in Berkeley. I'm also an undergrad TA at UC Berkeley in the proud member and head steward with UAW Local 4811. As an academic worker, having a union has been so important to me because actually last year, the UC stole hundreds out of me and my co-workers, paychecks, and it was coming together through our union that we were able to resolve that issue. And so not only did that write a serious wrong, but it was far less cumbersome and timely than you know a class action lawsuit which would be the only remedy available to us if we didn't have a union. At the end of the day it's's really hard for a lot of tenants' protections to be enforced, but having a union at home would make that a lot easier for us. So please stand with Berkeley Tenants and Workers and vote yes on the right to organize. Thank you. My name is Eli. I'm a resident in Harriet Tubman and I yield my time to the next speaker. Good evening, council. My name is dotting also Yamasella and I live in district three at Harriet Tubman Terrace. I'm here so hope that you will tonight support that tenant protection and right to organize at. I've been a tenant in the Harriet Tubman for about 25 years and it's really sad because our disabled and senior tenants are just treated very poorly. We change managers and owners and we have no rights. Sometimes they don't even recognize the tenant council after we've done millions of things to help. And thank you for the city for helping us with an ombudsman, but that's not just enough. We still got to go on. We're too vulnerable, too fragile, and you need to pass this because our rinse go up constantly. And it's just unfair. Please support the tins right. Hello, Councilor and members. My name is Ahmed Al-Golo. I am a graduate student researcher at Cal in the physics department, a member of EW4011 and a 10-A district tour. So when I arrived at Berkeley for my first year last year, I was very surprised to find that I had one of the cheapest fronts amongst anyone in my cohort. I was very grateful for this and meant that I could occasionally buy groceries at the Berkeley Farmers Market, which are sometimes very expensive. I also go home when my mom needed to help run the house. And I learned very recently why it was that my rent was cheaper than my peers. When my tenant, my landlord, who lives in Florida, announced rent increases just this month, I was very scared. I thought I wouldn't be able to enjoy the same benefits that I'd had for this past year. And very soon afterwards, everyone in my unit there are four of us made a group chat and we designated someone who was going to speak to our landlord on behalf from that person was able to get those increases brought down. Now we're lucky this is not a very common situation we band it together we knew each other and our landlord went far the way and so it was a learning to continue the fight with us but because we were able to band together because we were organized together we were able to address the needs of ourselves as tenants, as people living together. So that's why I think it's so important for us to have the rights to organizing like it to just so important for you to pass it tonight. Thank you. What evening everyone. In Rana, our back, I live in district furr and unfortunately Rosie bonds who was mentioned the former Olympian gold medalist and a friend of mine Debbie Harding, both live in 1501 Blake Street, a Staha managed building to African-American elders who are being taken advantage of, who in fact Rosie had to go home right now because she was electrocuted in her unit seven days ago and her legs were bothering her. So I have supported, I met Debbie at Ardojo and she, her rent has been jacked up by $400 a month. There is no advocate there. I have spent countless hours with her trying to understand, trying to explain to her what's going on, address the issues, and it's still not resolved. So these tenants need protection. When I first met Rosie, she talked to me for 20 minutes about how every day of her life is a struggle. Every day things are getting more and more expensive. Can I have somebody's minute, please? Thank you so much. Thank you, Rico. So we definitely need tenant protections. And I hear people who are opposed to this saying there's unintended consequences. what for is that people are confused. Penins are confused and in more land, landlords and property owners are confused. And so there's this demonization, which you've heard people say what we need to do is we need to bring people together. We need to bridge this divide of landlord tenants and educate our community so that everybody, because people don't want the elders being taken advantage of, I think people who live in houses such as myself who have the blessing of that, we want tenants to be protected. And so I think it's our city leaders, I ask you that hopefully to pass this tonight, and then in the fall, let's educate people so we understand and we don't have to demonize each other but bring people together for public discourse please thank you hello I'm a duplex owner and district one and I've had three tenants over the course of 30 years I ask you to please vote no on both of these measures. This ballot measure didn't qualify to be on the ballot because it didn't get enough burply voter signatures. There isn't time for council to properly make consideration for this proposal and I too am very concerned about unintended consequences. The most important of which is that I think this proposal will kill increased housing stock from small community members like myself who are willing to run out their units. Thank you. Hello. Hi, my name is Luis Castillo Minuas and I am a resident of Berkeley here. 16 years I'm also a realtor 23 years and yet for the California Association of Realtyles, I am. I just found out what was going on here. So I wanted to share is the valid measure does not qualify to be on the ballot measure does not qualify to be on the ballot because they didn't they didn't give enough signatures from the birthday residents. Now this is not the democratic process that we expect from our elected officials. It is in the time for for the county for the for the for you guys for the property can for you guys to consider properly consider the proposal to bring them forward to the council and to the voters? These proposals will discourage owners of small properties from adding more units to the grant of community and look for we suggest you vote no and vote no. Again, vote no and vote no. So thank you. vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote no, vote I also proud a union spirit for SEA Ruralical 1000. I'm a lifelong civil servant and multiple roles from the UN to the state, to the city here, and increasingly tenants like myself, my single mom to find it impossible to survive in this expensive environment when a fewer and fewer of larger and larger corporations are owning more and more and more of our lives. We especially here in Berkeley have a tradition of fighting those corporations and proudly so and therefore I urge you to please vote to put the tenant protection ballot, sorry, measure on the ballot, to protect the most vulnerabilities, such as the residents of the portable housing units who really, really truly need protections and come under the purview of the rent board. Thank you very much for considering this. Hi, I'm Elizabeth Gino and I'm here in support of the tenant protection and right to organize acted. Many of my fellow tenant supporters have made a lot of valid points, which I certainly second and I was going to just add something else to it. I'm a tenant in district four and I've been displaced for previously from district seven and district two so I know what that's about. Currently I enjoy the protection of rent and control in an apartment that is convenient to where I work and most of the things I do, and leads with enough discretion and income to do some things. But very soon, I'm going to retire and my income is going to take a deep dive. And the amount of increase is not going to keep up with cost of living. We do not get cost of living increases. Not people on retirement, not a lot of people on fixed income, and many of the people who even are students or other employees of UC, even under the contracts that we all had to fight for, all we really get is maybe 3%, 4%, 4%, and half percent. It sure is hellless at seven. So you go backwards and that cuts into whatever income you have. And it's really not good enough. Sorry, for people to, I just wrapped this up. The point I'm getting to with discretionary income is that if you, if people become so rent burdened that they've barely got anything left and can't do anything, you know who else loses in this deal? It's not just about suit of happiness here. It's smart business because that's money that isn't being spent locally. This is for people who cannot go and see the matinee at the outward. People who cannot get a nice coffee for themselves or in nothing and it all adds up. That's why small businesses are struggling and why we can't have nice things. So all our money is going to a mid-real capital management or so. Thank you. Good evening, city council. My name is Alfred Tew. And as we all know, to solve our housing crisis, we need to three P's of protecting tenants, preserving existing low cost housing and producing more housing. We're building a lot of shiny new buildings downtown in Southside, which is great, but we also need to make sure that we protect and preserve so that our older buildings don't fall apart through neglect and other corner cutting. And that's where the right to organize is so important because only through the right to organize our tenants in Berkeley, many of whom are brand new to our city and unfamiliar with our housing laws. We've right to organize a leader in the community can then bring together and everybody and create habitable conditions for everyone. Similar reasons we also need to bring our order senior housing like Harriet Tubman, Paris under our rent ordinance. So that day two can be preserved and protected. Thank you. Hi, my name is Glenn Carter. I am a resident and homeowner of Duplex in Berkeley. And I came here specifically to address that and say like we've actually had a fantastic experience renting to students and young couples in our house. This is our house where I raise my kids and we live with them and often be friends. And we're often our friends with our tenants because they live in our house. And I came here and I hear the heartbreaking stories here and I moved. And I want to say I hope the council finds the right methods to protect the people who are renting and who are suffering here while not targeting those like myself who are just residents. We put everything we have into our house and and we will put it up to other people, and we love them, and we want more of that. So please protect the people who are hooding, but don't take away the rights of the homeowners who live here too. Thank you. I'm a student and I want to point to as a young student, most students are living off campus, they're renting and a lot of them are first time renters. They're not going to be aware of their rights, which I think is why a notice of rights is really important. And in addition to that, the ability to organize would enable students to activate, sorry, organize for their rights and be aware of them and advocate for themselves and what they need as first time renters. And also, I along with thousands of other people signed the Ten of Protection Rights Organized Act, which was only barely short of the required signatures. And I think that work-leaf voters should be given the option to have a pro-tenant measure on the ballot rather than just this landlord-funded one. And I also want to say that as 80 use are not owner occupied doplexes, they would not be affected by either of these proposed measures. So again, I urge you to allow us to have the option to vote for a tenant rights. Thank you. I'm going to do one last edit before I speak. Sorry. I'm. Crypt. Hello. I'm Xavier Johnson and I'm proud to have chaired the Wendt Stabilization Board Committee to help draft this ordinance. And I want to thank all the people who have been a huge part of making it come to this stage so far, including the council members, including all the people who gathered the signatures, everyone who worked all up to this process. It's been an experience. And this measure represents forward thinking, it represents equity, and it represents common sense. In fact, in this measure, we looked at other jurisdictions. And so how they have modernized their ordinances, even in advance of Berkeley. And we worked together to bring the best of those models to the city of Berkeley. I support Mayor Alegre and Council Member Hans supplement, but I just wanted to add a little bit on golden duplexes. Oakland was already closed. They're duplexed and truck flex exemptions in their entirety. There is no such thing as a golden duplex, or any type of duplex that's not covered by rent control of our civilization in the city of Oakland and it hasn't exploded. Their housing market has a clash of housing market. They continue to be a viable and thriving city. In addition, this measure represents an opportunity to protect tenants in Berkeley. Here are the people of Berkeley a chance to choose what they want. Restrictive landlord measures or opportunity to have access in a tenant measure. Give voters a choice. Thank you. I am Dan, a union member in one time, tenant protections, of course. I disagree with having exemptions for various types of rentals. Tenants are deserving of the right to form tenants unions and have other tenants rights, regardless of the type of rental unit that they live in. No one's more deserving of tenants rights than anyone else just based on what kind of living situation they have to live in. And in conclusion, housing and human rights. Hi, good evening, my name is Jocelyn Goodsmith-Dacena. I am the co-ordinator for the SEIA 102Wan Berkeley Chapter CSU PT RLA, which is our community services and recreation leaders chapter. And I urge you to vote yes to place the Berkeley tenant protection and right to organize act on the ballot. SCIU tend to run endorsed particular measure because tenant protections and went control are crucial to addressing Berkeley's housing affordability crisis. City of Berkeley workers should be able to afford to live in the community that would proudly serve. I personally can only afford to live here because of my family connections, but many of my colleagues have these long comments from Adial, Khenvon. So if you wanna be competitive and attractive in retaining these amazing workers that we have, we need to have housing affordability that is fortunate to wages. Also, you know, I work, can I just have like just a few more seconds. I work with small families with little small kids. And I just want to speak up for these families that are often brand new immigrants that aren't aware of the rights. I've heard from them about mold, lead, all these unsafe conditions. And this can cause a long-term health consequences for these kids, asthma, developmental disabilities, related to lead poisoning. These are, this is affecting the families over the lifespan and over generations and it's very much an equity and issue because we know who's mostly impacted our most vulnerable population members. So I went to going to want to urge you to place this on the ballot and let the voters have the choice. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Hi, good evening, Mayor Counsel. Thank you. My name is Michael Hegerty. I'm a resident of District 4 in Berkeley. I want to speak in favor of the Tenant Attaction Act. I, you know, there's been a lot of good things said here. I have a couple of points in general. You know, look at some of my notes here. So, you know, salient or control housing costs and allowing uncontrolled speculation has negative effects on our community. It results in displacement, it results in gentrification, it results in the erosion of commercial and retail business sectors, it results in negative climate impact, it results in negative and physical mental health impacts, and it results in an overall transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and from the local to the national and the global. Although I respect the rights of my fellow community members who are landlords and property owners, and I respect the rights of the people who are in the business of real estate and property owning and renting. We as a community and we as individuals do not owe these people a profit in any way shape or form. Okay, it's a speculative endeavor. We need to remember that. Thank you very much. Please pass the measure. The Wheat Blue Council. My name is Judy Hent. I'm a resident of District 1 and I'm a former commissioner on the Berkeley Wins Stabilization Board and I represent at small property owners as well as the African American community and I put a particular emphasis on elders. So I submit to you today to vote no, and I'll tell you why. First of all, the rent ordinance was created to register and control wits, not property. I would advise you to refer back to the United States Constitution fifth amendment regarding private property rights. Number three, those of us who have golden duplexes are primarily women at this point, older adults, and those of us in the African American community, I know I'm over time, but I'm keep going because this is the first time I came and I'm going to have my peace tonight. We are primarily African American older adult women. There was a woman, three women in my neighborhood in District 1. One was over 100 years old. She died and she made it clear that rent control harassed her. And she also made it clear to me because I talked to her. Judy, anyone I rent to is younger than I am. And they use rent control to control me. My husband and I bought this property. And now that I'm older, you want to tell me in a golden duplex, I can't have my cousin to come live in the unit to help take care of me. That's wrong. Now you want to talk about ethics and what it does. These are the unintended consequences. Another older adult in district one. Her daughter asked her to move and wrong that creek. Because the tenant harassed her so and even told her if you don't do what I want you to do I'll take you to the rent. Now when I was a rent board commissioner I also now Matt Brown is here he'll remember if he's gone where is he? Oh he's gone he'll remember when I said if you're going to have a harassment regulation, it needs to be fair. It needs to be balanced. Not just landlords harassing tenants. What about tenants who harass landlords? There was an older adult in district two. A tenant harassed him so even the other tenants had to help the old gentleman. Is that fair? What's the balance on the rent board? The rent board is a tenant board. Name one commissioner who is a rental property owner. Name one. You do not have adequate representation of the community. Okay. Before I ask you to wrap up. I'm almost finished. Okay. Thank you. No. I'm the presiding officer. Just a minute. I almost share the meeting. Missed. I'm going to let you complete your thought. I'll finish my thought. I know you don't like hearing it, but you need to. Okay. I want you to go two minutes and 30 seconds over time. Okay, I didn't even try to stop just talking. For more seconds and I'm done. Because you need to hear it. It needs to be balanced. The rent board needs, and before this came before the body, we should have had input, input from property owners and property management not just clinic. It's not fair. It's not balanced. Both know. Okay, next speaker, please. As I'm sure people have observed, I've given a lot of latitude to speak, Chris to go beyond their time when people go when the clock goes off and encourage people to complete their thought, but I am giving latitude because obviously this is an important issue. Want to hear from everyone. Okay, I was given an extra minute. Well, I love coming up near the end because I always get to thank you all for still being here and thank everyone else for being here. And the last speaker reminded me of what really matters the most to me about how and why I want you to hopefully accept this for the ballot. And it's so I do have mediation. Decisions and nothing deal. Decisions a fight right deal. It's about coming together and working things out in my view. So let me just speak from some experience. I'm living in a saw-hub that we now and I am getting no response to physical assault, elevators that do not land level with the four they arrive on. That's a tripping risk, which means someone out in our little bird that's swashing them, someone trapped in an elevator. I mean, there's so many issues that as a very, you know, helpful, supportive person, I'm just trying to protect the safety of tenants that meet with me. And there is no one that is responsive because we have property owners. And then we have management companies. And then we have other folks with invested interests such that sometimes the nonprofits or the so-called affordable situations are actually not really. So even to discover who is owning what and who is in charge of what and navigating who to go to. There's litigation for this mediation and this is why the motion that we can come together. I don't think it's for people to live in so I appreciate property owners. I really do for wanting to gain income and wanting to provide housing but there needs to be fairness and mutual consideration. Thank you. Mr. Mayor and City Council, my name is Nathan and my Zell. First of all, it's good to see you all. I've been gone on vacation for a minute. Much needed, you know, as much as I love, I could say council meetings. Everyone needs a break, every now and then. I want to thank you. Firstly, Council Member Moonapara for bringing forward item 1A. I also want to thank you for the compromise and we do talk about go to doplexes and some of the issues there but overall this is a very good thing for our city. I thank you for helping us get this on the ballot. I hope we have developed for it tonight. I'm out of the thing just a bit personally. I also, I guess I want to put a commission there. I'm also African-American and I'm currently elected in this community so just to be clear on some things this is good for our communities of our city but certainly folks of any more income whether they're black or any other race. As relative is runs or high I experience that as a student I've experienced it now and the protections that we need to be in place. Part of the consequence folks is that we started early in Berkeley. We started early up with this company. We started early in Red Control. We started early on a lot of issues. When we started early, the alert and other jurisdictions do things a little bit better. And you have to apply over any lessons to changes. And really, these are mostly basic changes substantive and important. But things that we've learned a lot of jurisdictions and that can greatly benefit our city now. These are not changes out of the ordinary. And I think we have to remember that the consequences of not passing this tonight is allowing this landlord measure, which I'll just read off to you just four points, but we're moved towards power to down a little just rent for relocation repair, we move our power to affect health and safety laws. We move our ability to intervene in litigation. The hard point is to get record on the city. And this measure we have tonight fortunately with the power of tenants, with the power of community, pass the ability to strengthen it and to the change the landlords and really the prop-owner groups can't stop. So I thank you. I hope we have the votes for tonight. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Olive. I live in Berkeley District 6. I'm a graduate student and a union steward in U.A.W. 4811. We've lived renting in Berkeley for about seven years. Thank you, Council Member Lennapara, for standing with the people of Berkeley and for her advocacy for the right to tenants in bringing forward item 1A. I have been in my time living in Berkeley, lied to and mistreated by landlords. I know my neighbors, friends, community members who have been lied to and mistreated by landlords. Landlords are not owed profit. Houses are for people to live in, not for profit. Please put this measure on the ballot. I urge you to vote yes on this item to stand with Berkeley tenants and workers. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Bethany Sutter, and I've been a tenant in Berkeley for four years. And hello, we could go. I lived in a golden duplex. I'm strongly against this exception to the rent control for these golden duplexes because of what I've experienced while living in this unit. At first, I was super excited to live in a unit owned directly by the landlord. They were super close by. We were able to be in close communication if there were any issues. However, after living in this unit for three years, my landlord unilaterally increased our rent by $500 a month from $4,000 to $4,500 a month. This rent was allowed because the unit is not rent controlled. My roommates and I were lucky and that we were able to actually sit down and have a conversation with our landlord and decrease this rent increase to only $200 a month instead. However, this is still a substantial increase and well above what a rent controlled unit would be at. Then more recently, the landlord moved out of the property because they were old and became rent controlled. However, they decided then that they wanted to sell the property and so they decided to try to buy us out. However, if our landlord had just chosen to live in the unit and then we're still living in there, we would not have had any of the renters protections that we are all so proud of in Berkeley. And we would have just been able to be kicked out with little to no notice and no compensation. This is not right. Well, most people owning golden duplexes, as we've heard from today, are small-time landlords and really care about their tenants. All tenants, no matter their landlords, really deserve the same rights. I strongly urge you to reconsider removing the golden duplex exception from this measure and ask you to support the full rights. I strongly urge you to reconsider removing the Golden Duplex exception from this measure and ask you to support the Full Tentor Protection Act. Thank you very much. Anything council members? My name is Luca. I'm a student and an o-enter. I know one of things sincerely for all her amazing work defending tenants but I also want to thank council member Igor Traygub. You know I disagreed with much of what you ran under in district four but what I was always thankful for is you were very open about the fact that you supported the ballot measure that was collecting signatures at the time and I hope you see you work for the resolution tonight. I also want to say when we make tenants richer, it mixes all richer. When tenants have an extra 50 bucks to spend on groceries or to buy coffee, it brings more businesses into Berkeley. It supports the businesses that are around right now. It brings back people to our city, it mixes all of it here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers here in person? Okay, if not, we'll go to speakers on Zoom. If you're on the Zoom platform and wish to speak on item 1A or 1B, please raise your virtual hand. And we'll go first to Linda Lone. Hi, can you hear me? Yeah, yes. OK, before I begin my one minute, I would like to remind a protocol you mentioned with your rules at the beginning of the speakers about signage and stuff. Somebody, I don't know where it was, Ilana, Ilana, all of honors. I've been put a pro tenant sign on the disabled seating in the front row that's right in the middle of the camera for the speaker and there's a woman sitting there also who's making gestures pro and not supporting whoever's at the speaker. This right in the middle of the camera. So I've been viewing this the whole night. If you could please enforce the your protocol. I appreciate it. Okay. I'm going to start my minute now. My name is Linda Lone. I'm a small landlord. I'm a senior. I'm in my mid 70s. I own and manage units personally. All of our rents are below market and we pay 200% higher utility bills than 10 years ago. We own a couple of golden duplexes. I now have health problems and need to move into one of the golden duplexes. I would need to increase friends when higher operation costs are not included in the rent board's annual permitted increases. Here's a brief list of my increased costs. 10 years ago, a 40 gallon water heater costs $199 and $200 installation costs. Today, the same water heater is $1500, not including installation costs. 10 years ago, garbage disposal was $35 to date 200. Five years ago, lumber for a fence cost 700. Today, it's $1400 double. That's five years ago. 10 years ago, plumber charged $50 an hour. Today, it's $200 an hour plus a $125 site visit. That's $325 for one hour. Refrigerators, stoves, microwaves, garbage disposal, lighting fixtures, flooring, paint, lumber, pest control, locks, windows, screens, doors. All of them have increased 300% and more. Water and sewage costs of skyrocketing. The permitted annual rent increase is based on 211 items in a CPI basket. But if you examine those items, only a few pertain to property management expenses. We can't even get decent insurance costs now. The truth is that cost of managing, operating, and handling our businesses not being met by current rent-ward increases. I have planned to live in our Golden Duplexes till I die. And depend on the rent to offset my increasing health costs. Maybe I need to sell it instead to a corporate investor, which is the scenario you have created and which has led to the misery expressed by the tenants tonight. Your policies have created the high housing costs. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is. We are. Barry. That's correct. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Okay. I'm a voter in Berkeley. And resident of district five and I would urge the council to vote no on I'm also a housing provider. I have several buildings and which I maintain with great love and love for my tenants. I urge the council to vote no on the proposal because this ballot measure did not qualify to be on the ballot because it didn't get enough birthday voter signatures. This is not the democratic process that we expect from our elected officials. There isn't time for council to properly make consideration for this proposal. This proposal will kill increased housing stock from small community members like myself, we're willing to rent out their units. So I urge you to vote no against the annual, increase the annual 3% the cap on rent increases at 3%. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Agatha. This sets on my list. Excuse me? You should be allowed to. Agatha, you should be able to speak now. You'll have one minute. I want to thank you for taking the golden duplexes off of this measure. We are senior citizens who are fixed incomes and we rent to people for the past few years and they're like our family and we don't raise the rent. We're really good to them and they're very good to us. So they live in our house and we're really thankful that you're removing this aspect of the ballot measure off. The other thing I'd like to say is as other people have just mentioned that this reduction of the annual general adjustment from 7% to 3% is really unfair because the increase of the water and the sewage and the insurance and everything for people who need to raise their rent and their repairs are just outrageous. So it's one needs to raise the rent. They should be able to raise it for the 7% instead of the 3% because that doesn't even keep up with the annual cost of living. Thank you very much. And thank you for listening. Thank you. Next speaker is Aaron Dixon. You should be able to unmute if you have one minute. Okay, thank you. This is actually Allison. I just wanted to have you guys think of the fact that the way that if I treated my tenants the way that you treat landlords, it I actually knew it was best for them and then randomly raised the rents over and over again. And then what if I told them that I decided that there are new rules and regulations at the last minute without their input, all because I claim to know what's best for them and their homes that they live in? That's essentially what the council and the rent board continue to do to landlords over and over again. This would not be tolerated since it's illegal and neither the right nor the fair thing to do to either tenants nor landlord and I continue to hear discussions of fairness this evening. I like that. I think it's important that there is some fairness in this process. I'm neither a corporate business owner or someone who makes a profit on my property. And I'm really tired of those who are constantly discriminating against us landlords, including the council. My ask is that the council treats landlords fairly rather than hostile. And please vote no on these measures. Thank you. Our next speaker is David Churey, filed by Michelle Hailey. David, you should now be able to speak. Hi. So if people don't know in 2025, the rent board is going to be audited by the city auditor. She put that out last week. There's going to be a report. There will be recommendations. Goaters have a right to read that report before being asked to make this choice. Those recommendations ought to be a part of the ballot measure. It should not go on without them. It's easy for me to imagine why an audit of the rent board might be called for. I am not a lands board, and I am not a tenant. So I am not under the rent board's jurisdiction. Nonetheless, just about every year, I and hundreds of other residents of Berkeley get a bill from the rent board telling us that we owe them hundreds of dollars. Then the next year when you don't pay the bill that you don't owe, they tack on a lake fee. They don't respond to emails, they don't answer the phone. If a landlord did that to a tenant, we would call it harassment. When a government agency does it, it's called a scandal. So I agree that we need changes at the rent board, probably not a massive expansion in their jurisdiction and authority, not until these problems are solved. Thank you. Our next speaker is Michelle Haley followed by Vanessa Moreiro. Michelle Haley, should not be able to speak. Please unmute yourself if you wish to speak. Michelle Haley followed by Vanessa Moreiro followed by Christopher Quill. Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Hello, I just wanted to chime in and say that. I think we are facing a situation where it's just getting heavily, overly regulated. And I don't, I myself, after spending so much time, I'm a small owner. And I couldn't, I am in this industry. I couldn't basically grasp all of the different changes. I can't imagine others who don't have to even live in this every day and then have one property. It's just getting overly complicated and it continues to be solutions for problems that don't exist. I urge you guys to start trying to have conversations actually with property owners and small landlords as you try to draft these different nuances and changes. We deserve to be a part of the conversation. I yield my time. I mean, thank you. Our next speaker is Vanessa Morello, followed by Christopher Crowell, followed by Agatha. Venassahishna will speak. Venassah Murrow, you shall speak. Okay, Vanessa, we're going to go back to you one more time. You should now be able to speak. Okay, welcome back to Christopher Crowell. You are up. Hi, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to see my minute to Tony Messner, who hopefully is in the queue there, but I'd like to give her my minute. Thank you. Okay, I'll note that for the record. Thank you. Let me go back to Vanessa. See if she's ready to speak. Please unmute yourself. Vanessa Morro. Please unmute yourself. Vanessa Marra Okay, please re-raised your virtual hand if you wish to speak Karen Chinoi followed by Zappor Collins Good evening city council mayor Karen Chinoi with the bridge Association of Realtors bridge a or is extremely disappointed in what may transpire tonight. Given the behavior of the rent board, board measures supporters and the disdain, the chair of the rent board publicly voiced against this body in the lead up to their failed signature gathering effort and inability to qualify their measure. We sincerely hope that City Council will exhibit the leadership needed to stand up to their intimidation tactics and forward nothing to the ballot tonight. Other than perhaps the harms that nonprofit owners have bestowed on elderly tenants, the rent board has not presented a single data point indicating an increase in evictions, a threat to housing stability or any other factualothetical need to expanding the restrictions they have proposed today. While we appreciate that Golden Dewplex owners will retain their exemptions under one proposal, RGOAOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Okay, so four columns is our next speaker. Follow by twan, follow by Lindsay Duncan. Thank you Mayor Arden and council members. I'm support of Collins, a resident of Berkeley since 1962, first as a renter and then as a homeward in district five. I see how neighbors and friends around the city struggle to find and keep a rented home that they can afford. I urge you to vote yes on councilmember Luna Parris proposed pen of protection right to organise initiative and put it on the ballot to give voters a choice about whether large landlords have almost unfettered control over the city's rental market or whether tenants have a collective voice and some protection against unaffordable rents and uninhabitable conditions. There is a shortage of rentals available to students, low and even moderate income tenants, and elderly tenants on small fixed incomes, and a shortage of accessible rentals for people with disabilities. The renters in Nipsitive can very close to qualifying with enough signatures using all volunteer signature vathers. The property owners measured qualified because they had much greater wealth to pour into hired signature gatherers who had no interest in the issue. And little incentive to tell signers the truth about what they were signing. That is not an argument to say that the renters initiative was not democratic. Is there a way that's if you can please complete your thought? Yes, I hope you see the need to put the measure on the ballots and the voters of Berkley choose can choose which path they want our city to take to meet the needs of the majority of Berkler's, Berkley's population, which is renters. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ron N. followed by Lindsay Duncan. Ron, you should not be able to speak. Thank you. I just want to emphasize the importance of having a harmonious relationship and that all stakeholders are brought to the table so that we have balanced policies that work for everybody that minimize this unintended consequence. So an example of an unbalanced policy is what you see in neighboring Oakland. The city of Oakland has a hundred seventy-set and a million dollar budget deficit. They have a structural ongoing deficit and they can't solve it. And one of the underlying reasons is the public sector unions made sure that they got a lot of raises. So now each employee is earning $237,000 per year. And that means just for context, an average household with multiple wage earners in Oakland is $140,000. So here you have one employee union So here you have one employee union that is earning $237,000. And the city is cutting 911 response services, cutting fires, cutting medical emergency response. Not the city of Oakland, but if you can please complete your thought. I'm just saying the unbalanced policy could be very harmful and it's not just either or, but we need to find something that works. When you have a rent cap that doesn't, it is at 3% inflation a bit more than it. How do you can maintain a buildings? And then we lose housing stock. So these very balanced and this proposal didn't qualify for the ballot in terms of signature gathering. So I just suggest we work with the community and the stakeholders. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Lindsay Duncan, followed by Stephen Alkstrom. Hi, one in the room is going to yield time to me. Okay, thank you. Glad additional minute. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lindsey Duncan and I am a student, a tenant, and a district seven resident. I'm also the president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats and on behalf of CalDEMS and all Berkeley tenants, I want to encourage you all to support the tenant protection and right to organize ballot measure. I helped gather signatures for this ballot measure, and overall it gathered thousands of signatures and was only 60 signatures short and was not corporately funded and voters were not lied to during the signature collection process. The tenant protection and right to organize ballot measure creates tenant associations allowing tenants to organize without fear of retaliation to improve habitability. It expands rent and control and Berkeley lowers the rent cap and gives tenants additional and much needed protections. Berkeley is a majority renters city and residents deserve these basic rights. Voters deserve the chance to democratically decide between this pro rent control measure and the Berkeley property Owners Association anti-went control measure. I urge council to place a pro-tenant measure on the ballot tonight. I personally believe the unamended ballot measure proposed by council member Luna Pada in item 1A does the best job of supporting tenants but is crucial that we support our tenants in this city by putting at least one of these items before the voters this November. Specifically council member tregaub I appreciate you telling the voters on the campaign trail that you supported the measure the version of the measure that was circulated to voters. So I look forward to you keeping your word and voting yes on item one a thank you all. Okay um step-in-out strand followed by Gregory Calcanus, followed by Claire Works. A good evening, Mayor and Council members. This is Steffan Elkstra and so, Rantball Commissioner, but speaking in my private capacity, I am a deeply concerned that the impacts to Berkeley residents if the qualified Rantballed Messier is approved, which I would argue is one of the biggest attacks on rent control and tenant protections in the city's history. That is why I believe it is essential that a competing measure is introduced, so we can have a fighting chance in not only protecting tenants, but advancing their rights. I also acknowledge that at the end of the day, we need five votes of the council to make this happen. I am speaking in support of item 1b. While this proposal does not include everything I personally would like to see, I believe this has the best opportunity to get enough support from both the council and the community. I do not want to gamble on the livelihood of Berkeley's working class residents by increasing the chances of the other measure passing. This proposal gives a clear choice to voters. Now it's the time to create a broad coalition that recognizes the needs of sensible acknowledging the important role small landlords play in providing housing often at a cheaper rate compared to corporate landlords. I appreciate the work that has been done over the last few months that bring us to this moment. Please support this vote for measure and let the people decide. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Gregory Calcannis followed by Claire Roaks. Okay, good good evening Mayor and Council Members. My name is Gregory Calcannis and I'm a resident of District 3 and I'm also born and raised in Berkeley. I'd like to thank Councilmember Luna Parra for bringing the tenants protection and rights to organize act to the Council. And thanks, and I'd like to thank Mayor Arigain and Councilmember Haim for making amendments in an effort to, for the council to pass the measure and place it on the ballot. I am presently a property owner but I rented in Berkeley for years and I rented in the Bay Area for years. In both in 2014, my brother and I tried, he was ill at the time. We tried to find an apartment in Berkeley, and we weren't able to find one. In 2015, I had to move in with a friend because I couldn't find a place in Berkeley. So we need more protections, and I urge you to place this on the ballot. And I want to add one more thing, in the amended version, there's a restriction that the building has to be larger than 10 units. And I'd like you to be careful about that, because some of the apartments that are being built today have units that are for bedroom apartments. So the term unit, I think, can be stretched. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think can be stretched. Thank you. Okay, we'll go next to Claire, followed by Iris. Claire Wolkes. You should now be able to speak. Please unmute yourself if you wish to speak. While we're waiting for the speaker, we'll go to Iris RS. Iris, you should not be able to speak. Please unmute yourself. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Iris, Rose Bloom-Cellers. Can you hear me all right? Yes, okay. Yes. I am an academic worker at UC Berkeley and the student worker unit chair of UWA 40-11 there. You've heard from many of my co-workers tonight about the many ways that we've benefited from unionization. Tenants have also benefited greatly from immunization in San Francisco and elsewhere. And I think that this kind of framework that the measures that are being considered would implement could really help build tenant organizations that would help address the cost of living really excited, our whole union really excited for our elected representatives to use their discretion and put this to a vote. Appreciate everyone's work, especially council members, Luna Parra, Ergain and Todd. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Collar, you should not be able to speak. We're going to go to you one last time. Please unmute yourself. Okay, if you wish to speak, please re-raise your virtual hand. Lisa Teague, followed by Tony Fitzpatrick. Thank you for considering this ballot motion. I urge you to place it on the ballot. I want to echo comments by Alana, by Maria Soel, by many others. But I also, I feel it's important to say that those who are saying that this is not democracy because the measure was 60 signatures short to make it on the ballot. We've got a whole lot of democracy going on tonight. Hours of democracy. This is the democratic process to allow us to have a voice as the tenants right to organize is also a part of the democratic process that we should uphold herein verbally. Thank you so much. I urge you to place this on the ballot. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tony Fitzpatrick, followed by Angelina Zavalos. Hi, Tony Fitzpatrick. I'm a Golden dueplex on our industry three. I've been renting my cottage for well, the almost 30 years. Never evicted anybody. My last tenants moved out last November and until I see what happens with this legislation and the statewide legislation in the fall, I won't be renting my unit again, which feels just awful to me. But I have always given my tenants notice about the Golden Duplex not being subject to the one control ordinance. And I think everyone should get notice about whatever their tenants rights are. But if I cannot control my cottage in terms of my own needs, I can't offer it for rent. If I can't regain control of it, if I need my daughter to live there, or if I need a care giver for myself, I can't rent it out. So, and I'm not the only one. And you're decreasing the rental units that are available for people by regulating these small units like this. It's completely counterproductive. It also just kind of cracks me up to have so many students talking about negotiating. I have no problem with collective bargaining, but in a tenant situation, UC has thousands more students a year coming into Berkeley without building housing for them. So part of why the market is as expensive as it is is because of UC students for everybody else who's here. If you don't let people landlords raise rents to be able to maintain properties, collective bargaining isn't going to get anybody anything because there isn't anything to get in terms of habitability because people can't cover their costs. Anyway, I do think, procedurally, not being able to get the required signatures is kind of dispositive here, although I'm sure that you all went for, you know, vote for one form of this or another. If they didn't recognize the name, Golden Duplexes, I won't be able to rent my property. And I will always add dot two. And it's not because I'm making a bunch of money on it. It's because somebody could be living there. Thank you. OK, our next speaker is Angelina Zavallos, followed by Ricky, followed by iPhone. I'm just reading the names on the screen. Valos, followed by Wickey, followed by iPhone. I'm just reading the names on the screen. Hi, my name is Angelina and I'm a voter and resident in Berkeley. I'm here to urge you to vote no on both measures proposed by Councilmember Luna Para. As the daughter of Latino immigrants who have been small property owners in Berkeley for the last 20 years, I have seen firsthand the financial and emotional hardship they have suffered at the hands of Berkeley City Council. For many years, City Council has protected the rights of tenants and refused to protect small property owners like my parents. Many small property owners in Berkeley are hardworking, black and brown, elderly people, including immigrants who have given their blood, sweat, and tears to maintain their properties and provide safe and affordable housing to tenants. I want to remind everyone tonight that golden duplex owners are not corporate landlords. Golden duplex owners are small property owners who need protections and deserve to be a part of this conversation. Additionally, the elimination of small-owner protections actually encourages larger investors to purchase and scarce away future small owners who are willing to live on site with their tenants. With that said, I urge you to please vote no on both ballot measures forward and actually fulfill your duty to serve all Berkeley residents, not just tenants. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ricky, followed by iPhone, followed by Michelle Repine. Ricky, you should not be able to speak. Please let me just- You hear me now? Can you hear me? Thanks. Actually, before I start, I actually want to thank the council and mayor for reconnecting the camera. I had requested that a few weeks ago and it's working and I really appreciate that. It's much easier on Zoom. So thank you for that. I'm here. I'm actually a landlord. Born and raised in Berkeley went to Cal so I've been a renter. Now I do on a home and I'm a landlord and I would urge you to vote yes on this and get this on the ballot. I'm on throw rent control and I'm an owner of a single family home and I rent out a unit. I feel protected as an owner and the tenants need to have rights to organize. Yeah, I want for clearly to be feasible for all kinds of people, not just wealthy individuals. So I don't think you need the golden Dubwex exception. I support Council Member Luna Paras measure. And yeah, do the democratic thing, put it on the ballot, let people vote for it. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is the name iPhone. You should now be able to speak, please unmute yourself. Yep, sorry about that. The log and then work, this is Chris Moore with the East Bay Rental Housing Association I urge you to vote no on both both these proposals You know, let's let's just What these proposals especially when you don't take the time to go through them It hurts the smaller providers a smaller smaller low cost housing providers in the community primarily and it forces them out of the market. They are the ones that are providing affordable housing in the community. And I point to a survey that was done for gold duplex and the ADU owners a few years ago, 32% of those respondents were, they identified as a person of color. Over 50% were over 60 years of age. They are the ones that are providing this low cost housing to the community. I'll also say, when you put in these restrictions on these homeowners and these rental housing providers, 78% say they will not rent going forward. So you are actually ultimately hurting renters, you're hurting the low-cost housing providers. And you're obviously going around the system here. These didn't qualify and they're trying to go around the process. So I appreciate the time today. Please vote no for both. Thank you. Our next speaker is Umaywali Fowls, followed by Sam Kaplan Pettis. Good evening. Thank you so much for this opportunity mayor and council Definitely in favor of both of these measures and we want to have a lower adjusted increase on the rent because the inflation rate is such if people are having enough difficulty as it is trying to keep food on the table and pay went We also want the tenants to have to have an opportunity to organize and protect themselves. There are many tenants who do not know what their rights are. They do not have an opportunity to go to the Berkeley Rint stabilization board classes that are taught and that include both landlords and tenants. And I think that that that rent board class should be turned into a dialogue between the landlords and the tenants so that both groups can survive. We have not dealt viably with either of these two people, sets of people who have the same interest in housing and land management that the banks have. I think the banks and the fact that the City Council has passed innumerable small tax parcel taxes, not good people. It makes it too difficult for landlords to function and then they have to pass the costs onto the renters. Keep in mind that the City of Berkeley has 62% renter occupancy. So we need to have renters protections and we need to have a 3% rent increase, not seven. Thank you. Sam Kaplan-Pedis, followed by Israel Gonzalez-Losa. and I'm going to ask for a question. I'm going to ask for a question. I'm going to ask for a question. I'm going to ask for a question. I'm going to ask for a question. I'm going to ask for a question. I'm going to 2 for a decade. And as I often remind them, the worst thing that happens if landlords don't have enough rights or don't have rights is that homeowners lose profit. But the worst thing that happens if tenants don't have enough protections is that people lose housing. And that's really bad. So thank you, Councilmember Hahn and Mr. Mayor and the Queen of all Berkeley politics, Councilmember Cecilia Luna-Bada and I look forward to voting you all voting yes to put this on the ballot. Well we'll go next to Israel, Consolos Losa followed by Yash Enth followed by Juan Lu. Israel, you should now be able to speak. Good evening council members and Mayor my name is Gonzalez-Losa. I'm a student, tenant community member, and resident of District 7. I'm speaking today because as someone directly impacted by rising housing costs, I'm deeply concerned about the lack of protections for tenants. Last year, a community faced the highest rent increase in four decades. For students like me living in rental units, this trend is unsustainable and threatens our ability to remain in our homes. Expanding rent control and providing tenants the right to organize are crucial for keeping people housed and ensuring fair rent tenants like students and workers deserve the rights and negotiate in good faith with landlords. The current system leaves us vulnerable to exploitative landlords, the current system leaves us vulnerable to exploitative practices. We need our pro-tenant council members to stand with us and place this measure on the ballot. The voters deserve a say in this matter, especially with a competing landlords measure this November. I want to thank council member Lunapara and urge the rest of the council to support this measure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Yashin followed by Juan Lu followed by Rosina Karen. Hello, council. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm a resident of District 3. We recently moved to Berkeley. We are small landlords. It took us 10 years to realize our dream of living in Berkeley, while me and my wife working, renting, and living way below our means, and committing two hours a day. And we bought a golden duplex, and we appreciate that the exemption is maintained. We have landlords and we are also normal people and we don't have deep pockets. The reality of inflation is real for both tenants and landlords and protecting the tenants from inflation and not protecting landlords from inflation is not fair and the cost to maintain the property are astronomical when compared to four to five years ago. So reducing the rent increase to 3% is unfair on landlords and people like me, who are trying to maintain the property well and have a good life. The choice of us renting our one of our units is either we rent or we don't have a second kid because the costs are so high for even for people like us to live because we are normal people, we are paying our bills and we are also trying to make a you know trying to live. We are not looking for a profit, we are only looking for survival like everyone else who are renting, right? So the properties, you know, if we are discouraged from living in city like Berkeley, the city will start, we will be owned more and more by private equity firms, which is definitely defeating the purpose of having a rent board and having rent control. Please say no. Please say no on these measures. And thank you so much. Our next speaker is Juan Lu, followed by Rosina Kieran, followed by Junin. Thank you, Mayor. I'm Juan. I'm a property owner in district 4. I'm speaking against the proposition and I last year, I owned one property, not sure my insurance company dropped coverage for a bunch of houses in Berkeley because the high cost of operating in the city. I was one of them. I scrambled to call around other insurance companies to cover me. Luckily, I was able to find another company, but the cost is 250% more than what I was paying. If I were not lucky to find anybody to cover me, I would have a resort into the California Fallback plant, the Fair plant, which would have cost me almost 500% more. The reality of the cost is real. Everything's increasing. There's no reason you should limit the rate of 3%. You picking on a small population, making sure they lose money to found the public goods. I'm all for it to make housing affordable. I'm on your side, but single out as one audience just doesn't make sense. I used to think California did a great job regulating the insurance industry, but until that time when all insurance companies pulling out of California because of unsustainable business practice. You don't want to be the city three years from now seeing everyone pulling out the city. Thank you very much. Thank you. We decided to continue on this journey. Can you also limit the course rates cost, restaurant cost, everything? We need to move on sir. Thank you. Rosina Karen, followed by Janine, followed by Joshua P. Rosina, you should not be able to speak. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can, thank you. Great, thank you so much for your time tonight. I'm urging you to please vote against both of the measures. And I'll tell you why. I've lived in South Berkeley. I work in Berkeley Unified. And I've been here for decades with S at the end. And I was able to raise my now adult children here in Berkeley, specifically thanks to the tenants that we've had in our home, who share our house. And like many of the other home owners have said the tenants become part of our family there are friends we get to know them but we need the protection that if something doesn't work out right if it's not a good match we need the protection because it is our home to be able to ask them to please leave and I also always give my tenants the rights to terminate the tenancy whenever they need to if they aren't comfortable. And luckily that hasn't happened, but the rights need to be on both sides. And it's thanks to those tenants that I was able to cover my mortgage while I was raising my children. And then I raised our house to create a duplex and that was able to help me send one son to more house and my other son went to BCC and another college and it's thanks to having people living with us that I was able to maintain a life that I want to be able to support my children and now my adult children live upstairs in the duplex and I live downstairs and I still have housemates because we still need help with The costs of maintaining a home But if if the small owner protections are removed Then we will end up with fewer affordable rental units and Berkeley It's because of the protections that we have that we feel more comfortable to welcome people into our home And I've always charged below market rent are comfortable to welcome people into our home. And I've always charged below market rent, always help out our tenants with whatever they need when they're moving to Berkeley. And I've enjoyed those relationships. But, and I grew with the young students who spoke for members of a union, I'm a member of a union, I want people to have affordable housing in Berkeley. But what will happen is it like all the other people who own houses and rent out units as small property owners will end up with fewer properties of the unit on the market and then larger investments will take over. Okay we're going next to Janine followed by Joshua P. Hi it's Janine actually thank you and thank you for um hanging. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time already has qualified for the ballot. I reviewed its provisions today and find that approach superior. Thus, I encourage the Council to decline to act on either item on tonight's agenda and to avoid confusing the public with overlapping ballot measures. I've been an owner for over 35 years of a Golden Duplex in Council District 3, and I believe it's imperative to preserve the rights and interests and to maintain property values when owners live on site and have a second rental unit, whether it's a duplex, a rear cottage, or an ADU, and regardless of whether the owner lived on site on a magic date that qualifies them for a golden duplex. site on a magic date that qualifies for a golden duplex. The important reasons to maintain the existing rights of golden duplex owners and to extend these to all owner occupants of two unit properties are first I've not heard clear evidence that there is a huge problem that needs to be solved with either of these measures with regard to duplexes. Secondly, doing ballot measures are exhausting and imperfect. Yet this issue presents itself again. Several years ago, I proposed that the city consider convening a more conciliatory approach where landlords and tenants could get together and work out some mutually agreeable approach. Something like that still needs to happen. Third. This is if you complete your thought after number three. Yes, I have three more points. I'll just one sentence. The constant threat of adding obligations on duplex owners is ultimately going to reduce property values and the revenue that the city receives as fewer people like myself are willing to become buyers. And it reduces the pool of potential buyers, meaning sales prices go down, property goes down. Thank you. Our next speaker is Joshua P, followed by Julia Keto, followed by Donna D. Deemar. Good evening and thank you, Mayor and Council for the opportunity to speak. My name is Joshua Poston. I am a small housing provider as well as a board member for the East Bay Rental Housing Association. So one of the elements of this proposal that the Council is looking at is the definition of good faith and it allows the rent board to essentially write its own regulations on good faith. And I think rather than looking at anecdote, let's look at the actual track record. The actual track record is that in the United States, we had a crisis. We had a COVID crisis. It lasted for about a year and a half. But there was one city where was the very last city and a half, but there was one city where was the very last city to remove the draconian COVID restrictions. You had people sitting in bars, going to restaurants, moving on with their lives, but the city of Berkeley and Oakland were the last in the nation to remove those. So let's look at good faith. I would say that's a demonstration of bad faith. And then let's look at who controls the rent board. We have a chair in Leia Simon-Weissburg, who is essentially an ideologue. It's clear where she stands, and it's clear it's not a balanced and a approach that takes all of the members of the public views into account. Thank you for your time. Because it's hard to move on a tenant, you know, sometimes relationships do sour, but it's easier to get a divorce than it is to move a tenant along where there is a troubled relationship or there is a violation of the lease. Thank you so much for your time. My next speaker is Julia Kato, followed by Donna Determar, followed by Nero Sequel. Good evening, and I support your putting these measures on the ballot. I would like to say that somebody quoted me earlier out of context and I resent that. I said that I was willing to compromise and let go of the restrictions for, let go of the restriction. Though that all as many tenants as possible could have the protections offered in this measure. I would like to also point out that landlords have a lot of protections under rent control. They were guaranteed a reasonable, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble thinking, I waited so long. We sure thought we'd appreciate it. A reasonable return on their investment. Who else in Berkeley gets a reasonable return on their investment? Certainly not the people that owned all those closed shops down on Chatea, Cavanaugh. So when we talk about being unfair to landlords, I don't think that's really the case. They get they get their protections to they just don't talk about being Ontario to landlords. I don't think this is, that's really the case. They get, they get their protections too. They just don't talk about them. Thank you. Okay, Donna Diedemar, followed by Marl Seagull, followed by Lauren Sheeler. Please unmute yourself, Donna Diedemar, viewers to speak. I am here just to feed my minute to Tony Mester. I will take note. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to see my minute to Tony Meister. Okay, and that's the last person you could see. She has the maximum of four minutes. And I'll just announce after we complete the speakers queue on Zoom, we will need to take a caption, a break, we have a remote caption, a lot of light transcribing, the meeting, and then we can come back to begin discussion and take any potential action. Kelly Hammagrin followed by Mimi Moon. Hello. I'm just sorry with this measure that we don't have a way of differentiating between the large national and international management organizations and property owners from our local small owners of a unit or two. I think I was I was very concerned after reading about real page and the business plan of for rent gouging it instead of filling units that that business plan is really concerning and it's impact on tenants here locally. And as I wrote in the activist diary, Fresno is suing over real page and rent manipulation. And I'm sorry that we are having to wait for 15 years before we can do rent controls on the big buildings. I wish that was a much shorter period of time for these very large buildings. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker is Mimi, I'm meeting followed by Mary Orem, fired by Peter Farron-Bock. I'm very warm, fired by Peter Farron-Bock. Hi, my name is Mimi Main. I am an homeowner and a resident of District Eight. I'm a working mom and I'm here to urge you all to vote yes on the tenant prediction and write the organized ballot measure and give voters a choice in the fall. Many people have spoken super eloquently about both sides of this issue. I don't envy any of your roles trying to find conferences and do the most positive change for our city. But I do think that our tenants or renters are the people in our society that need the most protection. Demographically, monetarily, and sorry, urge you to vote yes on this measure. Thank you. Thank you. Mary Orm is our next speaker followed by Peter Fernbach, followed by Iris Search. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. that is proposed in these two ordinances to put on the ballot already have solutions. And I don't think that they're comparable to what all the people from the from the union from UC we're talking about. Elise is a contract just like labor people sign contracts, but Elise is a different kind of contract. In Berkeley once Elise is signed it's binding on the owner, but it's a different kind of contract. In Berkeley, once Alisa signed, it's binding on the owner, but it's not binding on the tenant. The tenant can move anytime they want. The time that tenants have to negotiate is when the contract is signed. By definition, all units in Berkeley that are under rent control are already subsidized by the owner since the rent can only increase by 66% of the increase in the cost of living each year. So 33% of the virtual increase is a subsidy to the tenants. The rent ordinance does say owners are allowed to make a profit, but over the years, I have seen costs go up and up and up much faster than the increases allowed by the tenants by the rent board. Now the latest thing is insurance as a gentleman who spoke before me said, we had increases of 250 to 500 percent when insurance policies have been canceled and we've had to find new sources for those insurance. And most of the increases in the costs are not included in the cost of living. For example, when the East Bay Mud Bill goes up, where the garbage bill goes up, or the rent registration fee goes up. All of those are at percentages that are much larger than the increase in the cost of living that the rent word grants and they are not included in the calculation of the cost of living. I urge you to rethink all this stuff and consider consulting with small property owners and property managers before you decide to put something new on the ballot. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Peter Fernbach, followed by Iris Serks, followed by Tony Mester. Who do you should not be able to speak? Please unmute yourself. If you wish to speak. Okay, quickly, more than 30 years ago, I moved to Berkeley when I was evicted from a property in Oakland. So I know how that feels. We bought a property with a cottage, an ADU. We did that because we had a friend who wanted to move in. When we subsequently got to renting the property to others, we never charged market rate, we charged what we thought was fair, which was under market rate. We never, except once, you know, almost 15 years increase the rent at all, okay, because we wanted to be contributing to our community and because we're Berkeley residents, and we really thoughtful about who we rented to. We rented to people who worked for local nonprofits. But I also worked 40 years in social justice and that was my life's work as an nonprofit. And I can tell you I've seen many times where people have pushed things forward, thinking that was a good policy solution for all the right reasons and they had it backwards. This is the removal of protections on gold and new blinks is is really bad policy. And I'll tell you why because just wait a minute. I'll tell you why people like me will not rent under those circumstances. Okay. I'm not going to have my children living in a situation where I have like no control over who's living there. So if you want to take rental properties off the market, then proceed with eliminating the provisions for gold and duplexes, it is the opposite of solving the problem. Well intentioned but very foolish policy. Thank you. I'm going to do one last call for public comment on Zoom. Please raise your virtual hand if you would like to speak. If you do not raise your hand in the next five seconds, I will not call on you because we need to close the queue. I'm going to close the speakers queue on Zoom in five, four, three, two, one. Okay. three, two, one. Okay. And so these are the last hands I will recognize, and then we will take our caption or break. I research followed by Tony Messer. All right. Can you give me a minute? Not that well. I'm gonna change your speaker. She's gonna move on. Is that better? Not that well. I'm going to change your speaker. Excuse me a little bit. Is that better? Yes, it is. A vehicle proposal should not be on the ballot. I'll also talk about good faith. And the fact that it's the rent board. The sole power to define good faith. This is the same rent board led by an attorney that once told Golden Duplex owners they had a law-spir exemption because they held title in a living trust, a living trust is simply part of the state planning. It's one more example of bad faith under a part. Imagine how the rent board, largely if not solely consisting of renters, would define good faith. As a yellow dog Democrat, I never thought I'd put Nancy Reagan just saying no. Okay, Tony Mester, if we can set the clock for four minutes, she was a lot of three additional minutes. And Tony, Mr. the floor's yours, perform minutes. Thank you, everybody. And I want to thank my friends for having such good faith in me, because they think I'm going to be coherent. I'm probably as weary as you guys are. I'm not going to tell you what I think you should vote. I think you already know what you're going to do. But I would like to talk about policy on housing and how this intersects with our desire to create more rental units. The great untapped wealth of this city lies in homeowner equity, which can be used to create units within the framework of the existing housing stock. After Measure QPASS in 2018, exempting single-family house with one ADU from the rent stabilization ordinance, the city permitted 533 ADUs. That's over 100 ADUs every year and I think that's a huge achievement for Berkeley homeowners to do that. At the moment, owners of Golden Duplexes like myself are holding UNICEF be awaiting a decision whether our 44 year old exemption will be removed or like me just kind of decided to retire because I can't handle all this anymore. I mean this gets kicked down the road every two years and it's like a sort of damn a quiz over our heads and I'm a little old for this. There's a possibility that my property will be devalued. And that's what happens. They're called golden duplexes for a reason. They're more valuable on the market. And our lives forever changed. So the potential of using homeowner equity to create new housing can be stifled, or it can be unleashed, depending on whether or not the risk to owners is increased with the burden of complicated regulations. I built a unit based on the Gold and Duplex exemption and I rented it for the greater part of 30 years under state law. It's not like golden duplex exemptions are unregulated. State law is very complex, and it now includes the just cause for eviction. And I must say, even though I'm a very critical of rent control as an economic policy, Berkeley has succeeded in the just cause of eviction to influence state law on this effect. And I think there's some very great accomplishment of the rent board. The tenants who my house came and went of their own accord until I decided to stop renting because of the constant threats to the exemption. There's no need to treat every tendency as permanent because not all tenants want to stay here permanently. Honor occupied duplexes are a small niche market. They're a niche rental market. We are not absentee landlords. We manage our own properties and we live in close proximity with tenants. And without owner occupied exemptions, the RSO becomes a method to harass and extort owners who in order to sell an empty property or move in their adult children or whatever their lives demand are forced to pay a so-called voluntary buyout that usually runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. Without extensions for owner occupants, Berkeley will never have a robust JADU program. And junior ADUs are the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way to add to the housing stock, but they require owner protections. We're completely clear. We're created within the house. And owners are not the enemy. We provide housing. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker is Whitney Sparks, followed by former Councillor Dabella, followed by Vanessa Moreira. Next speaker is Whitney Sparks, followed by former Councillor Dabella, followed by Vanessa Moreira. Hello, I am District 7 resident, and I'm a renter, a tenant. I have experienced unhousing, unhouselessness, and I just wanna say that this has been an astounding from the landlord who's been speaking up, display of like white, splaining, and an awful display of privilege. Low cost is not the same as low income, some definition, some basic definitions for you guys. Losing profit is not the same as losing housing. It is not, you're not on equal, this is not an equal situation if you're a landlord versus if you're a tenant. We need to protect the most vulnerable in our city as we've discussed numerous times in city council. On other days, when we're talking about protecting the homeless against grants pass and creating safe spaces in our state and in our nation, as it retreats into this incredible fascism. If you are a property owner and you are choosing to hoard your property and your wealth and privilege, that is your own problem with being Marsley, you cannot twist logic to blame renters for that or rental protections for that. We must protect the most vulnerable to protect our city to protect our values. And nothing else can really explain that away. I have spent months dealing with the rent board and with the bureaucracy of trying to protect myself against predatory landlords and let me tell you even with advocacy and education and knowing that I'm in the right. It is a grueling process that threatens me at every step with losing my housing and the protection for my child. I have a black child and they are the most vulnerable of being a victim nationwide of any demographic whatsoever. You can't compare that to having built your own little golden treasure box to bring in cash. And now you can't do that. Like that's just not the same as my child potentially losing housing. You need to go to former Councilor D'Avala, follow-by, Vanessa Moreiro, Paul by Jan McDonne. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go to the office. I'm going to have to go But it's also interesting, Mayor, you need to protect tenants. And these landlords who are displaying their wealth and privilege. And also to some degree, it sounds like they're being discriminatory in their tenet, you know, leasing to tenets and deciding that they only want to rent to a certain type of tenet. Sounds like they're not following legal practices in their decision-making. So that's also interesting. Um, privilege and wealth. Um, yeah, that's interesting. And some of these people that have these vacant units that they're holding hostage, that that's ridiculous. They need to get charged for the vacancy tax. Thank you. And not be. Okay. Um, I'll just note for the record, the previous speaker mentioned potential conflict of interest. We have a legal opinion from the State for Political Practices Commission, the saying there's no economic interest that that ribets me from the all the participate in day's decision. It was alleged two years ago, progeny by individuals that I could not participate. I can clearly participate. That's why I'm cheering the meeting. That's why I'm going to be voting tonight. Vanessa Moreiro, followed by Damick Deng. Hi, good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. My name is Vanessa Moreiro and I'm a single mother of three, one child with a disability. I serve as an elected Rumpwood Commissioner, and I'm also on the Commission of Disability. I also work extensively with partners at the national level, with the Biden Harris Administration. I wanted to thank Councilmember Luna Bada for your leadership in bringing this measure forward as well as the four by four committee and the Berkeley RRenboard. While I appreciate everybody's interest in willingness to uplift the tenants right to organize for Berkeley voters, to Berkeley voters, I believe it is beholden in the council to act adamantly to ensure that people who are disabled, senior aging in place, and people who are from black and brown communities, are protected by this measure. Our people have already faced redlining, gentrification and other barriers, to stay here in Berkeley and Berkeley must act, and alignment with its values to ensure that diversity, and equity are seen, and felt by communities of which have been marginalized. I've lived in a unit building in D4 for 18 years and fixed a viction. As my apartment was filled with mold and lead, resulting in me becoming very sick. Obviously me calling it now, from Kaiser showing the problems that I face. This is my second time online removing these types of property from the tenant right to organize act would be harmful to vulnerable tenants like myself and move them away from freedoms. How much will you hold you repeat seconds over time? If you can wrap up your thought, thank you. That's it, the council member, hon. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Dan McDonne and hopefully you can hear there is a beep when the one minute is up and I'll give you a, I'll let you know if you didn't hear it. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Council Member Hahn. I just wanted to make a note that only a handful of property managers and owners were named and they were a part of the you know, much loved by Council nonprofit housing sector. Sa-ha was named by a tenant as was a foundation housing by a number of tenants, the Harriet Tubman facility. So, just wanna point that out that our tax dollars are being directed to these nonprofit housing providers. They're the only ones that can name their management companies by name, who just wanna point out that the economic illiteracy of either one of these actions and getting us on to the belt is staggering. I really, really staggering. No connection at all to the reality of how things work in the mental housing market. And I want to point out for anyone that thinks that they're going to stop at Golden Duplex as if that is exempted. They're coming for Golden Duplex as next time too, just like they're coming for any other western value that you care about, free speech, private property rights, all of it. It's all on the table with this group here and don't think it's not. Anyway. Time is up. Thank you. The next speakers are Sam and then Bernadette and then Lauren Schiller. Sam, you have one minute. Everyone's Sam Greenberg, speaking in favor of the 10 protections and rent to organize acts. We'll just start by saying that East Bay Rental Housing Association is not sending their best today. And I wanna emphasize that renting a property is a social contract, just like being a business owner in a civil society. You have to follow some Paschee regulations and landlords who choose to take on the responsibility of managing somebody's home, the place they live, have responsibilities just like business owners do. There is no point of deregulation that you as council members could enact where landlords would not be here complaining. There's no point where they would not be complaining. A lot of landlords have provided comments saying that we'll see their units taken off the market. We have a vacancy tax. We passed for exactly this reason that many of you on council supported the voters supported by over 60% of the vote. And landlords are not irrational. By and large, they're going to be keeping their units on the market. This scale, as many commenters have mentioned, is completely disproportionate. Renters face displacement out of the city. They face homelessness. And I understand that some small property owners have difficult situations, but it's a completely different scale of financial difficulty. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bernabette, one minute. Hello. Hello. Hello. Yes, we can. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Good evening, everyone. My name is Bernadette Carreke, and I'm here to adjourn individually and collectively to vote yes and put Council Member Luna Paris version of the Tenant Protection and Rights Organized Act on the November ballot. We all know that black people are being disproportionately displaced. This would give black people an opportunity to stop the bleed and make this more racially We're working for the community to be able to continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work and continue to work I know people right now who are working for jobs, single parents, for jobs, just to maintain a place for their children to be able to leave. We need to be able to support those who are so vulnerable in our society. That's what we do as Berkeley-Ems. Moreover, this is going to give the Berkeley voters an opportunity to make a democratic decision in November. I just want to thank you so much for this opportunity. Please for you. Okay, Warren Schiller's and next speaker, followed by Michael Parman. Hi, thank you. I want to say I do appreciate your willingness to compromise, to come to the meeting with an alternative. Tenants do need to be protected, but so do homeowners. We need to maintain a balance. Homeowners put money into their properties to keep them livable and also pay property taxes to support the many city services that renters have access to. I'm a Golden Duplex owner in District 4 and have rented out our back cottage very amenably for the last 20 years. This is provided housing and also helped me to pay my mortgage. I raised two children in this house renting renting out to someone who shares our backyard space and our water bill. On a property where I and my family also live is a totally different situation than a landlord with multiple units. Homeowners deserve protection too. There needs to be equal protections that go both ways. I want to preserve the right to decide who lives in my property and preserve the right to have space for those who care for me on the property that I own and care for. Even though the rent board has repeatedly been rejected with these proposals by voters and this council, they continue to bring them back. If you do choose to vote through one of these proposals, please choose the option that exempt golden duplexes and ADUs, which by the way, you were promised to protect when he was campaigning. Thank you so much. Thank you. Michael Parman, followed by the call with the number at 816. Michael, we should now be able to speak. Michael Parman, are you there? Yes, hello. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Great, thank you. Several issues that I'd like to address, but I think the most important one in this policy that is sort of significantly an aberrance with typical policy in Berkeley is the decision to provide unlimited utilities to a variety of tenants. It's a well documented fact that without people having to pay for the economic resources and natural resources that they consume, they tend to consume significantly more than they otherwise would. This is why East Bay and Mud, this is why PG&E all have increasing rate tiers as rates as usage increases. If people do not have skin in the game regarding their utilization of these resources, they will use significantly more. For this reason, this proposal in the in the policy is one that has significant unintended consequences. More importantly, it is just bad policy from any environmental perspective. The other thing that I think is worth noting and has been commented on many times is that the rent board has continually waged a war against small property owners in Berkeley and has, as a result, caused a large number of units that would otherwise exist for people to live in to not exist on the market. Thank you. The rent board should focus its efforts on large corporate landlords and should encourage small units to come on to the market. Thank you. Okay. Call with the number 816. Please press star 6 to 1 mute. Call with number 816. Please press star 6 to 1 mute. We're going out of the call with the number ending 816. Please press star 6 to 1 mute. Okay. one six please press star six true and mute. Okay, I'm gonna give you five seconds, five four, three, two, one. We're going to the next speaker. Okay, Andy Kelly. Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm calling in today as a Wendell Commissioner, elected to represent the voters and Berkeley as our you. A lot has been talked about the substance these measures tonight, but I don't want to participate in that process or express their concerns, which is disappointing because we had no opportunity to address them. The decision was made to circulate petitions that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Berkeley voters decide to sign. Unfortunately, you came just slightly short of the threshold needed. I just want to remind Council whatever you do tonight, you can vote to honor the spirit of democracy by putting on a protonate measure, even if you choose not to support it. It's clear that the will of the voters of Berkeley was to have the opportunity to vote on this. And we weren't able to get enough signatures given the difficulties in organizing up against a very volunteer effort without a lot of money or corporate interests. We ask you to be thoughtful and put that measure on about tonight so that voters have a chance to decide this issue. That's for being discussed in our community for decades. Thank you. We have Flo Max as our next speaker, followed by Nico Marisol. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I guess from the Department of Legislative Jerry rigging, it's probably worth noting that if the other measure had failed by 60 votes who wouldn't be having this conversation tonight. I urge you to reject both measures because you're rushing a substantially revised measure that will radically alter housing policy with no objective evidence for need and the of the public engagement. The continued targeting of owner-occupied affordable housing provides through punitive and ascent from unfair regulations serves to reduce the stock of housing in Berkeley as you've heard. As other speakers have noted, reduction in housing supply causes caused by these measures. Hertz tenants drives up rents and serves the interests of hedge funds that have come to dominate the rental market. And that's the true crime. Berkeley residents are able and willing to make uneroccupied parcels part of the affordable housing solution. But under these punitive regulations, view, including myself, will be willing to take the risk. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nico Marisol, followed by Lucky Thomas. Nico Marisol, you should now be on speaker. Nico Marisol. Hello, I'm a recent UC Berkeley alumni and a renter in district four. I'd like to thank Council Member Trigub for expressing your support for this measure while you are campaigning. I hope to see you vote in favor of it tonight. I am rent burned. I pay more than half of my income toward rent. As a tenant, I did not know my rights coming into my current house in situation and that left me living in a mold infested house with a leaking roof and locks that did not work. My previous home was a Raj property which was also severely infested with mold with elevators that rarely worked. I've experienced housing and security spent nights sleeping on my friend's beanbag in rental gig cars and in people's park. I want the chance to be able to vote on this measure. What we're doing here tonight is not going around the system as many have suggested it is perfectly legal and democratic for a measure to be put on ballot via County City Council vote and I encourage you to do so tonight. Lastly while we are here fighting for tenant rights and Berkeley, I am inspired by the Freedom Fighters in Palestine who are subject to violent displacement by illegal Israeli settlements that this city has yet to condemn. Thank you very much. Next speaker is Lucky Thomas, followed by Protect Tenants Max Smith. Hello, Council. Can you hear me? We can, yes. Hi, Lucky Thomas. And I'm asking that you vote no on both of those measures to go to the voters. And, the reason being, I've been a property owner for 35 years or more. And, originally, one of the members of Berkeley Black Property Owners Association. And as you know now, there's no longer Berkeley Black Property Owners Association. Because there's very few Berkeley Black Property Owners Association because there's very few Berkeley Black Property Owners. And largely those impacts came through rent control, Black Property Owners got out of the business and they were bought up and they were gentrified. And as we seen the black population drop in Berkeley, or you saw the Black Property Ownership drop in dropping Berkeley such has dropped in the black population. So there are some some items that I really am opposed to the 3% cap on rents. I think that needs to be taken off and then also organizing is It's just further burdens, uh, property owners and especially small property owners. And I like to, I have, you know, a lot more to say about it, but thank you very much. Oh, I have a few more minutes here, I guess. Oh, no, you have your. I don't, I'm done. Thank you very much. Please your thought. Well, yes, I just would like to say that, um, uh, there's a ballot measure coming up at the state level that's going to try to kill Costa Hawkins. And if we're trying to get rid of corporate control of our rental property and maintain rents and create, as I've heard often from this board, generational wealth, and you want to protect small property owners, we have to do something. And this measure, the two measures that you're putting forward will certainly further burden small property owners. Thank you. Okay, and the last race hand we'll go to is Max Smith Smith and that will be our last speaker. Apologies, I have a COVID. I live in district five as does the rest of my family though. I will likely be moving to district three. Please vote yes to put this on the ballot. It's we just heard so many outright lies from the landlords today. They have been talking about golden duplexes or ADUs even though this has, BALTMES there has nothing to do with that. The council member Luna Para has made clear that that is not being the cuts. And so why are people, why are they not talking about this? It's clear that it's because it's because they have no good argument. Just like they had had no good arguments for their ballot measure, they had to go out and trick people into thinking that it was the tenant protection and right to organize them. And in fact, that's one of the reasons why people couldn't get enough signatures because tons of people thought they'd already signed it because the landlord tricked them into thinking that they were signing the real bad men's. Thank you. Okay, so that completes public comment. I did do a last call for public comment. I did a five second count. Those were the last hands I saw raised. So I apologize to anyone who's raised their hand. Subsequent to that, we did get people an opportunity to be added to the speakers queue. We do need you, we do need to take a caption of break. So we'll take a 15 minute caption of break and then we're back to begin our discussion. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. 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. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going in progress. Okay. Last the Councillors, please rejoin us and Councillor Bartlett, you're still on, correct? I see him on the Zoom. Okay. Okay. We do have a quorum present. So we are back in session and we'll proceed now to discussion of item 1A and 1B. And before I'd like to ask everyone, all the council would want to be recognized. Press your button, because we had to reset the parliamentarian because it wasn't working. So if you want to be added to the queue, press your button. Okay, council's and I'm going to ask if we can set a five minute speaking limitation and we can do multiple rounds, but just to kind of facilitate the discussion, we can do more rounds if people have more questions or comments. Okay, we'll go first to Councillor Humbert. Can I defer to Councillor Mimicra? You got me in the chair. Councillor Retrego, you want to go? I would like to start out by thanking the Mayor and Council members, Han and Bruno Paoa for your work to craft various provisions of this ballot measure. Different comments have been made about what I said on the campaign trail about this measure. So I would like to address that. It is true that I supported the vast majority of the measure as crafted. There were a couple of sections that did give me pause and that was informed by different conversations that I was having all around the district over the last few months. Most notable of them was concerns around golden duplex exemptions. This is why I worked with previous members of the Council on previous versions that I thought struck the appropriate balance and then I heard additional concerns. additional concerns. So then I was happy to support the additional compromises that were made following discussions with the Mayor and Council Member Hahn. A wise person once said, not me, I'm not wise, but someone once said, politics is the art of the possible. And today I will be supporting whatever is possible to get a measure on the ballot that voters have an opportunity to decide on. As another speaker said, this is about democracy, and I agree it is. So I would like to move, you know, at least for the purpose of discussion, the measure put forward by Mayor Abdujewa. Can I make the motion to approve item 1B and entertain friendly amendments or amendments to the motion just for purposes of discussion? Second. Okay. And then back to you. Thank you. for purposes of discussion. Second. Okay. Great. Thank you. Hi, I'm. I will be supporting this measure. My amendments, which I will read into the record. One is non substantive one more substantive. I wanted to make sure that the drafting error was corrected around weft referencing the correct measure in the title of the measure weft reference to 13.84. There's as you can see here, 13.76. Thank you. And then when I wanted to read into the record is under the So item three and there is some additional language in consultation with It would read incompliance with board regulations, comma, comma, specifying other technologies, mechanisms or policies that the Ramp-Board teams functionally similar to separate and individual leaderings. And that is in response to actually work I have been doing at the state level to advocate for such technologies, including sub-meadering of our show Net Energy, need to reduced the energy burden on everyone. You ran this and landlords and this would allow such technologies and mechanisms to be used. So this last one here, the tennis chart, you tell us in compliance because you're saying in compliance with rental regulations, we strike that language. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I accept that as a friendly member. Seconder. Yeah, I do as well. Okay. So. Okay. Councillor Kessellani. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank all of the people who gave public comment on this Monday evening. I appreciate hearing from you. The item from the mayor and council member Han states that 53% of Berkeley renter households are rent burdened, paying more than 30% of their household income towards rent. And I think we heard tonight what that does to students, young people starting their careers and older folks. This is a supply problem that is decades in the making. And I desperately want to see our city, our region and our state create more homes for people of all income levels. In general, I think Berkeley has very strong tenant protections. I appreciate that the proposal from the mayor and council of O'Han restores the status quo for Golden Duplex owners. I think that when there are two units on a lot and one is owner occupied, the Berkeley voters have spoken through prior ballot measures that those are special cases. And I think it's reasonable to provide greater flexibility for those units to encourage them to be rented out. I also wanna say that I strongly support the right of tenants to organize. I'm most concerned that the cap of 3% might not provide adequate resources to make improvements to units, particularly in an inflationary environment. I don't know what the financial situation or mortgage or, you know, individual circumstances are for property owners. So it is hard for me to gauge whether this 3% cap is going to be adequate. You know, I am concerned that there could be unintended harm to tenants if a property owner just simply doesn't have the resources to make upgrades and improvements and repairs that are necessary. So I'm wondering was there any analysis done to arrive at that percentage? I'd like to ask the Mr. Brown or Miss Sennhe Weisberg can come up. My understanding is that this is similar to San Francisco, Santa Monica and Oakland, which have set a 3% rent cap. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what into the decision on that when information is made to come to that. Yes, I also want to just remind come some in Bershani if you're unaware that anytime a landlord is not making a reasonable return investment, they can, which includes the need for couple improvements. They can always file a petition. would be in that situation we absolutely have an avenue for that and my alerts can file those in either forms that help them they just have to fold them out and then there's a hearing so that is really not that shouldn't be a concern. The 3% and as folks know many cities adopted that during really the one year that we had you you know, seven, eight, ten, twelve, yeah, it was actually 12% inflation. When that was done, the reason 3% was chosen was because San Francisco did a study and they surveyed developers and different folks who were in the industry who had to say what their increases need to be when they were doing their performance, what it would be, and they said it was 3%. And so that is where we got the 3%. But remember what's really, really important is any landlord at any time where that one increases not sufficient, may file a petition, and get that because they have a constitutional right to have it. And they can always, and within that is capital improvements. So, anytime if you have a constituent that says, gosh, if I'm only being able to raise it to 3%, I can't do X, Y or Z. Please let them come and we'll explain from how to file a petition. Okay, thank you for that. I don't know if my time was held for the answer. I assume it was. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. So so next on the utilities, I do see that there was an amendment made. It sounds like we're trying to provide more flexibility. financial implications are of adding the individual meters or these new technologies and mechanisms and policies. So I, you know, and I just don't know what the landscape is like in terms of how utilities are currently being allocated. I know we're using this ratio method currently, but I am concerned that when there isn't the individual metering or there isn't the sort of voluntary technologies that this flat cost does not encourage conservation. Was there any discussion about that? Like, what can be done to remedy that? Yeah, so what the purpose of why we're trying to make those changes is actually to encourage landlords to take the staff to do individual metering. Because, you know, I think as there are speakers who said, if you have skin in the game, people are going to be more responsible. Yes, there are some saints out there that do a good job regardless. But we weren't landlords to move to the individual. Now, in the event that a landlord decides to do that, that's called a capital improvement. And if they are then allowed to file a petition, so they can change the what the rent is to reflect that. So the system really is set up to address all of these kinds of structural issues. So ideally, people should have individual and the new buildings are all individually metered. So we're really talking about builder buildings. And with right now, if a landlord has a contract where it's included, it's part of what's called, we say is the base rent. And they don't even charge for utilities. It's just part of the rent. And they're you know they don't even charge for utilities. It's just part of the rent and they're seeing this huge increase and it's you know becoming significantly you know having a huge impact right. Again they can file a petition and show that you know there's this huge increase and now they don't have a reasonable return on investment anymore. And so again, that system is set up so that we have these generals for everybody, which the Supreme Court required. And for individual situations, people always have a avenue to say, hey, in this situation it's different. I have all long-term tenants. I don't have people paying four times as much. I don't have majority of the tenants paying. So that system really is why it's protected and that's why we have growing. It's a policy that continues in California and is only growing because it allows for that outlet of those situations that you're rightly concerned about. Okay, so do we, I don't know if you haven't to have these stats on hand, I'm wondering how often property owners are abaling themselves of that ability now. How are they aware of this? Do you have stats on how many petitions were made in the last year and how many have been there? It's very rare because the majority of landlords in Berkeley, the majority, you know, have more than half of their tenants are new construction. These, there's all of these things that you're concerned about are really relevant if we had vacancy control, right? So it used to be in Berkeley when we had, you know, the, the least amount of rent increases in the state because every year, whether a tenant moved or not, the rent would only go up a certain percent, right? That's called vacancy control. We don't have that, right? Because so most buildings have a huge number of people who've just moved in, most friends are at market. And so that actually makes it quite profitable because you have that mix because there's no vacancy control. If we ever go back to having vacancy control, the landlords will probably more often have to do that, because they will have a flatter, they won't be the kind of diversity of rents. So it's rare. We do have, I think last year it was 14, but I'm not sure which category, but landlords regularly do it. Most of the petitions are about landlords believing that the primary tenant has left and that the rents, they should be able to reset the rents. That tends to be one of the most common petitions. Okay. Thank you. So then on page 34 of the mayor's ordinance, I was working from now in page 34 at 52, there's language related to the substantial actual injury, which is sort of this new language. Yeah, my question is for our city attorney's office about whether, you know, this is a term that is clear and understood by the courts. It wasn't a phrase that I was familiar with. understood by the courts. It wasn't a phrase that I was familiar with. I can tell you that language came from Oakland and I can tell you the context of which, how they sit in the chair. I want to ask the city of 21st. Thank you. There you go. And the Stubby City Attorney James Chang, I have some of my colleagues on This is Deputy City Attorney James Chang. I have some of my colleagues on Zoom who have been working with the Council on this legislation. Brema, do we want to bring it over to Steve to see if he can answer the question. I do that in a way of hand. I can look into it. Would it be helpful for me to give you the context of where it came from? Yes, please go ahead. So there is a case, it's called Boston versus Gutierrez, I think, that came out of Los Angeles where the Court of Appeals affirmed that you can't just evict people for no reason and that the any term in a contract that you evict, that's a victim has to have an impact on the landlord. So essentially this language is to basically codify that case. And that's why cities are including that. We have situations where landlords will notices and against tenants for really minor things that the tenants don't know that you can't really, you shouldn't be able to be evicted for it. So there should be meaning we have a lot of people self-evict at the notice stage. So in when we were coming out of the Mauretorium, Oakland wanted to make sure that we had, we didn't have those, you know, many people considered them frivolous evictions. Now, so it came out of that case, the Boston case. It's not from, it's just the landlord's name was Boston. And the, there was a negotiation with the landlords with February in Oakland, and they negotiated that language with the ton of advocates. And the, what they're doing in some ways it's importing, it's trying to clarify injury using the kind of common day understanding of it has to actually have an impact. It can't just be. OK, so just I am out of time though. I'm just this is my last question, but I so just to kind of paraphrase so there can be I'm going to kind of give My understanding of what you've said so that there can be sort of maybe minor least terms That that a tenant has agreed to and if the tenant has violated maybe some of these minor terms that are not Causing harm or injury to the landlord then those those are not gonna be the grounds for eviction, whereas if we don't have this language, any lease violation can be a cause. For eviction, is that fair? Yes, in the case that this comes from the landlord's trying to evict the tenant because they hadn't gotten rental insurance. And the court said, this doesn't even benefit the landlord. Okay, okay, okay. That's all I have for now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Humbert. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, you know, even though it's, well, first of all, I want to thank just as I start out here, Council Member Luna Pada for efforts on this measure. She's only been on council a short while, but she's really hit the ground running. And I have great respect for her efforts to make sure tenants know the rights and are treated fairly. But I do want to, I do want to, even though the Golden Duplex exemption is now essentially, I guess, off the table, I do want to address that because it keeps coming up and the Golden Duplex owners are, you know, the vast majority of them are very, very worried about it. And it's a red line for me. For Mike Brohousing providers, which is what Golden Duplex owners are, the issue of who's living in your Duplex and how they're conducting themselves, it can be a very, very big deal. Similar to ADUs and JDUs, the relationship you have with your tenant in a duplex is very different than it is for larger multi-tenant buildings. And this goes for situations even where one of the duplex occupants is a friend or family member rather than the owner herself. And I want to be completely clear that I believe Duplex landlords still have the responsibilities to their tenants, but I'm not prepared to draw more small golden Duplexed owners into the off and fraught and for access rent board processes. And saying that, I'm confident that I'm articulating the truth, those processes are often very difficult. ADU owners are not subject to local rent control laws, neither should Golden Duplex owners be subject to them. There are a whole lot of like, meaningless differences, I think. And I've heard this many times and we heard this tonight and I've heard it before, Golden Duplex owners will simply not rent their units if this ordinance is passed. It undercuts our goal to increase housing, does not promote it. And I realize, we're talking here theoretically, but I want to see it come up again two years from now. I've seen no data, a couple of anecdotes here today for the first time. But I've seen no data that there's a problem with Golden Duplex housing providers. In fact, I'm aware that there's been at least one public records request directed to the city doing choir about complaints against Stoke Golden Duplex owners, and this request yielded no evidence that there were any complaints. So I think it's a draconian solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist under any circumstances, I can't support it. So beyond the Golden Duplex issue, and we've been just talking about this, I think utilities element of the item wasn't workable. I hope it's workable with the amendment. That very interesting. I do want to point out that rewiring a whole building and putting in separate meters in an old building and most of the, in fact, all of the buildings are subject to rent control or old buildings is extremely expensive. I mean, it can run into tens and tens of thousands of dollars. So units could theoretically be separately metered with current technology, although I know nothing about this cutting edge technology. But again, it's really just another burden on the cost of housing. But I also want to address the cost of Hawkins provision. And in my view, it's a nullity and it's performative. The city can't reduce the time for a new building to come under rent control to 15 years. Because that's barbed by cost of Hawkins. 20 years is also barred. All buildings built after, is it 1985? I believe, or not subject to rent control as a matter of state law. 95. 95. 95, 10 years off. I believe we should reform cost of Hawkins and maybe there should be kind of a 15 year or 20 year standard. But I'm not aware of any feasibility study that tells us 15 years is enough to encourage the construction of new housing. And we don't know because there hasn't been a 9212 report on the rent board's failed measure. It didn't qualify for the ballot and we haven't seen that report. And that's a point worth noting. We had 9212 reports, I think, on all the other ballot measures. There could have been one that we didn't. And this one came sailing in the last minute and we haven't had the time to do that. that we didn't, and this one came sailing in at the last minute, and we haven't had the time to do that. I view the rent cap included in the measure as draconian. That currently, depending on inflation, rent increases under the Berkeley ordinance. Can top out at 7% per annum? I think it's been rare that that's ever happened. This measure would limit it to 3%. And there's been a lot of discussion about this that that would increase the likelihood that housing providers wouldn't be able to keep up with inflation. Keep their buildings properly maintained. Please continue. And I don't think this is good policy. It really ties the hands of a housing provider and limits the improvements that she can afford to have done to the building. I'm also concerned this, another item, and this is the item that remains in the Han Erdogan version, that the tenants have to with the three-day notice can only be given once the tenant owes one month of fair market rent. That adds an element of uncertainty in what needs to be a cut and dried process. How is a housing provider supposed to do a one-off estimate of fair market value on a particular unit? This would always be subject to challenge, unlike the very specific rent amounts set by a lease. And this penalizes housing providers who might rent a unit for much less than market. They'd have to wait longer to provide notice to a non-paying tenant. And if it was way under market, sometimes that might be months. And those are my items because I've already, let's see. I think that's it. I've collapsed the two measures together. Thank you very much. Councillor Humbert on that last comment you had made. I believe you're referring to the language in section 1 3 0, A 1 non-payment of rent. I similarly, and I talked to Mr. Brown about this today, but I know that you're trying to deal with an edge case, but I'm concerned that the scope of it could, if applied, could result in situations where you're not, say it's strawberry gardens, You're not, say it's strawberry, strawberry gardens, because it's saying using the fair market for the unit of an equivalent size in the Oakland FMR, wouldn't an easier standard just be that in this, in the situation where a tenant owes is behind on less than one month of rent for their unit that they're not evicted. I think that's the underlying issue is like, we don't wanna, you're proposing that we not evict people if they have less, if they are short, less than one full month of rent. Well, I guess the one thing is that Los Angeles has the exact same language and they referred to the HUD Fair Market, which is a set amount and it's already gone to court and they got a rolling supporting it. So my only concern is that there's protection for the city of Berkeley because the courts have already said that you can do this. And one of the things that the court found compelling was that it was a set amount that was set kind of objectively. Because I don't know if you realize that it's like it's a set amount. It's, you know, everyone can look at the same chart that says what that amount is. And so the point of that is that if a lamb, we find that landlords of people pay really high rents, they'll give them more cushion, even though in theory they owe more rent when they're late. And they tend to focus more on tenants who are paying significantly below market, the minute they, you know, are day late because the landlord has more to gain by displacing that tenant because they'll be able to raise the rent to market. The other thing is, is that for those low income tenants, which are tendencies will never be able to replace, right? Because they're paying more rents, because they're rent controlled, it gives them additional time to go seek rental assistance from the city of Berkeley. And that's what they've seen in the benefit of that in both Oakland and Los Angeles. The tenants are able to roll income tenants who qualify for those programs are able to do it and you're able to not easily preserve those really valuable tendencies that can't be replaced. That those folks will never find housing again that they can afford. I don't know if that, because the idea is, if the landlord puts in the notice the wrong amount for rent for one month rent, then their notice is defective. If there's an objective amount, then everybody knows, for a two bedroom, it's X. And when it reaches that, then they can get it. But if the rent is less than what that, or more than what that FMR is. is less than what that or more than what that FMR is. If it's less than that, then they'll end up getting 60 days to pay that rent. And the reality is, if they don't get the rental assistance, they're going to be a victim and they're out. If they, in that time period, if they're able to get rental assistance, the landlord gets their rent and their the time in C is reinstated. Okay, Council Member, you would raise a step. Any further questions about this issue or? Yeah. Thank you. To just to jump in, you know, and I know we're thinking about sort of edge cases or extreme cases. We heard some extreme cases during the pandemic. I was wondering if, so if somebody is significantly below this amount, this fair market rent amount, maybe it's helpful to pick a number. They're only paying $500 a month. The fair market rent says, for that unit, it's actually $1,500. I'm worried about like, can they just keep paying small amounts? So they never actually get up to 1500 and but they're not keeping up with their rent payments, but the landlord has to wait. I'm just worried about sort of this gaming possibility. I'm not that familiar with how this might work, but we haven't seen that to happen in Los Angeles, which obviously is a huge city that hasn't been a situation where people are every two months, you know, getting $5 behind and never ending situation where we found is it's giving the city enough time to give people the rental assistance. But it also was preventing and barring. I mean, I think you were referring to the 80 notices that went out to seniors at Scarborough Creek by one of our dear nonprofits. And it was because there are attorneys advised them to do that across the state. You know, I think that it's just been very valuable in both Oakland and Los Angeles. And the key thing was to create an objective amount so that everybody can look at the chart that the You know that HUD puts out so that was how that policy arrived. I think that if yeah, I mean I I think the weird situation where we want to keep most people housed and the people, most people pay their rent, and those people pay their rent off of the pandemic. And the folks who are homeless often arrive there because they weren't able to pay their rent fast enough. Councillor Humbert? Yeah, you know, I understand. Thank you for the information about the objective amount that can be derived from the HUD table. But I think, you know, for you, you know, individual tendency, the objective amount that can be derived from the HUD table. But I think for you individual tendency, the objective amount that's readily available is a monthly amount of rent. And if somebody's been in a tendency for many years and they are, for example, paying $1,000 a month for a unit that now might run for 5,000, I understand that there's a, could for bad landlords the motivation to push them out, but the landlord would have to wait five months to be able to serve, you know, a notice if the fair market value was 5,000 and the 10,000 to take a thousand. Not fair market, and it's about $2,500. So it's for two bedroom. It's, I think it's two bedroom. No, I'm just using an example. I know, but it's important to understand that's not at all what's being provided. Okay. So it also means that somebody who has pays 5,000, they never get extra time. So it really is about protecting people who are low income paying low rents. And landlord who may be intentionally charging lower rents, just to keep their units occupied, are gonna suffer and have to wait longer before they can demand that the rent be paid on penalty of eviction. So I still don't think it makes sense. That's my view. I think we have clarification on the intent of the language. Does anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Rahom? Thank you. First of all, there are some things that no one's been talking about tonight that I'm really excited about in this measure. The tournament right to organize. I am most excited about in this measure. It's huge. It's so important. And anyone who knows me knows that I really believe in social housing and tenant unions are a big part of that. They may not be constituted exactly like this. But the idea that tenants are in a cooperative organization and that they have agency over where they live is something that I am really committed to and excited about. Notice requirements. I have been talking about that since I joined the Council in 2016 and I am really excited to see this here. I think it's extremely important. And again, like everybody's forgetting a semi-annered things that are in here, that I'm excited about. You know, it's when there's things that are like, just like a third whale and Berkeley, that's all you hear about, and you know you hear about other stuff. I also want to just speak to some of the comments that public commenters made about bringing everyone together. There's some people in this room who know that I spent 10 ways or two weeks trying to get that kumbaya. And it's fairly disappointing that we can get there. And I don't believe there's anyone in this room who was not Open and willing to try and do that and I just want to express my my deep disappointment That this image which I think the people will work really want to see us work that way and that's how I want to see us work in this Community where it wasn't able to happen And again, I don't think anyone in this room was part of that. So I just wanted to say that yes, some of us do try to do that. I wanted to better understand Mr. Humbert Mark. You made a number of different comments and are you satisfied with where things landed on the metering? You know, I'm not sure. I don't have enough information on the the amendment, but it certainly sounds better than the original version. Yeah. Okay. And then you would also raise the question of the cap on rent increases. Yeah. Could you say a little bit more about that please? Well, you know, I think the cap's too low and I think the cap is going to prevent landlords from sort of readily keeping their buildings in decent shape. We've seen these tremendous increases in insurance lately. And if they're able to raise their rent a little bit more than 3%, 7% somewhere in that range, maybe they can be able to finance the significant increases in insurance costs. So I think 3% is really just too small. And what do you think is reasonable? Well, I think the current standard is reasonable. Seven percent? Yeah, no, I think the current standard is reasonable. But you know, something between three and seven might also, you know, function, exceptively. You know, I just don't have enough data here. There wasn't a 929210 report. And so, I mean, I'm kind of grabbing numbers out of the air. I think the 7% has worked today. There were a couple of years where it was wrong. And I have used some data about that. No, thank you. OK. I guess I don't know who could answer this question for me. Perhaps our city manager, the city attorney. Well, we can just look it up. I just curious what CPI has been the last few years. If someone could answer that for me directly, do you have that number? Can you answer that without additional information? Well, what I was going to say is that the AGA, the increases have never been more. When we had it up to 7% as the cap other than in 2023, the rent increase has never been even 3%. Not even once since the bank control started. So it sounds like the cap doesn't make a big difference. It does when inflation goes up to 12% and then it went to red and it went either 5% from 1.4%. Okay. So it's hard coded in the ordinance at 65% of CPI. So I couldn't hear that. It's hard coded in the ordinance at 65% of CPI for the local central Bay Area with a maximum of 7%. So 7% is 65% of what? So is that too? That way the 12% number came from 65% of some of So is that two? Is that where the 12% number came from? 65% of... If you remember. 6.5. Yeah. Okay. So something like that. Yeah. Um... So maybe five. Maybe five works as a, you know. So it's never gone above five. It's never gone above a 2.8%. But you said it went to 4.4. Well I know except for that one year but since 1985 it's in 1981 so on average it's never done that. Llamas have never needed that and make this case. I just asked for the numbers. I appreciate it. Yeah. I am going to make a friendly Ever class for a family amendment to the motion makers Okay, given that this has never gone above 5% I would like to raise that Sealing our floor whatever you want to call it to 5% from 3% The second it was Councillor Moonapara. I do not accept that motion. So you get, so if that's not accepted, then you can make a motion to amend the main motions to add a particular provision. That's otherwise the motion. Maybe just trying to be still friendly is doing a pass this tonight. It's a friendly amendment, but it's it's a desired amendment. I understand. I think that would it be possible to to a substitute motion and then? Rob, we could end with a draw. All right. I'm just going to. Alternatives, you make a motion to amend. To add the particular amendment that you're seeking to be included in the main motion. The fact gets by the firm to votes, and that is in the main motion. If it doesn't get by the firm to votes, then it is not. And the city attorney advised that we can't sever because it's one ballot measure. So these things are not severable. So any additions that are accepted as family men seeming motions to amend. additions that are accepted as friendly men seeming motions to amend. Mr. Mayor, what I'd like to make a motion to amend to set the cap at 5%, that's part of my motion. And the second part of the motion is to allow a notice of a three day notice to issue once one month lease rent is unpaid Second So that I'm at latter point just to clarify you're talking about The language in section 1376 one three zero which I just put up on the screen. I'm assuming Just cost reduction a one assuming. Just cause reviction A1 where it says subsection should not constate grounds where the amount of rent demand is also one month of fair market rent, etc., etc. You're proposing to amend that to be where the amount of rent demanded is one month of attendance monthly rent, etc., yes, thank you for helping me out, Mr. Okay. I'm just trying to get clarity on what we're discussing. Okay. Okay. So that I believe Mr. Clerk just clarified, two things can be in a motion to amend. We haven't done this in a long time. So I need to ask this procedural question. Yes, that's the more. Okay, so that is moved in second if I kiss or wanting. Yes, I would so. What's it clarify? The paragraph that Councillor Humbert is proposing to amend is to move away from the fair HUD fair market rent as the standard and just say one month of rent. Unpaid lease rent. Unpaid lease rent. That's what I understand. I just wanted to clarify. Uh-huh. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So the way we do this procedure, if I'm mistaken, is we disfapiate the motion to amend. And after we have discussion, then we vote on the motion to amend. So is there is there any discussion on the motion to amend before we vote? And yes, Councillor Chagher. I would like to separate those two amendments. Can we vote separately on the two portions of the motion to amend? Was it all just, when we've done this in many, many years, specifically things are friendly. Can we, there's a substitute motion? So I need a, I need some procedural guidance here. Thank you for requesting that we vote on the 5% and then the amendment to section 1, 3O with respect to the lesson one month rent. Mr. Mayor, just yes. If I could, if you do make that motion, can you make it in the form of this subsection, you shall not constitute bounds, where the amount of rent demanded is less than one month of the most recent period, I'm sorry, of the most recent lawful periodic rent. I think that makes sense. Because if you're talking about the assessment, yeah, okay, that's the one. Can you just repeat the reenphrase? Take out the words one month's rent and put in the words the most recent lawful periodic rent. Okay, that's fine because it exactly yes. Because that would cover everything that that more particularly refers to what is owned. Okay, right. It sounds good. Pete, that's around because I'm just taking note of that. Sure. The section should not consider grounds for the amount of rent demand is less than one month of It sounds good to eat that. It's a brown because I'm just taking note of that. Sure. The section should not consume grounds for the amount of rent demand is less than one month of the most recent lawful periodic rent. Okay. Yeah. And I think that makes sense because it may not be the amount of rent said forth in the lease. It may have been increased over the years. Right. And not all rents charged are go up to the rent ceiling that they actually could go up to. So that makes it more particular to what the tenant might actually owe. Yes. Okay. So I'm just going to share screen to show what that looks like based on what you just described. And confirming the seconder's give it that. Ah, yes. Okay. Yes. And okay, division of the question. Or amendments is okay. So that's we do allow severance. So we'll vote that separately on the tube sever portions, which would run be the 5% rent cap into the, we'll just be taking them in the order that they're in the motion, correct? Yeah. 5% rent cap and then the change would just describe to section 133. Okay, Councillor Humbert, you pushed your button. Councillor Tregg, did you speak already? No, that was my request. Any other discussion on the motion to amend? Yes. I would like to make a friendly amendment to change it to 4%, instead of 5%. Okay, so that is not accepted. Any other debate? Okay, now we'll go first on the first element of the Humbert Kisor-Wenning motion, which is to amend the language in section. Let me just read the right code section, forgive me. Where's, where's, I think it's, if you know where the five, three percent is. It's section 1376, 1, 1, 0, annual general judgment of ceilings, subsection A, it's changing the language and the second, was it the final two sentences to change the word 7 to 5 and the number 7 to 5. Correct. Yeah, that's that would affect you with the amendment you're proposing. Okay, on that, please call the will. Okay, on the first part of the motion to amend the 5% cap. Councilmember Kessler wanting. Yes. That's absent. Bart councilmember Bartlett. No. Okay. Let's try to pass on. Yes. When graph is absent, Lodopara. No. Humber. Yes. Mayor Errigin. Pass. Councillor Mournall. Yes. Mayor Eridane. Yes. Okay. That carries. Okay. That's. So that's in the motion. On the. It's a section one three. Um. That. I can pull up the language. That's. We just talked about. That I can pull up the language that's We just talked about I'm giving one second So it's as stated here. Let's call the well, okay on the amendment in a three-day notice Councilmember Kessar-Wani. Yes, and Councilmember Bartlett. Trigab? No. Han? Yes. Luna Parra? No. and Mayor Eridine, Obsting, that fails. But the 5% is in. Okay. For the discussion. Okay, so we're now vote on item 1b as presented in the supplemental packet. With the following changes, I'll just note for the record. And I'll share screen to walk everyone through this. Okay. We're adding the language back in in section 450 applicability with regard to the government own and government subsidized running is being subject to rent controls. This is a language that was in the original proposal. Okay. The change that we discussed previously in section 100, is the assumption of base rent ceiling, adding the language here, or three in compliance with board regulations, specifying other technologies, mechanisms of policies, that the Rampboard Deans functionally similar to separate and individual mirroring. And then this was not accepted. So I guess we go back to the original language. And I will send this to the clerk and the city attorney and then the language of the amendment to the section around 5% that was 1 1 0. Yeah. Yeah, that's pretty. Hold on, I'm just trying to find this. That's... Takes a long time to scroll. Okay, this is 135. Okay. Okay, right here. This is a section one one, oh, a. And this would implement the amendment that was just accepted. In our event, shall, how will the shall that annual adjustment be less than 0% or greater than 5%. And I'd like to incorporate in the motion direction to the city clerk and city attorney to make any non-substative clarifying changes to implement the direction we provided today before this measure submitted to the rest of our voters. There may be typos, there may be things we need to clean up. And so I want to include that in the direction that any non-substative changes that staff feels need to make that those changes can be incorporated. Okay, hearing the objection, I'll be in the motion. So that's the motion. Unless there's any further discussion, we can call the roll. Excellent. So, please. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I do appreciate that we were able to make the amendment that we made and made other changes as relates to utilities and other things. I just want to appreciate that there is clearly a lot of work that has gone into this. There are a lot of positive things about this ballot measure. But just given the limited time that I had to review this, I just wanted to make that publicly known that just just given that I will be abstaining on this. Thank you. All right, so unless there's any further discussion, we can call the question and I'll have support to call the roll. Okay. On my motion, as on the main motion as amended, Council Member Kessar-Wani. Ed Stain. Okay. Council Member Bartlett. Please restate. What's the vote? It's as my motion to put item 1 on the ballot. Oh, yes. And council member Triton. Yes. Loonapara. Yes. Number of state and mayor Arigat. Yes. Motion motion carries on about. Okay. All right. I move that we adjourned. Was there any objection? Here's an objection we adjourned. Oh, oh, Mayor. Hey, hold on a second. Did you want to designate authors? Yeah, I'll be the author. Is anyone else going to join? Winapara? Trigger. Okay. We work with Ms. Sunwiceberg and people on that. Okay, so that will be incorporated in the motion. And I move to adjourn as there's second. Second. Any objection we adjourn? Recording stopped.