Mayor, we are live. Welcome everyone to the March 17th, 2025 meeting of the passing city council. The council did meet in close session related to the two listed items and there is no reportable action. We'll start with the calling of the role. Mr. Clerk. Okay, Council Member Ruek-Cole. Present. Council Member Hampton. Less than honor to be here. Councilmember Jones here. Council Cal. Mayor Cal. Mayor Hampton. Mayor Cal. Mayor Jones. Mayor Jones. Mayor Lian. Mayor Cal. Mayor Madison. Mayor Cal. Mayor Moussouda. Mayor Davis. Mayor Davis. Mayor Davis. Mayor Davis. Mayor Davis. Mayor Smith. Mayor Smith. Mayor Smith. Mayor Smith. Mayor Smith. Mayor Smith. Mayor Smith. Pitting remotely and then I'll just call me recorder. And, that's normally the 18th. Mayor. You need to turn on your video and then you may want to give the reason why you're participating remotely and then I'll just call Mayor Cordo. Mayor Cordo. Yeah, here. Sitting right next to you. Which court? Yes, I know, sir. And Councilmember vice mayor Revis, did you want to make it the announcement? Yes, thank you. I'm participating remotely tonight under the government code section that allows for just cause, specifically for child care or the caregiving need of a child. And is there anyone, 18 years or older in the room with you? No, just a child. Okay, thank you. Mayor, we have a form of the council president. Thank you. Apologies that we're right a little bit behind with important matters in closed session that required that required our attention. Mr. Jones, will you lead us to the Pledge of of legions? Please stand in place. Put your right hand over your heart. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. to bond the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the We lost a dear friend to the city and former city employee. And so I'm asking that the council adjourn in memory of Don Noller who's a long time passing a resident former city employee and long time civitan member. Don retired from the city of Pasion in 1993, after 30 years of service. Don previously worked for the city from 1968 to 1993. 1993 was initially hired as a planning, technical and community development department. Technician where he was quickly promoted to a senior planner and then to a regular principal planner. Over the years, he was promoted to development and zoning administrator, and then in 1981, he became the director of community development, the community development department. During the 1980s, the name of this department changed repeatedly to date stone as the planning and development department and Don served as its director until 1993 when he retired. Then as director of planning building a neighborhood services. Don was instrumental in the first major revamping of the city's general plan was very active in the Civitan Club and over the last eight years would join us annually during the ceremonial portion of our city council meeting to inform us about Civitan's important work and national disability employment awareness month. He leaves behind his loving wife Judy to whom we extend our condolences at this this difficult time. And... Nope. behind his loving wife, Judy, to whom we extend our condolences at this difficult time. And no, sounds familiar. I've, you know, many of us knew Don personally, and I, you know, I can tell you that he's very committed, not just to Pasadena but to people. And we'll miss him dearly. I saw him and would see him regularly and very sad to learn as we are of his passing. But grateful for his contributions to our city. Mr. Cole. Let me add a second to your comments about not only his contributions to the city, but the kind of human being he was. He was passionately committed to the people of this city, to good planning principles, and often courageous in his defense of good planning when it wasn't always popular. And his commitment to the city long after his retirement is an example of just how committed he was to our city. I view him as a mentor and a teacher of what good planning means and what good planning meant for Pasadena. And I am really sincerely grieving to know that we've lost one of Pasadena's most significant contributors. A lot of what we take for granted is we look around the city as a result of previous generations of planners and Don Nolver was a giant among them. Well said Mr. Col, thank you. Okay, and so we will adjourn in memory of Don Nolver. With that, we'll move on to a special presentation. We have our assessor here. This seems like deja vu. I joke that he just can't get enough of the city of Pasadena and he's back. We're grateful for your participation in this evening's meeting and their previous one as well. Thank you very much Mr. Mayor. It's great to be with you again and Council members, thank you. I was once upon a time, briefly a resident of Pasadena many years ago, but I'm here today to bring you a little bit of an update about the programs that my office manages as they relate to the recent fires. I guess they should also start with Aaron Gobra. So open for a glass of green beer, but it is safe. There's a lot of things. But the main reason I'm here today is to share my office's programs dealing with the recent fires. The primary one that I wanted to start off with is a program called Misfortune and Calamity. It's a tax relief program and I wanted to address some confusion with some of the rebuilding standards that have been circulated recently. First and foremost, the Misfortune and Calamity Tax relief program allows proper owners to maintain their tax base and have the accompanying tax bills lowered until they rebuild their homes. If your home is destroyed, the land is worth 50% of the value. We will zero out the value on the improvements. You'll get a lower tax bill until you begin to reapply your home. We urge everybody to apply for the misfortune and calamity. It's an easy form that you can submit from your smartphone. You're not required to fill it out. We will reassess your property whether you do it or not. But this form is really important for us to know where you are and how to get in touch with you. And in order to notify the treasure tax collector, not to notify the tax collector to ferry your property taxes. In order to qualify this for sure in the calamity, there's two primary qualifications. The first one is the damage that needs to exceed $10,000 and that could include smoke damage. Secondly, the claim needs to be filed within 12 months of the incident date, that's the date of the fire. Although I am currently sponsoring legislation that will extend that application period from 12 months to 24 months. Once you file the misfortune in calamity form, we send that automatically over to the treasure tax collector. They're the ones that collect taxes, not me. And they will defer your property taxes until a recalculate tax bill is issued to reflect the destruction or damage to your property. Tax deferrals only apply to those people who pay their property taxes directly to the tax collector. If you pay your taxes through an impound account, you'll need to contact your mortgage company to deal with that. Otherwise, any taxes that are paid that are not reflective of the damage will result in a refund from the tax collector later on. If you have not paid your second installment and your property taxes, the tax collector urges you not to pay that second installment because you will be getting a recalculated property tax bill to reflect that the damage or destruction. Additionally, the governor has given all people within the identified zip codes until April of 2026 to pay property taxes. The other program that we manage is something called a decline in value. If your properties were not physically damaged, but the market value has dropped significantly due to the disaster, the decline in value program is one that will apply. This program allows us to lower a property's tax base if the economic value falls beneath its assessed value. So essentially, a simple way of thinking about it, if the current market value of your property is less than what you paid for it, you would be entitled to a decline in value. This will also be applied to those properties where the buildings were destroyed and only land as remaining will be a reducing land value as well. Current law does present some challenges. The way that we do our assessment several years, we determine the value of property annually on the lean date, which is January 1st. The challenge is the fires started on the 7th. And so under the normal statutory requirements, we would not reassess property that lost value until next year. This is another area where I'm seeking legislation to allow all those properties damaged to the fires to be calculated for a decline value as of January 1st, the lean date. When I came here last week or the week before I wanted to talk about some of the confusion over building standards and some of the numbers that the assessor's office uses as opposed to local government. I want to reiterate that the issue of cities, the county, coastal commission are allowing property owners to have an expedited permit process if they build up to 110% of what was previously on the property. There is a standard for assessment that says if you in the event of a major disaster, you can build up to 120% of value of the home within five years. This 120% of value is not size. It is to reflect the changes in cost and inflation during the period of time which will take you to rebuild your home. We do not recommend that this 120% value component be used. We will of course apply whichever program most benefits the property owner, but the standard misfortune and calamity provision is pretty simple. It allows you to rebuild your property to a substantial equivalent of the size and use without reassessment and your previous property tax assessment prior to the damage will be restored once you rebuild your property. Substantial equivalence means similar in size. The 110 percent that's being allowed by cities that 110% under the current interpretation does not equal substantial equivalence. So if you build a little bit bigger than what was there before, it is possible that you could end up getting assessed for that additional square footage. Although this is another one of those areas where I think we're gonna have a tremendous amount of confusion. I am speaking with the member of the legislature to see if it's possible that they can temporarily allow me to consider that 110% as substantial equivalents for purposes of rebuilding. But until legislation is adopted, I don't have that discretion. A couple of things I wanted to add. One of the the after-rather-the-fires with a lot of properties are owned by people who may have inherited the properties from their parents or their grandparents. The property may have been in the family for many generations and we're finding some of these residents never took the time to come to the county and change the name on the deed. This is very problematic. If your name is not on the deed, you don't own the property. Even if you've lived there for 20 years, you may be the functional caretaker of it, but you don't have authority to take advantage of property tax relief programs or ethos with that property until the deed is updated. Once we notify that there's a different bill and ship records don't match, we will notify the occupant that they have six months to fix the deed. And then we can apply the property tax benefits retroactively. If they fail to do it within that six month window, they could be subject up to eight years in tax, in property taxes, at a higher tax level than their parents were paying. Although we are working on other legislation with Senator Sasha Perez that will extend that six month period to correct any deficiencies to a three year period. The final things I wanted to mention were a couple services that we provide that I think would be very important to property owners during this time. One of them is our home and alert and I think I mentioned that last time I was here, the home and alert will allow anybody who owns property to register their email address with their property. And if anything is recorded on your deed, such as a grant deed or a deed of trust, you'll receive an email confirmation within 48 hours. The reason this is important is because there's a lot of scams. People may attempt to engage in title fraud. Under the normal procedure, if anytime something's recorded and are deed, you'd get a letter from the registrar recorder, usually within 30 to 45 days after that event. In the event of a fraud that may be too late, this email notification will notify you with 48 hours that something has been recorded. And if it's not something that you had directed to be done, it'll give you instructions as how to report that to authorities. The other program is called the SESRS E-Service account. It allows you to set up your own profile with your property online. This will allow you to file for things such as the change of address. This is really important right now if you're not in your property. The address we have in file might be your actual property that's been damaged or destroyed. That's where your tax bill will go. Without an updated mailing address, we don't know how to get in touch with you. By registering your account with our Assessor's eService account, you can update your mailing address, you can file for the homeless exemption, and take care of a lot of other programs that used to be done in person or through the mail. We are available by phone on the internet through our website and at the disaster centers and at multiple community events that have been taking place to answer questions. I did bring with me to my senior staff, Director of Assessor Operations, Jerry House, and Chief of Prezor Frank Diaz to answer any questions that you may have. And I also did want to report that we are having a community seminar on Saturday at 9 o'clock in the city of Dwartheid, dealing with Fire relief. We'll have a number of partner agencies there to answer questions and to encourage any one who has questions to come and join us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you again for your work. Mr. Hampton. Thank you, Assistant Prem, for the presentation. And also for your support. And one of the most times the need for our community, how accessible your office has been has been tremendous and I just wanted to thank you for that. I did have a question that a resident asked me was a think Saturday, might have been Saturday. And they wanted to know is there a calculator to give someone an idea of what their estimated taxes would be? So that would probably be a function. I don't know if there is one. That would be a function of the Treasury or tax collectors office. I'm not technically the tax guy. But the property, if you rebuild your property to essentially what was there before, your taxes aren't going to change, they will be the same. I think the question is, the reason why'm asking this question is their home didn't burn down, but they were planning on putting an ADU in, and they wanted to understand, and I think it's important that every resident understands what their taxes could be potentially if they do any construction at their home. So the way we approach new construction is we apply a methodology called the cost methodology. So if you build an ADU, let's say it costs you a quarter million dollars, property taxes are 1% or actually 1.25% in LA County. So if you spend, if the cost of building that ADU is a quarter million dollars, your taxes will be 1.25% of that. Okay. And if you let's say you have a 22,000 square foot house and you decide you want to build bigger and you build a 2,500 square foot house, we will add the cost of that additional 500 square feet to your underlying assessment and you'll get a new blended tax rate. Okay. And just as a putter clarification, when we talk about cost, it's not necessarily what you pay. We will use regional standards for materials and quality to establish what the market value cost of that improvement is and that will be added to your underlying assessment. That's what I was trying to understand. So let's say for example I went to Home Depot and I DIYed my whole entire ADU. Right. I just converted my garage just standing and anyone could do that, right? Yes. With the proper permits and permits. So I give you my receipts to say, oh, this costs me $20,000 versus it would cost someone else. Maybe two to $300,000 a dude if they had a contractor. And then you based it on. Let me ask the guy who does this every day. Okay. Let me share it, Jerry Haust. So we deal under their tax law. I'm going to have to go to the library. I'm going to have to go to the library. I'm going to have to go to the library. I'm going to have to go to the library. I'm going to have to go to the library. I'm going to have to go to the library. I'm going to have to go to the library. to the property. Somebody walking through the door that might be a potential buyer might not put some value on that, but it cost them something there. So we don't necessarily go by cost. We would analyze what value it added to the property. So that's what would go on. Mr. Prang is 100% right. Under the misfortune and calamity, the portion that they build, the original property taxes will stay the same. But if they build an additional ADU, then it would be, the taxes they could know would be one in a court roughly. That's an estimate. That 1% plus the voter indebtedness then every area is a little bit different. But general rule if you want to ballpark it's about 1% and a quarter percent of the value it added. Okay, but it be our so it's very unique situation, especially in the area of, and I'm only I'm speaking on Al-Tadina at this point, which is not Pasadena too difficult. But in Al-Tedina, there's no homes in areas. How do you have, where's your comp? Well, because you can't comp. Right, I mean, you have that, like, at each other. Well, are you talking about that? The original house, or not the original. I mean, the regional house, if they rebuild that, then their original base value will be restored. So that, where we're getting into the misfortune and calamity relief, there's two forms of relief. And this is what we go around telling the community. It's not just the 120% you hear people talking about. That's only a provision that kicks in when there's a governor declared disaster. So that's only in fact, every a couple years of something like that happens. But there's another provision that is in effect at all times for anybody and it doesn't require that. And that's a different that's a and they both have it they both say essentially as long as you build something that's similar to what you had your original base value will be restored you will get no additional taxes. But they have different well is it how do you determine what is similar? It's comparability for each one has a different test. The 120 is based on value. It says what, as long as what you built or acquired or built is within 120% of the value of the original property the day before, we'll consider that similar enough to pass regardless if there's changes in square footage or not. They don't care under that provision of law. The other one is the simpler one. It just says, if you just build something similar, it doesn't matter how long it takes, we're going to restore your tree and advance value. That's the other standard. And how we're dealing with that misfortune calamity is a little bit different than your other part of your question was what if you add something else? If you're adding something else, that's going to be dealt with differently. And we will use a cost methodology to determine the market value, a gerry emphasized value, but the standard under Proposition 13 is we measure market value of the property. And market value, if you could explain the measure of property. Is it market value? Somebody would pay for it today. So you have no homes around you. What is your home worth? Well, like in market. Well, again, if your home was destroyed, because there's no homes around you, when you rebuild it, we're going to restore your old property. We're not going to look at the value of the home. We're going to restore the old value. When you build your new home, it'll be as though you're buying it all over again 20 years ago or whatever you purchase the property. That old base value will be destroyed. the addition, anything on top of that, if you build an ADU, that ADU will now be assessed at market value. There's no benefit for what's qualifies as new construction, which is what was not there previously. As far as the ADU portion, how is it going to be restored? Yeah, the stipends the mic, sorry. But the new construction, which is an assessor's that ADU, we would look at it one not only what was the cost of it. Sometimes the cost is the value, not always. So we'll look at that, but if we don't have, sometimes we have sales of those, those could sell. But most likely those are built for income purposes. We could also look at that as rent. What income would it generate? What are returns? So we have multiple methodologies to determine its value. OK. If there is a way to, in any way, to have some sort of base calculator that you guys, I don't know how that would work, because it seems very triplet. The trick is, we don't know what its value is now. So we went to apply the one and a quarter percent to until we know what its value is. And I can't tell you that until I see what's built and how long it took you to do it. So someone actually comes up and says, there's office? Because I've never had one. Oh yeah, we send people out. We generally, we send people, whenever there's new construction, we put boots on the ground and they'll measure and see what's there. And sometimes now, in the digital age, we'll use pictometry and phone calls and digital images. But one way or another, we know what's been built. And if we don't, we can work the phones. Okay, no, look, I'm not I'm not inviting you all over to the house. But I'm just I'm just saying I've never seen it right for the session. It's obviously already construction I've done at my home. But just to say I'm not not you're welcome to come by but not for any assessments. You've been twice before you invited us. Thank you. Thank you twice before you invite us. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Again, Mr. Prink, thank you for your work and not just in the past, but across the county. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. It's great to see you again. Thanks. And your staff. Okay, let's move on to public comment for matters not on the agenda. We have six speaker cards, two minutes for each person. Olden denim, fall by Alan Shea, fall by Yadi, fall by Christina Nichols, Dylan Bannon, or Bannon, and then Michael Flynn. Olden? If you hear your name, please work your way to the front of the room. I'm going to try and cover some areas that I already covered. Can you speak into the right, sir? My real reason for being here is that I'm still insisting and waiting for us to agenda as the proposition AB 392 because I've read it and I know it hasn't been applied't been applied here properly. I tried to meet with Michelle our city attorney for some reason she doesn't want to meet with me. Actually your voice mail is full. We've been trying to call you back for. Okay well hopefully we'll meet sometime real soon here and I'm willing to go with this with anybody. The situation it's really ugly because from the very beginning, it all started from a lie. And I can show you these lies and I can even get one of the participants to participate in that participated in the lie, even cop to it. He read the statement that was dubbed over the footage. And he didn't read, he didn't look at the footage, he just read it over. Now, this man can't even look me in the face because he's ashamed of what he said. But his statements over that footage is what convinced everyone that there was some wrong done by this young man who only ran, he just only ran in his only wrong thing doing. And I'm just insisting that we agenda this. I can show any, and any one of you, the footage and the law, and they fit each other. That's all I want you to do is do the right thing. And I'm not gonna use any more of your time because I know it's fresh, and I'm not gonna frustrate myself either. But please agenda that, and I'm looking forward to speaking with you. Thank you, Mr. President. Alan Shafel-Bajadi, Fault by Christina Nichols. If your name was called out, please come to the front row. Good afternoon or evening or night since we've gone our time change, Mayor Gordo and council members. I'm back and living colors to continue to convey to this panel, this board, this city council, how important it is to listen to the voice of the community. And the voice of the community has asked that we have agendas, the items of underground wiring. I did ask for that. I haven't heard any specifics back as to whether that's going to be a Gentise or a date. I'd ask for an agenda eyes of the police commission oversight committee and where we stand on having powers for that committee to have some enforceability and as to the 710 and exactly how we're going to go about creating fairness in that portion. That needs to be brought before this panel so that we can get people in here and not at the committee levels or commission levels that are not giving us any kind of results other than advisory and they don't have the power you do. Thank you. Thank you. Yadi followed by Christina Nichols followed by Dylan Bannon. Yadi welcome. Hi two things one I want to ask that you guys agenda is talking about the Eton Fire after action or a discussion about what happened. I think that the public deserves answers as to the response to the fire and that we get to the bottom of what we can do better. I think that the public needs answers. And the other thing is recently I heard a very disturbing comment from a council member which was asking to eliminate the option to do hybrid or remote participation from the public. And that is very concerning and I hope that's not taken seriously because the reason that we have remote participation as well. We had a pandemic and you guys benefited from its use during the emergency fire that happened and it's really important for people that have disabilities, child care responsibilities or other needs and like jobs to be able to participate remotely and I mean that is your job your job is to hear from the public and not just those that are really really really interested and make the effort to come to City Hall and have to pay for parking and throw away every other responsibility that they have those are are not the only constituents that you should be hearing from. And you've paid almost $300,000 to upgrade your teleconferencing system. And you guys are actually paid to be up there and listen to the public. We don't get paid to be concerned citizens. And so I hope that this is not something that you guys discuss seriously about eliminating public's ability to participate remotely. Thank you. Thank you. Christina Nichols, followed by Dylan Bannon, followed by Michael Flynn. Stickles, welcome. Hi. I'm here this afternoon this evening. I have been living in Pasadena for over 20 years, and I've raised three kids here. I love this town. My kids are grown, they've moved on. I now have a dog, and I live in the South Madison area. And we've been experiencing coyotes at a increasing amount over the last year, two years. And I understand that this is their native land and we all have to get along. And that's all been something that the residents we tolerate. And I know a lot of single women with dogs we walk along. This past Saturday, I rounded the corner from California to Madison. And I encountered a coyote that was hiding in the parkway, crouched and ready to attack, ready to spring. And he jumped up and it was everything we could do to scream and keep him away from the dog. So they are becoming more and more aggressive and it's frightening. And if it were after hours, if it were late, if I hadn't seen him, and I wouldn't have been able to thwart it. Two residents that lived in the building above where this happened, both opened their windows and said that this has been going on repeatedly. So it's not a minor incident happening once in a while. It's becoming increasingly alarming. So I'm asking for it to be on the agenda and be discussed. Thank you Thank you Dylan Bannon followed by Michael Flynn I sure bad welcome Yeah, okay, thank you all for your time. I prepared three minutes of remarks, but all condense of in the two so I may be staring at my notes My name is Dylan Bannon. I'm a Caltech alum. I'm a former PCC adjunct professor and currently a pastina resident I've lived and worked in pastina for over a decade and I consider myself quite fortunate for that actually The city of pastina has a reputation for good governance combining the best of prudence and innovation to rare combination and passing it does it well. And I think City Council and Mayor you guys sort of praise for this. So what I want to bring to your attention tonight is an opportunity to not only guard this reputation for prudence and innovation, but to actually greatly enhance it potentially. Since October 7th, 2023, much of the United States and much of the world has been rudely awakened to a situation that has been festering halfway across the world in an area known as Palestine and Israel for the better part of a century now. Perhaps most uncomfortably for Americans, along with this awakening has come an nascent awareness of the United States' critical role in perpetuating this conflict, including the role that many municipalities unwittingly play in perpetuating it through their investment and purchasing decisions. Pasadena, through its Pasadena police fire – sorry, Pasadena fire and police retirement system, is unfortunately invested in many companies that are known to profit from the explicitly racist military violence against the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli government. I'll only focus on three companies today, Boeing, Chevron and Caterpillar. I asked the City Council and Mayor Adon Agenda item for future City Council meeting to discuss divesting from these companies. a wonderful way to buttress the city's reputation at little to potentially no monetary cost. I'm confident that you all give this issue the consideration it deserves. And I would love to speak with anyone in the audience behind a microphone, anybody, who'd like to know more about this. Thank you so much. Michael Flynn. Thank you, sir. Mr. Flynn, welcome. Hi, thank you. I'm a PhD student at Caltech and I'm also asking for the divestment push to be agendized. In October 1988, the Pasadena Board of Directors convened a special meeting to force an unwilling police and fire department pension board to divest from companies doing business with South Africa. Because the criteria were so broad, this move required selling and replacing 23 percent of the pension fund's holdings. Despite the financial impact, Pasadena was committed to taking an ethical stand against apartheid. But apartheid is still with us today in Israel. Major human rights groups such as human rights watch, amnesty international, and Israel's own Betseller have declared Israel to be in apartheid state. In the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank over which Israel has de facto sovereignty. Palestinians are fenced in, their communities divided with walls and roads. They are forced through checkpoints, attacked by illegal settler mobs, shielded by the IDF. They are detained without charges and killed with impunity. Since October 7th, Israel has relentlessly bombed the densely populated Gaza Strip. In doing so, Israel's leaders have used dehumanizing rhetoric, Defense Minister Yoav Galaunt described Gaza as human animals while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu evoked the biblical figure of Amaleq, a people whom God commanded to be utterly destroyed. Last year, Pasadena City Council made the honorable decision to call for bilateral de-escalation and a ceasefire. I respectfully request Pasadena to stay true to its ethical tradition and make reasonable steps towards divesting from companies that have contributed the most to the sufferings in Gaza, including Boeing and Caterpillar. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That completes public comment on this agenda. OK. Mr. Ampton, are you in the queue? Yes, I am. I would just like to ask when you believe that AB 392 will be a agenda. I said a public safety meeting. That's been asked. Oh, yeah. We a schedule for the schedule for April. Okay, perfect. And then when will we get the Eden debrief? I think the chief talked about having a debrief as well as with the police department. I know it's going to come to public safety. I assume that's going to come. The debrief of like, what do we do? Yeah. I do think there's an opportunity to, you know, there's some things that we would do differently. There's some things that we did very well in some things to be learned from and maybe we wouldn't do. I think on balance the city did a phenomenal job and but I do think there's an opportunity to learn from it of our response so we can bring that to public safety. Perfect and the last one is coyotes. I know we had a long discussion about coyotes last year, and it's been about a year. The difference between last year and this year is we don't have as many neighbors in Al-Tedin anymore. And a lot of the coyotes seem, I mean, I've seen more coyotes this year than I had the year before. And a lot of coyotes that may have been living closer to the hillside because there's nothing for them to eat there, have moved down further into Pasadena packs. When I say, I've seen more coyotes than I have. And I live in the royal. And so the fact that I didn't see coyotes as regularly as I thought I should, living so close to the nature preserved there, I'm seeing way more than ever. And so if there's anything that we can do differently, that's humane, of course. I don't want to go out of electrocute them or anything like that. But or trapping them. But if there's anything that we can do, I think it's time to have that discussion again. And then as far as, there was one comment that was mentioned about remote meetings, I wanna be very clear, it was not Tyrone Hampton, who was talking about not have a remote public comment. So, thank you. You can just really briefly. The public health department in conjunction with our wildlife officers at Pasadena Humane are currently conducting a study of coyote behavior around the city including in your neighborhood. So before you leave, let me give you a card and we can talk about what we're looking at them and we're talking about in terms of both the coyote behavior and probably the more important piece is the human behavior and kind of how we can make sure that people are not encouraging their presence. So we should have the results of that study soonish. Thank you Okay That brings us to the consent calendar and if I just may I had Quick question items three and Believe 12 We also have a believer. Yeah. I know. I've been converted. I believe tonight. No. So you're sure now, okay? They exist. Okay. Mayor, we also have a speaker card for item number eight. And I do want to announce that when the council takes action on items number 11 and number 15a, that is a joint action of the city council acting as the passing public financing authority. So it's a joint action of the council and the financing authority when that action is taken if it takes. Thank you. Okay. So we'll hold items 3 and 12 and 8 and Mr. Cole. And 10 just for a comment. Okay. And is there a sweet motion on the remainder of the consent calendar? But if you pull, sorry. I mean. I mean, we can't. I mean, we can't. 8 and 12. 3, 8, 10 and 12. No, but if 10 is only a comment, then maybe. Yeah, I mean, yeah, you want to, do you like to make your comment musical? Sure. Today at the Finance Committee on Item Number 10, we recommended approval of this influx of funds from various sources to work on our homelessness challenge, but we also added to that in the motion that their report come back to the council about performance measures about what this money is actually having an impact on. And so I just wanted to make that clarification on the record. Yeah, I was a very robust discussion. And we received the dollars but agreed that we ought to be looking programmatically at outcomes in the use of those dollars. With that, with the exception of eight in 12, three eight in 12, is there a sweet motion? Second. Second. Second, by Mr. Masuda. Are there any objections? Roll call. Oh, that's right. We need roll call. Thank you. So all consent except for three, eight and 12. Council member Cole. Yes. Council member Hampton. Yes. Council member Jones. Yes. Council member Lyon. Yes. Council member Madison. Yes. Council member Masuda. Yes. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. Mayor Gordo. Yes. That motion is adopted unanimously. OK. So we'll start with item three. Thanks, Mayor. And to David Reis, we had a community meeting. I think this like a year or two ago, where we informed the public that the Raymond Underground project was going to start in July 2025. And I see in the staff report, once if this action is, if we do reject this bid, it's saying that it's going to delay the project by eight months. So would that put us into 2026? Or? Yeah, so thank you, Council Member Jones. A couple of things I think you of all folks and the community know how important it is for beautification and infrastructure in that area. I think the project goes from Maple all the way to just South, the city boundaries in South Montana. And so as a result of the action tonight that we're asking for, we think the project would be delayed about three months. And so from July, three months. I'm gonna ask, I'm gonna step out of the room just out of an abundance of caution because I just realized I own property. Yeah, so I should probably step out for the fur of this matter. Yeah, out of an abundance of caution. That one property near it. Miss Revis? No. There she is. We call and you appear. Busted. Councillor Mimbra, as you're aware, in addition to the undergrounding, the project includes both street paving, street lighting, sidewalk and street trees. And so it's a major, major upgrade. We do believe that this is a three month delay just for the procurement process. We don't have the timeline of exactly when we start now, but we think it'd be three months from the July date that we had talked about. But it would be likely well before 2026. Okay. So that puts us in November. How does the moratorium affect that? So the citywide moratorium starts in December, December 16th. Okay, and so the goal would be to make sure that we beat that, and then it goes through mid-January. Oh, my understanding was the moratorium for 2024. It started on Raymond, but it started south of Villa. So if the project starts on Maple and Raymond, wouldn't between Maple and Villa be impacted for the moratorium that would start in November? Thank you. So there are two moratoriums. And the mapping that we've done shows that this would be subject to the citywide, which is December 16th, January 5th, not to mid-January. And that's the maps that we have. We can double check that. I was referring to last year's memorial. We'll certainly double check that. But again, the goal would be that we would start well before that December 16th date. Okay. And we'll keep you as well as the community apprised of the start time. And obviously we'll have to be back in front of the city council for approval of a contract. And maybe that's when we'll bring the update. Okay. And I bring it up because you know residents reach out all the time asking when this project's going to start and then also the other projects that are included with district repaving, street lights, the trees and sidewalks. Because I know we just allocated some funding, CDBG grant funding, I believe, to sidewalks on that strip of Raymond. I may be mistaken, but just wanted to make sure that they realize these benefits and these projects are happening and we communicate with our residents. Yes, sir. They are and we're coordinating with public works as well to ensure that there's there's timely response on all three of those those projects. Thank you, David appreciate Any further questions Not there most motion approval second Roll call Council member Cole to prove the staff recommendation. Yes, councilor Hampton. Yes. Council Mayor Jones. Yes. Council Mayor Lion. Yes. Council Mayor Madison. Yes. Council Mayor Misuda. Yes. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. Mayor Gordo is absent due to recusal the motion passes unanimously. Do you want to go to item 12 or do you want to do 8th and get public comment? Item 12. Yeah, let's go to item 12. Okay, item 12, this is the grant. Yeah, so I guess two, one comment and then one question. The first question is, I don't know the Flithill Unity, it serves, you know, Alton Deanna, Arcadia, Azusa. How do we ensure that this money would be applied to Pasadena residents or residents, or folks who have a connection to Pasadena, right? Because we, you know, a lot of folks live outside of the city, but they back and they hang out and they congregate that this grant money could be applied to them to help them. Yeah, thanks for your question. Dave Clue, economic development director. I have Paul Inge here with me. He has a short presentation. He could probably address that in terms of outreach for the past inter-residents. He likes to see the presentation. Or you just answer the question? I'm gonna answer the question. Sure, yeah. Good morning, Mr. Mayor and City Council members. We're really excited about this opportunity to help our justice impact individuals return to employment and get a good living wage job, which is the goal of this initiative. To answer your question directly, Council member, Foothill Unity Center, they are acting as the admin entity for this grant funds, the majority of the grant funds will be coming to ourselves, 455,000 of the 675. It will be coming to foot hill, which services the pass and the area. If you look at our total clients served in FY24, about 70% of that was from the passadena area. So we expect the majority of these individuals that we would enroll in this program would be from Pasadena. We are sub awarding $2,000 to the Flint Ridge Center, as they are an organization based in Pasadena that serves Pasadena residents that specialize in programs on a rentary. So we feel confident that they'll be using those funds for the residents here as well. Thank you, thank you for your work on this two day. And then to the city manager, is there any way we could either have like quarterly updates, present it to either in your newsletter or public safety, just to ensure that these funds are being used towards helping justice involved individuals. Yes, we can do that. All right, thank you. Okay. Is that, are you moving the item? I'll move the item. Second. Thank you. Motion in a second, roll call. Council member Cole? Yes. Council member Hampton? Yes. Council member Cole. Yes. Council member Hampton. Yes. Council member Jones. Yes. Council member Lion. Yes. Council member Madison. Yes. Council member Moussouda. Yes. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. Mayor Gordo. Yes. The motion is approved without opposition. Now item eight. We have a public comment speaker. Nina Chomsky. Yes. It's Chomsky Wolfen. Yes. Can you hear me? We can. Go ahead, Nina. Okay, thank you. Well, we have to do this project. So I'm not talking about opposition. I has broad public support. But I have several clarifying comments. I've been trying to determine, and I think so far, we have all the federal money that we have, we expect so far, but my first clarifying question is, whether we will have all the federal grant money, bridge money in hand before we do anything like start construction, because I'm worried about that, we can't be caught off guard with that. So status of federal funding. The other question is that there have been a number of changes since Mr. Madison's Town Hall, which I think was the broadest public process that I was aware of. People around the bridge have been notified, but there hasn't really been a broad public participation of different neighborhoods that are going to be impacted by this, but we were told that the bridge will have to be closed. And now that there have been design changes, when will it be closed and how long will it be closed? And how does this relate to major Roseville events and the need of residents to use this? This is a major transportation, small but important corridor. Third, the design at Mr. Madison's Town Hall, it was said that we should all realize that this bridge, because of its historic status and where it is and how beautiful it is, will be essentially the same bridge when all this is said and done. It was hard to follow all the changes in the mitigated negative declaration, but is that still the opinion of staff and still the message from the mitigated negative declaration? And last, I do think we need another major public participation process like a maybe a town hall or something or a public meeting to be sure that everybody knows what's gonna be done, when it's gonna happen, how it will impact all the neighborhood hoods around and adjacent to the bridge. And I hope that staff will do that soon. So if anyone could clarify some of these issues, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Nina. That completes public comment on this item. He was Trump's. Somebody who held this item. No, no, it was just public comment. Okay. So is there a motion to move approval? Could we have staff respond to Ms. Chomsky's questions? Let's move it in. Is there a second? Yeah. Was there a motion? Yeah. Oh, second. Okay. So Craig DeVeeck, Director of Public Works and his team is here to answer any questions. Mr. DeVic? Good evening. This is Greg DeVic, the Public Works Director for Pasadena. I would like to address the comments, almost in reverse order, as far as the aesthetics of the bridge. This project is really only wrapping the columns to strengthen them to resist seismic loading. There really won't be a substantial change at all to the aesthetics of the project. For public notification, we are still quite far away from actually having a contract. We are requesting this negative declaration tonight so that we can have, we can pursue permits with the Allie County flood control district which does take six to eight months to get. And then when those are in place, we'll be ready to hit construction in a timely manner when we go out to bid with the final design and all the approvals. It would be problematic to wait on this item, go out to bid and then seek permission from LA County Flood Control District to do the work. The bids would expire, costs would go up, it's just not the right way to do it. Regarding having all the funding in place, I'll turn that over to Brent Maui, the acting city engineer for the city. Having the funding in place with regards to that, we anticipate to have the funding fully in place with CalTrans. It is a 100% funded, so no local match project. We actually, I believe, in the process of executing the funding agreements with Cal trends as we speak. This has been a project in the work since roughly 2016 design phase should be concluded later this year and we look forward to starting the construction process bidding what not in early 2026 Call the question. Okay. Thank you Thank you Roll call to approve the staff recommendation council member Cole. Yes, councilmember Hampton. Yes, councilmember Jones down. Sorry, customer lion. Yes. Council Member Hampton. Yes. Council Member Jones. Step down. Sorry, Council Member Lion. Yes. Council Member Madison. Yes. Council Member Moussouda. Yes. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. Mayor Gordo. Yes. Motion is unanimously approved. Thank you. That brings us to item 16. And this is a request to submit a letter to our congressional leadership supporting Governor Newsom's request for 39 Billions in federal funding to aid the recovery efforts related to the and seek to meet and seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to seek to aid the recovery efforts related to the Eaton and Palsic fires and authorized me to sign the letter on behalf of the city of Pasadena. The county and I believe the city of Los Angeles were asked to make similar actions, excuse me. The timeline, I think we were notified the week before, but we didn't have a council meeting so we couldn't bring it forward and we were asked to bring it forward today so that the governor can have the support of the cities that are impacted and so I'm suggesting and asking that we at the request of the governor initiate such a letter. And send. I'd be pleased to make the motion Mayor. We and you have an excellent relationship with the governor. And obviously this is extremely important. I was personally buoyed by the presidents calling out the need that our region has for funding as part of the budget discussions. Of course, trust, verify. I'm going to jump to that particular administration. But absolutely, this is something we should do. so thank you for bringing it to our attention. Second in motion. Mr. Hampton, second. Moved and seconded. And I'll ask. Did you want to include direction for preparation? Yeah, no, that's okay. All right. And so we'll all send around a copy of the language. Okay, moved and seconded, seeing, are there any, oh no, roll call. Thank you. Yeah, just in the staff. I don't know. No. So this is to approve this mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the council council member Cole Councilor Hampton Councilor Jones yes council member lion yes councilor Madison yes councilor Maseuda yes vice mayor Revis Yeah mayor Gordo. Yes motion is unanimously approved We have you want to do item 18? Yeah, let's go to item 18. Mr. Clerk. This is an interim un-codified ordinance of the City of Pasadena Mending various sections of Title 17 zoning code of the city of Pasadena, municipal code, to suspend and modify development standards and procedures and to extend certain land use related deadlines for entitlements and permits under Title 17 zoning code, Title 16 subdivisions and Title 14 buildings and construction of the municipal code to simplify the rebuild process after the Eden fire. All over it. offered by Councilmember Ham. Questions, comments? Seeing none, roll call. To conduct first reading, Council Member Cole. Yes. Council Member Hampton. Yes. Council Member Jones. Yes. Council Member Lion. Yes. Council Member Madison. Yes. Council Member Moussouda. Yes. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. Mayor Gordo. Yes. That ordinance was successfully first read was conducted. Okay. The next items involve the recommendation from the rental housing board and matters that affect rental property. because I own rental property I'm going to to keep to, within the city of Pasina, I'm going to keep to my practice of recusing myself at an abundance of caution on these matters. These are items 17 and 19. Thank you. Mr. Rebus. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'll give you a moment to leave the room. Have a good night. Oh, sorry about that. I was. Seven. There are nine cards let uh remaining um three are just on item 17 and one is just an item 19 the remainder are for 17 and 19. Vice mayor yes go ahead uh I'll see if we could do the ordinance first. I did have a hard stop at 730. Yes, there's an objection with the ordinance, which we've already discussed it. So hopefully we can move through it quickly. There are two, three, four, five, six cards on item 19. So. questions or does anyone have any objections to starting with public cards? Okay. Sorry, let's go. So there are seven cards on item 19. Two minutes, one and a half, one and a half. One and a half minutes, Vice Mayor, for the speaking on the item. Or do you want to do two minutes? Two, let's give everyone two. Okay. Encourage folks to keep it as efficient as possible for any other points. Sure. Sean Wilkassa, followed by Austin, followed by Jose Ramos, followed by Alejandro Candido, the Nespiranza Mello, the Nesus Rojas. Yeah. Hi everyone, my name is Sean Mucasa. I'm a resident of Altadena and I spent the past two months of volunteering with a distribution of food and clothes and water at the Pasadena Job Center, which is on Lake Envia. I'm fully supportive of item 19, affirmative defense against eviction for fire affected tenants. Because I've seen firsthand in my volunteer experience, volunteer experience, how dependent the community is on free water, food, and clothes. In my two months volunteering with the Job Center, over 12,000 volunteers helped distribute the donations of food, clothes, and water to 46,000 families. I saw countless donation beneficiaries come on foot on public transit to the Job Center's distribution and decide how much water, produce, or diapers they could physically carry on the trek back home on foot or on the bus. These beneficiaries, many of them renters, need protections from evictions while they recover from the fire and begin the long process of rebuilding their lives. As a Viction due to non-payment of rent is one of the most common ways people become unhoused. I urge City Council to vote yes on the ordinance item 19 to prevent further houselessness in the aftermath of the unifiers. Thank you. Thank you. Austin. Good afternoon. Good evening. Before I begin my comment, quick clarification on the kind of housekeeping. Other folks are monolingual Spanish speakers and are going to require interpretation. We have a language interpreter who's right in the front. Well, and will that be accounted for with the like two minutes or more of the weeks? Yes. Okay. Cool. My name is Austin Con. I had been living in Altadena at the top of Lake Alpine Village Drive. My parents house burned down in the fire. Obviously, tremendously traumatic experience for everyone. I was able to take refuge with some friends in Pasadena. I'm not sure what, who directly they're representative is. But I can say that they offered me a tremendous amount of solidarity and I was able to shelter with them for a period of time. Both of them have lost a significant amount of work as a result of the fire. A lot of them had clients. One of my friends is, does housekeeping, like cleaning, and she lost, I think maybe five or six clients, a lot of her regular income stream was dependent on her clients who lived in Al-Tedina, who were all displaced. Her husband also works in landscaping, gardening, and the same story with him. And so they're in this exact position that this protection would allow them some more leeway in this really, really trying economic time, where, as you just imagine, like, I'm not a resident of Pasadena, but y'all's residents of Pasadena were able to offer me a fire refugee shelter, and they are now really experiencing the brunt of this particular economic moment. So I think it's the least that we can do to people in their position to show up and offer them a little bit of protection that this would offer. So that's all I'm asking of the council. And thank you. Thank you. Jose Ramas. Fall by Ella. Fall by Esperanza Mello. Hi, guinning everybody. You hear me? Yes. Yes. I know speaking English very well, no 100% is something I can no explain. We have hell here. Help me. OK. Thank you for your help. Yeah. I live in Pasadena, Ryan Borders, Pasadena, and Altadena. Santa, I had problem because I made some process for Pasadena, we'll be okay, Santa, they sent me to Los Angeles. They say you need to do in Los Angeles. But maybe Lord, now we have the help here in the Pasadena, because my address is Pasadena. Yeah, for the fires we have the help here in the Pasadena because my address is Pasadena. For the fires we have this problem. We have a big handyman service. You have the service here, the handyman. Yeah. Now. The person in Spanish wants to. Spanish? Yes, okay. Okay. So, the handyman service. I live in Pasarina, that's where my address is and I'm a handyman, that's what I do for a living. My clients are all from Pasadena and Al-Tadena. After the fires we had evacuated Pasadena and Al-Tadena. Yeah. After the fires we had evacuated Pasadena. We looked for refuge at my sister's house who lived close here. Yeah. But at media night, they gave an evacuation. asked to evacuate as well, so we had to leave a second time. Yeah. We tried to find refuge somewhere. Everything was already full. Yeah. We try to hotel, but we didn't have a problem. We tried to rent a room in a hotel and we had problems. They wouldn't accept us. After that, we ended up in LA with the sister-in-law. I couldn't go back to work. And then when it was time to clean up, they asked us to clean up our own area by ourselves. We're home, what had have burned out? After cleaning, we were sick for about two weeks. I was backed up with my rent in December because of my health problems. I only owed a month's rent at the time. But after the fires now, I'm behind four months. Thanks to the Lord, the person who's renting to me now. They said they would give me some time to a chance to recover and back with the rent. Not everyone is as lucky as I am. I know there are other people who are more demanding. Yes, I have a lot of time. Do you have the last one? Yes, I hope that they help us not to desalogize our places. OK, please help us out. Please do not send us out of a way from our homes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Esperanza Mello, far by Jesus Rojas, and then Alejandro Candido. Buenas noches. Mi nombre es Esperanza Mello. Cariño Mensperaza Mello. I used to live in Althadena for five years. The same place where I rented that was where my business was. It was a family daycare center. Unfortunately, of that was burnt down and that was evicted for my home. The owner also asked me to claim my home. She retained a thousand dollars., I have found a new home here in the city of Pasadena. The governor only authorized this 30 days of salary for those of us who provide subsidy service for children, sadly I have been working since February, up until now. We're having a hard time for the Fire Department to come and see us so we can get a green flag or go So I can reopen my daycare center I am not the only one who's lost her job My children have lost theirs as well They work with me at the daycare I had to send my parents to Ranchancho Coquamanca to live there, because they used to live with me. Sad I don't have enough money to pay my rent just now. I don't qualify for subsidy help. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, Zeus Rojas. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jesús Rojas from the Department of Association of Guerrilla Sanjeles. I think we just want to thank the City Council for following the LA County moratorium, eviction moratorium. We thank you for balancing the need of Wafar impacted individuals and Mom and Dad Brent owners providing much needed affordable housing for Pasadena. And we look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the City Council and any other important housing issues. We're here to help. Thank you. Thank you. And the last speaker is coming in virtually is Alejandro Candido. Hello Alejandro Sasaya. Alejandra? Hello. Hi. Hi. My name is Alejandra Candido. I was one of the victims from the fire. I recently lost my job. I was working there for almost four years. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to look for a job. I've been struggling more and more usually because I do have a during the fire I had to evacuate. I had to go all the way to my sister's house in San Diego. I was having a hard time breathing here. I couldn't be able. I do. They were able to assist not a lot, but I am struggling with the grant at the moment. But they are able to help. I did apply for some jobs, but I haven't had any time to look back to them, or they haven't talked to me back. Just hopefully you guys could actually help us out. We are struggling here, specifically. I really don't have mostly anything else to say, just, oh, not really struggling here about the fire. And I think next it that I have just talked to about. Okay, thank you. And Jill shook my apologies, Jill. Good evening, City Council Mayor. I feel so proud of our city to have the compassion to even have number 17 and number 19 on the City Council agenda. So thank you. Thank you. In regard to number 17, the Alice Act, please. We're doing number 19 just now in the world to 17 in a second. Okay,, so but I offered to speak on both. So how does that work? Just I would just say talk on the ordinance. Okay, and then you'll come back under seven. Well, I will come back again. Okay, I didn't understand. Sorry. So in regard to number 19, the eviction protections for fire victims. Again, this is essential. And I thank you for your compassion in having it on the City Council agenda. Just I know a lot of folks from the job center and I'm very aware of all the jobs they had in Al-Tadina. And so I reiterate everything you've just heard from others, and especially know a lot of women that have house cleaning jobs and now have their income or most income is gone. So one example, my church housed a family in that situation for two months right after the fire. So that gave them a little leg up, but they now are renting, and they're in the situation where they're gonna need this kind of help. So I just wanna thank you and hope you will do everything you can to get it passed and enforced. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. That completes public comment on item 19. I would also, Vice Mayor, just read that the City Clerk's Office received 17 letters in support of the proposed ordinance relating to the to protecting qualifying income eligible tenants. Thank you for that. Thank you to all the public commenters came out to share their experiences in the aftermath of the fire. We really appreciate hearing what you're going through and it informs our policy making. So thank you so much for taking the time to join us. I'm not sure if there's anyone in the queue. I have one question for the city attorney though. I could get it out and then let anyone else ask any questions they may have. For the city attorney, the council's direction, I think it was two weeks ago now, was to essentially mirror what the county is doing and only make modifications where absolutely necessary, so it makes sense with our own ordinances and charter. I didn't see anything in the staff report calling out any major differences. Can we assume from that there are no significant differences to be aware of? Or is there anything you think we should be, we should take note of? I don't think there are significant differences, but I would turn to our Deputy City Attorney, Alyssa Martinez, who has been working on this and she or the Director of Rents Dabilization Department may be able to speak more specifically. Oh, there we go. Yeah, so in substance, it's really not all that different, but you have before you from the county resolution. The major change that I would call out is that we do, for example, have some Pasadena items. One thing that we did have in there, for example, is the Pasadena job center. That is one qualification for actively seeking employment, for example. We have other Pasadena specific items. We do have mentions to the charter as Vice Mayor Revis noted. But the largest change would probably be that there's a section that used to say, a landlord is prohibited from applying rent to essentially anything other than prospective or the next month's rent. What we've done is created an affirmative defense in place of that. What that does is actually has more protection for a tenant. In that, that's something where the tenant could potentially defend themselves from an eviction with that language, as opposed to being evicted, being homeless, and then essentially after the fact maybe having the city enforce against their landlord, but that wouldn't necessarily help them at that point. so that is one way where this ordinance would be more protective than the counties. I appreciate that explanation. Thank you so much. Are there any other questions? I smell Councillor Member Hampton, followed by Councillor McColle, followed by Councillor Mayor Madison. Okay go ahead Councillor Member Hampton. Are we doing item 19 first? Yes. Okay, so we're doing item 19. I'm ready to offer it so that I know Councilmember Jones has to take off. Okay. That was, I have no questions on the item. On, on this night. Okay. 19, I don't have any questions. So then. Got it and I think next was Councilmember Cole. Okay. I'm having made the motion that passed. I'm very supportive of this and thank you for offering it, Councilmember Hampton. There are a couple of small changes that I think have come from the discussion both in writing and from our oral testimony that I think would make sense. One is back dating from February 1st to January 15th, because sometimes people pay their rent not on the first of the month. So if someone were affected in January, so January 15th is instead of February 1st as a matter of two weeks. And then more importantly, seven days from the effective date of the ordinance to notify the landlord is really dependent upon how well we communicate to thousands of renters in our community this new opportunity. And so I'd like to suggest a 14-day notice for just January and February. After that, it's seven days. But for the back dating, if people don't find out for the first to give people the notice, I'm sorry for February and March, I think it's a really tight deadline. So if that's acceptable to the offer of the motion and I think that's okay with the city attorney because I talked with her before, I would offer those suggestions. The dates sound fine with me. That's okay with the rest of the council. So just to confirm an elissa, if you could help me with that, That would be under section 4, page 4 of the proposed ordinance with paragraph A2, provides the aforementioned self-certification to the landlord or landlord's agent within and you're saying 14 days. Just for the February and March payments. After that, I think seven days is more than reasonable. OK, 14 days for February. 14? 14. Right, that's what I said. Oh, I thought you did 10, sorry. No, 14. And then. For February and March payment. And you said instead of February, so for the month of February and March, okay. And then the January, 15th, 2025. Where, um, Section 3D. Section 3D Protection Time Period means the time period between what's the date you're proposing? January 15th, January 15th, 2025, through July 31st, 2025, and then it will continue as written. So that can be interlineated and we can still have the first reading for those two sections. Thank you, Madam Attorney. And really quickly, I apologize. I do think there's one more section at the end. Okay. Yeah, in the effective date section, that might be the last place to change to January. So January 15th on that. Thank you, Councilman Rukovl, for those recommendations. They make a lot of sense to me. City Attorney, do you have everything you need for those suggested changes? Yes. Great. Thank you. And so, quick, Mr. City Councilman, who's next on the screen. Councilman Madison, thank you. Nice to meet you, Mark. So just to follow up on that, for a to then, the first seven days will remain the same. And then the second seven days it'll be 14 days It's really just from when the ordinances adopted since we're already beyond yes, okay, and it's for January and February instead of February and March No, it's February March The payments in February and one point Mr. Madison and I you myself. Okay. I'm fine with those changes and just another net which is the probably as a matter of form it has Mayor Gordo signing the ordinance and I take it that would be vice mayor. Reves give it. It would be. Mayor's conflict. Yes. So you'll make that changes. Yes and when the mayor has been conflicted before the vice mayor has signed it. Right. So it should be prepared that way probably when we know there's in advance. Right. I know. Conflict. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Madison for that. Any other questions or comments before we move to roll call? All right looks like we can have the vote So let me do the did I do the first reading no I have not this is an un codified ordinance of the city of Pasadena protecting qualifying Income eligible tenants directly financially impacted by the eaten fire Councilmember Hampton offered them after the ordinance with those revisions. Councilmember Cole. Yes. Councilmember Hampton. Councilmember Jones. Yes. Councilmember Lion. Yes. Councilmember Madison. Councilmember Macyuda. Yes. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. And Mayor Gordo is absent due to recusal. Can you Kool, I believe wishes to speak now. Sure, are we still on the same item? Yes. Correct. I did not want to delay the vote because we want to Councilmember Jones to participate. There are two items that are not affecting the language of the ordinance, but I think go to the implementation of the ordinance. And if I, I can just raise them. The first is effectively communicating this and just to press release, I think, is insufficient. If it is possible to send an email to those people who we know are renters or a mailer or a postcard or some other way of notifying people and perhaps landlords as well. I think that everybody needs to know the effective date and of this impact. The second is as as we discussed when this came before us, the first time, we don't want tenants not paying their rent. And we wouldn't pass this ordinance if we didn't recognize that their tenants who are incapable of paying their rent. And so, millions of dollars have been raised by concerned people all over America to help people affected. And I think we should do everything we can to tap in to tap in to tap in to tap in to tap their water bills and electric bills and maintenance. And tenants don't fall behind and end up having to pay thousands of dollars in the year after this eviction defense expires. So if we can get third party relief here, that helps our tenants, that helps our landlords, it helps our community. And so I think we should take active efforts as a city to see if we can tap into whether it's best a community foundation, whether it's other sources of fundraising, so that for people who are genuinely affected adversely, someone will step up to help. And we don't put the landlords 100% in the position of having to pay for that challenge which is not really their fault. And so I don't know how we do that but I think we should make a real effort to tap into those resources for the benefit of both sides in this equation. Thank you, Councillor Recuil. I agree for wholeheartedly on both of your points. If I'm recalling correctly, I believe our motion or your motion from two weeks ago was to first staff to report back within 30 days as to possible sources of funding. Perhaps staff could let us know or update or should we just stand by to hear your full report in maybe the next two weeks. Yes, Vice Mayor, the City Manager, Miguel Marquez. We are in the process of scouring all the resources that are available and are getting prepared to make a presentation to the Council of what we've found. And we're looking high and low and everywhere else to see what we can come up with to provide, as you said, third party funding providers that members of the community can reach out to. And I would be remiss not to acknowledge that Councillor Humpton raised the same issue during our discussion. Vice Mayor, there are two members in the queue, Councilmember Madison, Councilmember Hampton. Go ahead, Councilmember Madison. Yeah, I agree with Councilmember Coles comments. And to put a finer point on it, you know, passing a community foundation is a group that we basically endorsed as a city. We were steering contributions to them. And I know they are basically a fiscal intermediary. So I would like that report to include with particularity, how much money they've taken in and how much they've distributed to those in need. I mean, I'd really like to see some detail about that. And I think it's appropriate given our pretty full throated endorsement of them, and their outstanding track record of being the kind of institution that we would endorse. But I want to make sure to Mr. Coles comments that those funds are reaching those in need. We will certainly reach out and request that information and include it if it's provided to us. Thank you so much. Thank you. Councillor Hampton, may I believe your next? No, actually it actually didn't have any follow-up questions. I was just going to ask about the timeline as well. So I think that we're done with item 19 and now we can go to item 17, Vice Mayor. Great. And I believe we have a staff report, so why don't we start with that? Yes, and we have a PowerPoint presentation here. So today I'm here on behalf of the Rental Housing Board who is requesting from Pasadena and City Council to direct the city attorney to prepare an ordinance within 60 days adopting all of the available tenant protections provided in the LS Act. Can I do that myself? If you have the clicker. Sorry. Okay. So the pasting chart article provides at section 1806A10 that it just caused a eviction for withdrawal from the rental market permanently in accordance with the California Code section 7060. That is what we call the LS Act. And the chart provides that tenants have the first right of refusal if the unit is returned to the rental market to the maximum extent provided by state law. They are also asking that the rental unit upon return to the market shall be the rent lawfully paid by the tenant at the time the landlord gave notice of termination of tenancy to the maximum extent provided by the LSAC state law. Charter article 1806c states that the board shall decide on the timeline and procedures for subsequent notifications of the former tenant and return to the rental unit to the market. 1806 D states that within 180 days of the first board meeting, the board shall adopt regulations and the managed specified pursuant to California government code section 7060.5 that implements all the provisions of the Ellis Act. So what does the Alice Act do? It provides three primary areas of tenant protections, and those can include a right for the displaced tenant to return to the unit. If the unit is return to the unit. If the unit is returned to the rental market within 10 years of the withdrawal of the unit from the market. It also provides that for units that are returned to the rental market within five years after withdrawal, The displaced tenants rent is charged prior to the withdrawal plus any allowable rent adjustments pursuant to. the district councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the councilor with the the tenant could also bring in action to recover actual and exemplary damages. In addition, if the property is returned to the market within 10 years, and a tenant who has requested notice of the rights return is not given the notice of right return, the tenant may be eligible for punitive damages in an amount not to exceed six months rent. The additional protection is that if rental units are demolished and new rental units are constructed within five years of the withdrawal, the rental units shall be subject to the rental protections under the rent stabilization, court ordinance, and then that is not withstanding cost to hawkins. So in other words, they are still part of the rental registry rent restrictions. Even though cost of Hawkins allows buildings that are built after 1995 to be part of a rent stabilization ordinance. And this is because, again, the reason for the termination of the tendency was that they were to get out of the rental business. And so this is a requirement that allows rental owners to get out of the rental business, and a Vic detentant pursuant to those procedures. These protections are provided for tenants, for those cases where landlord does not comply with the ordinance and does return the units back to the rental market. So the language in charter 1806D evidences and intent of the voters at all available LS Act 10 of protections be adopted in Pasadena. The board is not able to adopt the regulations because LS Act provides that it be they be adopted by an elected body and the board is not an elected body. The board requests that city of Pasadena who has jurisdiction adopt an ordinance to implement the LSAC protections. And so on November 7, 2024, the board conducted a study session to consider the LSAC protections. And on November 21, the board continued their conversations and adopted regulation 2024-23, recommending council implement all protections. So the board's requests the city council adopt all tenant protections in the alice act, including a right for the displaced tenant to return to the rental unit. If the rental unit is returned to the rental market within 10 years of the withdrawal of the rental unit from the market, sorry, this is boring. I'm sorry, and a right for a displaced tenant to return to any rental. I'm not sure you need to read a verbatim. I think it's in the staff report. Okay. So all right. So these are the four protections. I'm sorry. That the that are provided under the LS Act to the fullest extent. And the board according to the article, is requesting that City Council create an ordinance establishing the LSAC for the rental protections of tenants. Thank you for your report. I really appreciate it. I'm sure we've got folks in the queue, but before we get to everyone, I just wanted to start with a brief comment. And again, I appreciate the staff report, I appreciate the report report we hear today. I feel like it's a bit. It's technical. It's a technical subject. And so I appreciate you covering all the technicalities of it. But I feel like the kind of the narrative. has gotten lost in that, indeed diving deep into all the technical parts of it that we need to address. But I've always understood the LSACter, a key version of the LSAC, to be essentially a protection for landlords. That if you are a landlord, you're not compelled to be a landlord forever. That you have that property right, that decision to exit the market. And so the LSEC protects that. And that's huge for landlords to know that and to have that security. Counter to the flip side of that is wanting to avoid landlords abusing that and saying, hey, actually, I'm getting out of the market, but really they just want to get rid of their tenants. And then come back a year or two later with the rent jacked up. And so that's what these protections are aimed at preventing and avoiding and hopefully deterring and compensating tenants if that does happen. So hopefully that helps guide our discussion. Again, I appreciate all the technical details, but I feel like those who wrote the report and maybe have worked on this a lot are very familiar and comfortable with the LSAC and know what it is and know what it means, but for the rest of us, it's less obvious. I did have one quick question before we jump to others. And that is, I believe I've heard that other entities across the state that have rent control have all adopted these and LSAC tenant protections protections is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Each jurisdiction that has rent stabilization does have the all-ac propitions. Okay, thank you so much for that. Who's next in the council member Madison then council member Hampton then council member Lion. Okay, thank you Vice Mayor and I kind of want to pick up where you left off because I'm probably even less Fluent on this so our charter amendment age really had two prongs as I see it rent regulation for certain units and tenant protection are we talking to Nia about just rent regulated units or are we talking about tenant protection. Are we talking to Nya about just rent regulated units? Or are we talking about tenant protection for all renters in Pasadena? It would be tenant protections for all tenants in Pasadena. OK, and that's somewhere in the staff report. It seemed like we were talking about the regulated rent and then when it came back. And that might be maybe a subset. but this, I'm correct that this applies to protect any tenant whose landlord evicts them because they're claimed to be getting out of the rental business. No, so I'm sorry, I need to restate that. Okay. The rental restrictions are provided and the reason Ellis was established is to allow lammers to get out of the rental business and not be forced under a rent stabilization ordinance. So these are properties subject to the rent stabilization ordinance where an owner comes in and says I want to get out of the rental market. And so- Just in the rent regulated units. Yes. Desire City Attorney, agree with that? Right. Assessment. Are you with us? Yes, sorry. So I would just quickly clarify that as Vice Mayor Revis had noted, this is something where there is that protection for landlords first and foremost. That is statewide that applies regardless. What the Council is being asked to adopt are the protections and sort of the rules, the ins and outs for how a landlord would exit the rental market. Right, but my question is very specific. Are we talking just about rent regulated units or would these protections, if we adopt this, apply to any unit in Pasadena? These would apply citywide. Okay, so then I wonder because maybe you have a more fulsome record at the board, the commission. What are we are we talking about? Condo conversion, are we talking about mom and pop of one unit? Are we talking about how and why does one take something off the rental market? Well the reason usually is because they either want to do a condo conversion or they want to get out of the rental market and maybe do something else. and or establish new condos, for example, and sell them individually because they have to completely get out of the rental market. You can't go and establish a new building that looks like a condo, not sell those units outright individually and then maintain those. We've seen a lot of that happen in Los Angeles, for example, and even in Beverly Hills in my past work And so really what we're looking at is completely getting out of the rental market and so usually it's selling the property and they're coming in for sale items condos usually or maybe they're gonna put in some single family dwellings the properties big enough where they can do Three single family dwellings and sell those outright or something of that nature. So those would be getting out of the rental market because they're going to sell the property completely. And it has to be the entire property is understandable. Yes, all the units have to be all properties, all units on the property and it's not specific to a building, for example. You might have two complexes on one APN. Both units will need to, both buildings will be required to Alice each and every unit that's there. Okay. I want to cover some of the complaints that the landlord community and that's probably a broad tent and I'm using overly simplistic language, but we did get some correspondence claiming that the minutes of the November 21st meeting have not been adopted yet or provided. Can you speak to that? They are being provided this week at our agenda's meeting. Okay. Is that a staff issue? Do we need more staffing or is it? Yeah, I think it was a complicated hearing time. And so we had issues in November. It was really the fire that has caused us the delay. Got it. And all of our staff were working at the DRC and doing other things as well. And as well as meeting with tenants on ash issues and things of that nature. Okay, and then the argument is made that the voters squarely rejected Prop 33, and this is Prop 33 all over again. I didn't understand that argument. It seems completely different to me, but you speak to that. It is completely different. There is really no relevance of 33. Again, the voters pass measure H. And that's a real issue here. They did pass measure H. And the relevance of 33 is not an issue. Again, that is not for the city of Pasadena. That was for the California State. Okay, and then. Mr. Manchin? Yes. Could I comment on that? Sure. We'll comment or question, I want to keep my questions going. No, okay. If you're going to comment, I just clarify. Just give it a cue. Okay. I'll wait. Okay. So then, you know, the one thing that I had some concern about was duration. Was it seems like the rent control board just went to 10 years for every tenant under any circumstances. The charter actually states that it's the maximum allowed by the state law. And so that's why they went to the 10 years. The charter says that? Yes. In its language about tenant protection? Yes. So they felt they didn't have discretion to recommend anything. Correct. Correct. Can you refer us to that just so we're all on the same page? Yeah. It's a T-60. This is what my question is. That's pretty good. You can have to go this through. I'll, I can. You know, keep covering that. Okay. 1806. D. 10. 10. Provides to the extent required by California government code section 7060. And then we go to section C of 1806. And you will see that it says all tenants whose tenancies is terminated on a basis enumerated in subsection 8, 8 through 11. Here in shall have the first right of refusal to return to the rental unit if the rental unit is returned to the market by the landlord or a successor landlord to the maximum extent permitted by state law. And then further the next sentence, similarly says, rent for rental units shall be rent lawfully paid. By the tenant at the time the landlord gave notice of termination based upon subsections eight through 11, herein to the maximum extents permitted by state law. But the matter is here because the rent control board doesn't have the legislative authority to adopt this. That's correct. Because they're not elected and the LSAC requires an elected official or board to adopt it. Yes, so that would seem to meet it. That that provision would fall away to the extent that the City Council has to act not the rent control board. Then we're not bound by the rent control charter amendment that they should act to the maximum provided by state law. Well we would still have to follow our charter. I miss part of it. I'm all for that but that kind of begs the question. I miss the beginning part so maybe this is a Martinez. I light it maybe. We are at section 1806c and section 1806dD. And- Sorry, yes. Thank you, Laura. I apologize, Helen. I might just jump in really quickly. Councilmember Madison, one of the reasons that we're stuck with those numbers of the 10 years, five years, that comes directly from statute. The article actually requires that the city of Pasadena technically the rental housing board adopt, adopt these protections to the fullest extent of state law is the language of the article and then of course the, again, the years and those full protections that comes directly from the Ellis Act from statute. It comes from the Ellis Act? Yes. Okay. Well, that's different from this. So we can look at that, but what are we... The LASAC doesn't talk about Pasadena, right? Okay, so... It's this C-read about that. Indie. Which means the rental board's here. So D says the rental board shall. Right. OK, but the rental board can't do this. They are not by, they are technically prohibited from the Alice Act. Well, it's not technically. They're prohibited. Right. OK, so then how does that language apply to what we do? Well, again, I think it's the intent of the charter that all of these provisions be provided to the fullest extent of the Alice Act. In other words, to include all of the provisions in the Alice Act. And since it says shall, it was a board's intention. And what we brought forward did include all of those provisions because a board is required to produce all of those from the, provide all of the protections that are allowed under the LSAC. And to make the charter and the statute be able to be enforced, we would interpret that as because the board doesn't, they aren't elected by the populace, then the City Council would step in and have to make those the ordinance regulations that would provide for that. Well, I get that, but I think the problem is, is if you assume perfect understanding on the part of the voter, the voter would understand that the board wouldn't have legal authority to adopt the ordinances before us tonight. So I'm not sure how much sort of intent you can read into a delegation of authority to the board if it carves this area out. Even though it doesn't. But if the only way to enforce it is to have the legislative body enacted, then we would interpret that, and I think a court would interpret that as the manner in which you could get that account. So we don't even have discretion tonight we have to adopt it. No, you don't have to but you are the only entity that could. Right. Yeah, I'm not sure I'm persuaded but so you were were mentioning something about I'm sorry. Ms. Martinez is. Okay, Ms. Martinez, thank you. You were indicating the statute gives us limitations on our discretion. That's correct. The numbers, the five years returning to the market and five years returning to the market in 10 years, those come directly from statute from the Ellis Act. But we could, so we could adopt five years. No, I apologize. So there are certain circumstances as to, you know, if it were returned in five years, this would be the consequence. If it were returned in 10 years, this would be the consequence. Those things are directly from statute. So five years is an option. It's one of the protections, but there aren't necessarily options. Yeah. What's this? There's four specific tenant protections. One of which applies in a situation where the rent per unit is brought back within 10 years, another which applies I applies to the rent per unit is brought back within five years. And this particular circumstance is 10 years. Any time it's triggered? I believe that the first protection addresses the 10 years situation. It goes through 10 years, but certain actions can happen, for example, within two years, five years, and 10 years. And those protections are outlined in the code. Sorry to prolong this, but where is that in this, in this, in this, uh, LSAC? So if we want to look at the ten year requirement, for example, um, we're going to be looking at government code section 7060.2. And if you're scrolling down, there is at the top right there the five-year period. I believe that's for notification. But if you scroll down throughout that section, 760.2, it does talk about the 10-year period. If you go to 7060.44 it contains some of the rest of the protections. The protections that the council would be adopting if it so chose would be the protections from those two statutes. Those two sections of the statute. When I'm reading this sub-C which says the public entity which is acted pursuant to this section may require by statute or ordinance or by regulation as specified that an owner who offers accommodations again for renter lease within a period not exceeding ten years from the day. So but that's the maximum feasible by a maximum extent by law, which is the charter language. Well, that's a different question that I already said I'm not persuaded by. So under the statute, the body can adopt up to 10 years, but is not required to adopt any particular period. Yes, but I think that the charter mandates that it be provided to the maximum extent allowable under the House. No, but we were talking about this. The charter provides that the board, the rent control board, should implement regulations to the maximum extent permitted by law. But they don't have the authority under law to adopt this. Yes, we. So, I'm struggling with the idea that we are bound in that regard. It may be the right thing to do, but I think we should be clear right about what we're doing. So was there any substantive discussion at the board about a period under 10 years? I mean, if the units you know been occupied for six months, then Matt Tenant has 10 years of rights. There was a schedule that was provided that showed all of the different provisions from the rent stabilization ordinance across the state of California and some that actually were less restrictive. However, the board felt that the charter, the way it was written, they were advised that the maximum allowable amounts under the LSAC were those that the only ones that they could, because the language was shell, implement. But they can't do this at all. So I'm struggling with why they were told that that was all they could do. Well they were struggling as well. I think and they really wanted to do this on their own accord as well but they were limited to what they could do and so then they were advised to bring it to City Council. So for consideration I will tell you that I've worked in two large jurisdictions Los Angeles some Beverly Hills, both of which were established in 1978, both of which adopted the same LS Act with the same restrictions. The ten years. Yes. Yes. And really it is an opportunity to let the landlords get out because remember we have just caused, we can't just say we're going to sell the property so you have to move. That's not a reason. So this allows them the opportunity to enforce and not have to stay in the rental business because that is one requirement. We don't want to force landlords to stay in the rental business. And at the same time, because there were all of these issues that were related to chaos and avoidance of the rent stabilization ordinance to initiate these problems. We had the establishment of Ellis to protect and provide these protections for both the landlords and the tenants. And you can see the combination of a short tenancy and a 10-year period with a punitive damage provision could result in an equity. If I could jump in very briefly and of course to first half, but I believe the five and 10-year timelines are not tied to the 10-year of the tenant. They're tied to the date that the rental market or the rental unit is taken off the market. That's my point. My point is you could have a tenant who resides in a unit for six months, but then has the right for 10 years thereafter to bring a lawsuit for punitive damages. Right. Yeah, I think that's absolutely right because if the landlord took it off the market saying, hey, I'm getting out of the rental business, then that's the penalty that they face. But that hang you over their head for 10 years. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Hampton, followed by Council Marlion, followed by Councilmember Cole. Thank you. I just have a, and I appreciate Councilmember Madison's questions because I answered some of the questions I had. But just to get a little bit of a better understanding. So just say that I have six units and I'm going to get out of the rental market and put them all for sale or fix them up and make them individual condos. I sell the whole property under five, in a matter of months I've done with the project. And then it's up to the new property owner to sell them individually. That new property owner is now held, if something happens, the sky falls, that new property owner is now required to give the previous tenants First right of refusal to those units So I will tell you that the LSAC requires or the implementation of the LSACt We would require record recordation of the property that the Alice the property was L.A.S.D. So that any future owners that come forward would know that that the property is elased and that they would be they would not be allowed to re-rent the units or they would have to yes we rent the tenants the units back to the tenants and it doesn't make a difference if it's eight years later You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go through the same thing. You have to go of the. Yeah. OK. Where these provisions are in place, is it, I mean, I tried to understand how this, because it was presented as a place to potentially help housing providers. How, I guess how does it exactly help housing providers? Because remember that housing providers have a just cause requirement, so they have to have a just cause to evict a tenant. And so in order this allows them the ability to evict the tenant and get out of the rental market, because they're getting out of the rental market it allows them a just cost purpose so that they could evict a tenant. So you mean without having to pay relocation fees because no matter what? No they still have to relocation fees. So what's the, so I guess I understand what the benefit is? Because if you're a property owner and you just want to get out of the rental market or you want to, you know, relieve your obligations of your tenants, you can say, I'm going to pay you relocation fees and we should part ways. That's an option if the tenant agrees to that. In this case it doesn't sound like that would even be an option. It sounds like even if I pay if someone has paid relocation fees they would still have the right to come back. I mean because you the now the property owner has to pay relocation fees right and then if something happens in eight years, I sell the property, if someone sells the property, and they put it back on the market, just because the market is cyclical, right? Their first right is to the tenant that was previously in the unit. Yes, but again, it depends on the years and the amount of time that has passed. I just said eight years. I mean, but according to this, it's 10 years because I mean really as Councilmember Madison eloquently put together, it's the only option that is being presented to us, but the housing board doesn't even have the authority, doesn't really even have the authority to do this. Right but I think they're really limited by the charter to even have a discussion on less because of the way that the charter was written. Okay. Some of the members wrote the charter. But so what about single-family households? Are they also single-family households are also now covered in under this as well? I'm going to let the city attorney opine on that. So yes, this is something where as we were discussing earlier, this would be city wide. So regardless, this isn't a cost to hawk in situations. This is something where regardless of the type of unit, if these protections were adopted, it would apply. But just to reiterate a point that was made earlier, this is something that just regulates entering and exiting the market. And one way I think to Councilman Brampton's question, this would benefit landlords is the same way that rent stabilization and the department does. There's recording of these things happening. They're submitting these notices. This is something where there's a record being made and it is being stored somewhere else in a city department. So if there is a question later, if there is an eviction later, that has all been stored by our very own rent stabilization apartment. But doesn't that get stored anyhow? Isn't there a hearing officer if someone parts ways with their is not what the tableization board does is figure out the the roles and store information. It does that for rent control units only. So this is this so every property in passing after built after 1992 would also fall into this. Yes, this would again be citywide. Okay, those are my questions. This is, um, I think this is for me, at least for me, I'm going to need some more time to really understand the severity of all this and what it could mean. And then also I would like a study to come back to see how has it changed the rental housing markets in the cities that I mean LA is not a good example. That's why I'm very clear here. Let's not give that as an example. How has it changed the properties in those areas as well as are those property owners or those housing providers that they maintaining properly and those communities as well? When I say maintaining, painting, new carpet, those type of things that tenants would need or are they just kind of leaving it up to the tenants to make improvements on their own. So we can come back with something for you, but I just want to understand what you're asking for. I just specifically. I'd like to know how it has that effect on their where we know, we get invested in a lot of a lot of co-compliance issues. And so I'm wondering if something like this has increased co-compliance issues around housing providers that now feel kind of, you could say whatever you want to say about this but it doesn't sound like it's beneficial to a housing provider and it doesn't seem to me based on what's being presented here as something that would entice housing providers to continue to provide housing and pass it in. I agree with you. I think that the real point here is that what we're talking about is a real small set of landlords who are actually really wanting to get out of the rental market because otherwise they wouldn't be able to. There wouldn't be a reason for them to evict a tenant. They would have to keep that tendency going even if they wanted to sell it. So for that small percentage of owners who actually want to get out of the rental market, this gives them that opportunity to do that. And that's the reason why Elisak was established is owners saying, you know, they can't get out of the rental market because of just cause reasons they can't evict a tenant. And so this is for that small subset of owners who really do want to get out of the rental market and do a condo conversion or something like that or establish new structures there that are not rentals that are, you know, a set of 10 condominiums or something, whatever the case may be, that gives them the opportunity to do that. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the opportunity to evict a tenant. So I would maybe agree with that statement, but I think that of a housing provider once to part ways with a business, it's an arrangement between a tenant and a housing provider. If that housing provider is motivated enough, they will offer some sort of compensation for the tenant with some of the relocation fees to part ways. And that has happened in the city of Pasadena where tenants have walked away with $20,000 or $40,000 checks because the property owner wants to part ways in that business agreement and they both agree to this deal. I don't know if that means this agreement that has been made between and the attendant is a housing provider, it seems like even with that agreement that housing that that Tenant would have the ability to come back if the housing provider takes these takes the unit off the market For eight years they would have first right at it if the property owner decides Oh, you know what my daughter is gonna move in there or Whatever that whatever that may be. I don't know. I'm just throwing something out there Or they're gonna take it off the unit the off the market and air could they they can't even air be imbedient if they wanted to Correct that's correct. So it would be a vacant unit for a Very long you take off the how does it, I just don't understand how it benefits if I'm taking housing off the market to what's in vacant? How does that benefit the tenant? How does that benefit tenants, either? It doesn't benefit tenants and it does benefit a housing provider who wants to get out of the rental market. It allows them the ability to evict a tenant to get out of the rental market. But they still have to pay relocation fees. Yes. So it goes back to the point that I'm making that no matter what, there is some sort of agreement that has to be made between the tenant and the housing provider. And that agreement is something that is monetary. And it will cost the housing provider funds to do this. I don't see how that benefits the housing provider. I can tell you though. It's not been a way to move. But yeah, we could, that's, we could go up to the next one. Yeah, I think your points will take, I think we understand your concern. And I'll just chime in, you know, as a landlord or small time housing provider when we're following ourselves now. Yeah, I mean, you're describing a situation where the parties amicably come to agreement to part ways, but a lot of times the tenant doesn't want that. They obviously need housing, but this gives the landlord a mechanism. If they are truly going off the market to do that. And the rental relocation piece is a completely separate issue that doesn't affect that. And so this is a very important protection for landlords. I feel like any discussion that Ellis Act really has to start with that protection for landlords to get out of the rental market if they truly are intending to do so. And all these tenant protections are doing is making sure that the landlord isn't coming back a year later, two years later, within the next 10 years back into the rental market. And apparently they didn't actually intend to get out. So that's what the protections are aimed at. But I understand your points and the confusion around it. It's very technical. But I think at a high it's it makes sense. I believe next in the queue we have council member Lion. Thank you Vice Mayor. I guess I have some one substantive question but for some procedural comments and I am low to do this in a meeting. I've usually prefer to do this offline but I want to say we're having the issues we're having here because the staff report is inadequate and it is largely an adequate with regard to the legal analysis. We are talking about a provision of the city charter which is like our constitution that needs to be implemented. It was supposed to be acted on within six months of the first meeting, which was a year and a half ago, and it wasn't acted on. And then it was supposed to be acted on by the board, but in fact they don't have the power to do it. We need analysis of what that means and what our obligations are under that, and we didn't get it. And to say, well, the city charter says this, but we couldn't do that, so now you guys do it. We need to know, do we have discretion here? Because it's not clear to me that we do. What's the effect of the 180-day limitation that we didn't meet, if any? And then we need to know what the effect of subsection C is, which appears to already implement the five and 10-year provisions of the LS Act. It says that tenants get the right of first refusal to the maximum extent provided by law. I don't think we have any action to take on that. I think we do have actions to take on the right to recover damages, maybe, and the requirement that if they're demolished and rebuilt, they're subject to rent control. Maybe we have action to take on that, but it looks like subsection C already covers the part about the rights of first refusal and we don't have any discretion there or any need to act. And because we didn't get this analysis, I don't know that we can act tonight. So I want to say I find it frustrating and I've said, I said last time and I talked a little bit to the city manager about it. I think we're all learning how to do this because the rental housing board is a new kind of thing in the city. It has its own independent authority. But when it is asking us to do something, at that point it's like another advisory body in the city. and we need a staff report from the staff that says what the staff's position is on the recommendation, whether they support it or oppose it, and we need legal analysis, and we just didn't get it here. So I'm likely to support this, but I'm not prepared to do it tonight because we didn't get what we need to do that. And so then in the legal analysis that I think we need, I have one particular question, which is, is there anything built in either into the charter or into the LS Act? 10 years is a long time. And I get that it's set up as a provision that you wanna be serious about taking your unit off the market, right? So I get why it's long. But is there anything in it that prevents someone from, say, taking the unit back for their kid or their sister in 10 years? Because your economic circumstances can really change a lot in 10 years, but it might be great to get a unit, the opportunity to have an apartment at a 10-year-old rent in 10 years, even if I don't need it, I might have a friend who needs it. So, is there any protection built in that requires the tenant occupy, the unit or anything like that? No. So, the requirement is that all units are not returned back to the rental market. Right, but I'm sure you met in the circumstance where they're returning to the market. The notice goes out to the tenant for that they have a right at first refusal. If the tenant says, yeah, I want the unit back. Is there any requirement anywhere that requires them to actually live there? For the tenants to live there? Sure. Yes. The tenants would have if the tenants are executing their right or first refusal, they have to live there. And where is that providers? That's that's set forth in the LS Act? Yes, I believe it is, but I mean they're Reserving the right to reoccupy the unit. Now if they should decide six months into the contract that they're not gonna, they don't wanna stay any longer, that is something they have the option to do. It's just a first right of, I'm sorry, right of first refusal. Right, but you understand what I'm asking, right? Yeah, I do. It's like you get a good deal on a unit. And even if I don't need it, I might have someone who does. And that seems outside the bounds of fair play in the LSEC. And we're trying to keep this as fair as we can. And all of our forms would require that the tenants come back. And we would have notices. We would know who was renting the unit prior. And we would document everything going forward. Okay, so I would say, I mean, I'm substance, the substantively I'm fine with it, but I really would like a report that analyzes the issues. And it seems we've already put this off a year and a half from when they started meeting. It seems we're getting this right, because it's an issue that people have feelings about, and we can answer that question of what happened, how we verified that the tenant lives there 10 years. And Council Member Leigh, to make sure I understood, and as we try to respond to these questions, and that's interesting is the right or first refusal transferable to anyone else or just to the tenant who was evicted, or is it something different? no I mean, it's not, I know it's not transferable. The question is whether there's anything that actually, whether we have a provision in place that would allow, that would protect the landlord in the event that the tenant says, yes, I'll take it, I'll resign, they'll resign the lease and they never actually live there because they got a buddy who lives in the place. Because this is all about kind of trying to project out what makes the whole situation fair. I realize it's perhaps it's far fetched but I don't know that it is because ten years is a long time to come back to a unit. So that particular property, right, I don't know that it is, because 10 years is a long time to come back to a unit. Right. So that particular property, right? I don't know that there's anything that prevents a tenant from saying, I'll take it, and then letting someone else use it. And I'm sure we could work something out of the regulations to address that. I just want to know if it's already addressed. Thanks. It's not already addressed in the charter, but we would certainly address it in our regulations, as well as in our forms and our requirements. And we would have, the owner would be able to evict the tenant if the tenant who is remaining in the unit is not a person that's on the lease. That is a reason for evicting a attendant. So that would be the recourse the owner could do quite very quickly. Thank you. Councillor McCullough. What were your next? Where I was going to make a comment to Mr. Madison's comments was on the election that took place in November of 2024, which Pasadena voters were part of the statewide election. That was to repeal the LS Act. So to say, I agree with you, Mr. Madison, it has really no relevance to this. The LS Act is in place. And I'd like to expand on that for a moment, but first let me say I agree with my colleague Councilmember Lyon that we need more answers to more of these questions and the questions that Councilmember Hampton and Councilmember Madison have asked deserve answers. And so I would suggest that we do defer action on this tonight. But where I want to expand on it is, the LS Act and Costa Hawkins represent state legislative action to balance the needs of tenants and landlords. It gave certain rights to landlords to get out of the rental business, but it meant to discourage evading that law by, you know, if it's at five years that you'd wait five years in one day and you've made some, you know, economic calculation that leaving those units empty for five years was worth it because you could triple the rent. And so there are some fairly stiff requirements in the LSAC, but they were arrived at through the legislative process. And I agree with Councilmember Madison that we've got a technicality issue here in the way the charter is drafted. But I don't think there's any doubt about the intent of the charter. The language that says the maximum extent permissible by law is pretty clear. The part that he's right about is who gets to do it is not at all clear. In fact, it's clear that it's not the people that it says in the charter. So I agree with that and I agree with Mr. Lyon that we need to get some legal analysis of that. But Mr. Madison, you have been remarkably consistent. I know your personal views may differ from the votes you've taken, but you've been clear from the beginning that it's our job to implement the will of the voters. Even when we don't agree with the voters or when we don't necessarily share their viewpoint, when the voters have spoken. It's our job to implement it. Thank you, Councilor Mursuda, I believe you're next. Thank you, vice mayor. I was following Councilmember Hampton there very closely on what he was saying. I don't see how this benefits owners of units at all, especially when they're required to, for 10 years, keep that unit. What is it they have to make it available for someone that was living there before, correct? Yes, but that's only in the instance when they go back to the market. You have to remember that the provision is required only for those people who actually want to get out of the rental market. When people want to get out of the rental market, they usually just sell the unit or sell their apartment unit on an open market. Isn't that what they usually do? Not necessarily. We've in Los Angeles, I know we didn't want to use Los Angeles, but there there were a lot of Ellis properties and we saw a lot of change in the city of Los Angeles because of the Ellis Act. We've lost a lot of units during the Ellis Act and those were people who owned the property, maintained it and realized I can make more money if I either do condo conversion or change the development. Okay. But I struggle with that 10 year requirement. It's just, I don't get it. And what Councilmember Lyon said, I'm sure there's a lot of cheating in that regard. That they say that they're, it's a new, it's someone else, but it's really the idea for getting a relative in there or something may occur. It might be helpful just to hear, sorry to interrupt you, but just to hear how often units come back to the market too. There's any data on that. If this even applies that often, it would be helpful to know too. Okay. I, but I, I thank you, thank you for the long discussion, but it's also makes, makes me feel that we don't know what we're getting into yet. Thank you. Thank you. I believe that wraps up our questions. But actually, if I could follow up with a question for you, Councillor Embers, I'm under. Councillor Embers, Madison and Councillor McCullough are still on the queue. Sorry, I didn't do any live or act. Okay. If I can just stick with Councillor Embers, Miss Suda, very briefly, you said you were confused or don't you're struggling with this tenure requirement. Can I ask what is confusing about that? because the whole idea is that if you're a landlord, don't wanna be a landlord anymore, you're a landlord, don't want to be a landlord anymore, you're going to kick your tenant out of their home. It's to make sure you're serious about that. So what is your concern or what troubles you about that if I can ask that? Mr. Misuda, you're not Mike. Mr. Madison's example of someone renting something for six months, and then they would have the right to rent that unit because the owner is putting it back on the market, is that how it works? And that person has the first right of refusal. Yeah, yeah, okay, understood. I think for some of us it's just clear that that makes sense. It's to make sure that owner is serious about doing that, but I appreciate your explanation. Councilor Madison, are you next? Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to follow up because I don't know that this is clear. Just this discussion kind of reveals the lack of clarity of these issues. And just I want to say if it's coming back, I mean I could see a path tonight to adopting something like the staff recommendation, maybe, but inserting five years instead of 10 years. The notion that a landlord would, with some preconceived premeditation, bad intent would pull a property off the market and then wait nine years and eleven months and then aha, gotcha, is far fetched to me and we're not LA, you know. We have smaller housing stock, so I guess you could argue either way but to some extent extent, the moves that we make if they're bigger and more dramatic, they could have a greater impact. But just to be clear, if it's coming back or if it's not my reading of Section C of 7060.2 says that we can enact a statute of ordinance that goes up to 10 years. We have discretion and I thought I heard Ms. Morales say that there are jurisdictions who have chosen something less than 10 years on that point, correct? We do have some Alameda that is selected less than 10 years. They have selected five years up to five years. Yeah. Yeah, so I think I don't think the statute is mandatory that you're, you know, binary. If you're in, you're in for 10 years, and if you're out, you're out. I think as the plain language for me says that we can require by statute or ordinance a period within a period not exceeding 10 years from the date. So, you know, I would certainly be prepared to support the staff recommendation tonight. but with that one criterion, I realize there are other triggers within that, but with that being five years instead of ten years. And I do think it's important to support tenants, but in the context of a delicate, ecosystem of, you know, both as Mr. Cole described aptly with the state legislation trying to balance the interests of landlords and tenants. Let's not forget that the tenants need the housing, no question about that, and that we're talking about the one group that's actually providing the landlords, you know. And then to Mr. Lyon's question, I could be wrong, but I look at section B of 7060.2. And yet says, if the owner again offers the accommodations for rent or lease pursuant to the subdivision, and the tenant or less he has advised the owner pursuant to the subdivision of a desire to consider and offer to renew the tenancy. Then the owner shall, mandatory language, shall offer to re-institute a rental agreement or lease on terms permitted by law to that displaced tenant or lessy. So I think that rules out the, you know, the friend or family member or something that's going to be inserted into it. It seems pretty clearly that it should be limited to the tenant. So I don't know if we'd have five votes tonight. We've only got six total, I think. Well, as I say, thank you, customer medicine, for your close reading of subsection C, and also for bringing that up. And so Helen can point out another jurisdiction has brought it down to five years. I'm open to that. Again, it's something we could adjust in the future if we needed to, but if that's a path to five votes, that's, I think that's a good starting point for discussion. Because you know it has been a year and a half and we need to get going with this. Whatever we're doing the I think that's a good starting point for discussion. Because it has been a year and a half and we need to get going with this. Whatever we're doing, the sooner we can have clear regulatory guidelines for our community, both sides, all sides, the better. So. I do want to point out that we have two property owners who are looking to use this provision. Currently. I have times of the essence in other words. So I don't know if I'm particular Mr. Masuda feels more comfortable with the five years. It would be something we could review in the future. would hope is part of our regular review of your board's activities. Ms. Morales, this would be included in the mix. Because it is you do sort of have to get some time under your belt, right? So I'll just make that a motion as described. Before you just subterting the front. I believe there's a couple more questions. We also have to go to public comment. Okay. really I think you're I think you're onto something. But let me just thank you. Let me put a motion on the table in that way. Hold on before you make your motion. What about item two? Is there a second? I would second this idea. What about item two does that get readjusted to two years? I think item two is one of the triggers within the five years, right? Yeah, I would leave that the same. So it'd be five and five? Yes, sir. If that's the five and five. Yeah. And then what about single family households? Would single family households be? I wouldn't change anything else about the recommendation. Thank you for that. I believe there's at least one more council member in the queue before we go to public comment. There's a couple more council member poll and council member line. to a point made earlier by Councillor Member Hampton, in other jurisdictions which have these requirements, there's a practice that is developed that has its own name, cash for keys, landlords who want to eliminate a tendency will come to voluntary agreement, which will in writing wave the protections that they have and sometimes that's worth a premium. It's I think a distasteful practice and often a manipulative practice where the tenant may not have understanding of their full rights. But that has, and I think that's the reason why what seems draconian is there is to discourage people from exploiting this as a way to temporarily get out of that. And Mr. Misuna may have a hard time imagining that somebody would would ever do that, but in a cutthroat market, there are certainly those opportunities. And you know, the example has been given. You've only been there for six months and we've got rights for 10 years. Well, if you've moved, if you've found a place in Pasadena in these circumstances, when rents are sky high, when tenant demand is so huge that maybe 50 or 75 people will apply for a single unit, and you have to pay your65 or $45 fee which is non-refundable just to apply and you've done that to 5 or 10 places and you've entered into, you've paid first and last month's rent and you've done your moving expenses and now 6 months later you're going to be evicted and find yourself back out on the street. So I think it's important that we have the plain language that says to the maximum extent of the law. So I'm very appreciative of Councilmember Madison looking for a solution. I'm prepared to vote for it tonight, but I think it violates the charter. Thank you for that. It was excellent. It was excellent. And I appreciate your comments as well. It's me, Vice Mayor, Councilmember Lann. So can we get the charter back up for a second, 1806 C&D? They were up a second ago. That's not it. I know. C&D are there. OK, so that's not the big C at the top. It's the next C underneath that. So I also was really grateful to Councilmember Madison for trying to find a sort of a compromise here. But I think we need analysis again on the interplay between 1806 C and 1806 D, because I see 1806 C as already having adopted the five and ten year requirements by the voters. That's out of our hands. I think it's done. And then D, I'm not sure what regulations it is we're required to adopt. They might be the last two recommendations of the staff report, maybe, but I'm not sure. But I think the right of return language is covered in C and that's not for us to play with. So I think I don't think we can do it tonight because we're not even sure what we can and can't adopt and what we have to adopt. So if we could get it back next week or the week after though, it's still pretty timely and I think everyone will feel better about what we're doing. I don't think Mr. Madison got a second to his motion despite our appreciation of his effort. So perhaps we can. Council member Hampton was willing to. I was, that was it. I was getting close. I was getting close if you said single-family households were not that, okay, I could work with that, but you're right. So perhaps the best approach here, given the hour and given other situation is to give Mr. Jones an opportunity to weigh in here and give us all the benefit of additional analysis. So I will I will move that we continue this. I do have public comment. Well, I will move that we continue this item and public comment open You would still need to take public comment tonight before we do that we have to take it tonight on Mr. Lion Can we just see those provisions that see referred to in in? By reference I'm sorry if you if we bring back up the charter the charter sure. 1806 C&D yeah we say so 1806 C by its terms right I just want to check those real quick and make sure that we're 8 3 11 right but this is where I don't Is that not helpful? I mean, I don't think so, because you and I can do anything else. He's to be on the part of a report some thought about how all this in Iraq is my take can we maybe that'll help I mean point is all in the right direction so so this is a one is failure to pay rent, A2 is breach of lease. And A is just cause. Yes. Just cause evictions. No, so is the LSAC type? No, no, it's referring to these. I think so. I think it's referring to Elisak provisions. Back down to C first. Okay, sorry. There we go. Yeah, I think that's referring to subsection A of the Elisak. No, it says subsections A-A-3-11 herein. And so he was looking at at A and then he started scrolling with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But A says just cause for eviction and then one of the following conditions and it's different than anything that comes off the market. Right. And that's correct. He said 8 through 11. Right. through 11 right so you scrolling down now right that's where he's going but this Set the stage for what 8 through 11 involve It was a I don't want to go too fast I'll start at the end. Sorry about that. Appreciate that all right. It's a just cause for you causes for eviction and then 8 through 11 and so then you Say at least one of the following conditions exists and then you scroll down to eight. Yes. So there are more provisions that require the first right of refusal, not just Ellis. And so those provisions are number eight necessary and standard repairs requiring temporary vacancy. Number nine, owner move in. Number 10, withdrawal of units from permanently for the rental market. That is Ellis. And then government order is number 11. So all of those requirements is what is being referenced in small C. Right, but it is incorporating by reference the Ellis Act, which is a 10. Right. Yes. Yes. So again, I think we've already done that with regard to those. And rather than argue that point tonight, I would like to call the question on continuing this item. Well that's fine, but I think we should not repeat this. Like let's be clear of what we're doing because I will say I agree With Mr. Lyon if the language is already in the charter Then I'm not sure you need our action at all Right why wouldn't the rental board be empowered by that delegation To promulgate regulations implementing the the Ellis Act language. So I think that's what we need we need legal analysis about that. And I don't know for example in these other jurisdictions what the procedure was whether the language of the charter amendment tracked ours or whether it was purely council created in terms of the legislative act, it'd be helpful to work that into the analysis. Yeah. We'll bring that back. Great, thank you. Thank you, everyone. I appreciate all the discussion and agree. There's a lot more that needs to be done. I think for the council make a full informed decision. Should we go to public comment before we take our vote? Yes, I will just call people and do you want to do two minutes or because it's going on? There's four, eight, there's 10 speakers. Yeah, go ahead and two and of course encourage everyone to, if you're hearing points repeated, please try to keep that time in a month so we can get through everyone in a timely fashion. OK. Joseph Batista, followed by Sean Wilkasa, followed by Bert Newton and Jill Schuch. Joseph, are you coming up? Yes? Yes, I'm asking you. Are you Joseph? No, sorry. From over there. I'm Joseph. Great. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. You have two minutes. I'll bring a bell when you have 30 seconds. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joseph. I live in Pasadena Well, my concern before coming was that there would be no urgency to enact regulations that Implement the LSAC but either we don't need to do that or we do need to do that But either way it sounds like you all are interested in moving forward. So I'm happy about that Just a couple things This might sound weird, but I actually looked on the agenda and clicked on all the attachments under item 17. So I looked at the four things and there was, I think, a couple letters from a lawyer that was working with the rental housing board. So in terms of your point, in terms of that maybe it's already implemented. According to that law, at least it's not that straightforward. So I don't know how knowledgeable that lawyer is, but in that lawyer's opinion, like the rental housing board didn't have the authority or the L.S. Act The things that the L.S. Act covers aren't all covered by the the charter the 18 charter So I think I think some people said we need further analysis. I think that's right And not that I I'm an expert in this, but I did do some research on it. I think any city, any municipality, has some leeway in terms of how it implements the LSDAC. There are things that are set in stone according to code 706O, and there are things that cities can determine. For example, a city can say, you know, if a tenant is victed, the city can stipulate how much money a tenant is entitled to when they're asked to leave. In terms of the five-year-tenth-tenger thing, I was under the assumption that that was said, but it's possible that there may be some flexibility with those things too. That's what I know, but yeah, of course, for the research is necessary. But I think this is important to wrap up. I used, I used to be a landlord, and I tried to be honest as I could, but I know there's some shady people out there and I too might take advantage of this to get rid of people. And ironically, and this is where I'm gonna sound like the nodal, ironically, the Ellis Act was actually meant to protect landlords who were forced to keep renting out. So it's an interesting piece of legislation if you look into it. So anyway, thanks. Thank you. Sean Wakasa, followed by Bert Newton and Jill Schoek and Anthony Mnusos and Wendy Mestas. So that was a mistake. I actually just wanted to speak on that 19. And I did so earlier. OK, great. Thank you. Bert Newton, followed by Jill Schuch, the Anthony Menusos. Yes, good evening. So I'm speaking in support of adopting the full provisions of the LSAC, the full tenant protections. And I think that anytime somebody is being kicked out of where they live, those protections should be strict, even if they seem too strict because somebody's losing their home. I do know a family who a few years back was kicked out of their place here in Pasadena because the landlord said they were taking it off the market and then not long after the landlord put it back on the market. So I don't know why that landlord did. I don't know what that landlord got out of it, but landlords have even more incentive to do that now. As you know, the rents are going up. And if a landlord can get out the current tenant, they can raise the rent pretty dramatically. So I think there's a small number of landlords that are really looking for some angle to do this. Family I mentioned was an immigrant family did not speak English. They were in the asylum process. Recently I've been hearing of a lot of undocumented families that are in this situation. And as I said a couple of weeks ago, it doesn't take that many landlords to be doing this to for us to have like a thousand people being displaced this way. So we need to enact these protections as fast as possible. I understand they need to be clear on it, but we need all the protections we can, especially our undocumented families right now are very vulnerable given the administration in Washington. So we need to do everything we can to protect them. Thank you. Thank you. Joe Schuch, followed by Anthony Menusos, then Wendy Mestas and then Austin. So I'm aware of many landlords that have taken advantage of the Ellis Act around the state and to temporarily evict people in order to raise rents eventually. And so I appreciate that this body is looking at this seriously to help protect our population here in Pasadena. And I'm really grateful for the provision of First Riter refusal. So I guess I'm kind of confused a little bit when I hear the term housing provider, you know, all due respect, but it seems like from that perspective, you would be grateful for an opportunity to continue in that in that business and not try to use the out of Alice Act to get out of it. Maybe that's naive on my part, I don't know. But also it seems that there's a real opportunity here as a housing provider to make sure someone can stay in our city by by be willing to pay that relocation cost. I know that without that some people would be on our streets truly. So, but in light of the fires and 5,000 people right next door and in our own city that have been displaced, we need to do everything we can to protect those folks. So thank you and please adopt a good provision. Thank you Anthony Muneus followed by Wendy Mesta. Mesta followed by Austin and Jose Ramos. So Anthony Menusos and I do support what the rental board has recommended. Really appreciate all of you for your concern for renters and also for housing providers landlords as well. I think this LSAC was intended to give landlords housing providers an opportunity to sell their property. They should have that right. But as been pointed out, some are taking advantage of it. And I think that this protection for tenants is much needed. I want to just say one thing that we're really concerned about. I know as a city is displacement of our residents, which has been a really tragic over the last 20 or 30 years. And this council approved an ordinance that would set aside 20% of affordable housing to those tenants who were displaced within the last 10 years, right? So I think that the 10-year limit is not unreasonable. I think it reflects, I don't think it's very likely that landlords are going to keep a property unoccupied for 10 years or even five years. But if that were to happen and an attendant wanted to return to Pasadena, I think that should be their right and they should be able to do that. And that's what this ordinance would allow or this provision would allow. Thank you very much. Thank you. Wendy missed us. by Austin and Jose Ramas then Esperanza Mayo. She's not online. Okay. Okay. So it's Austin. Sorry, Austin, my bad. And then Jose Ramos. Yeah, good evening again. And thank you for considering this. I definitely want to speak in favor of the full protections of the of the LSAC within whoever's authority can can go about implementing it. I understand that there's a lot of technical questions here that I don't pretend to understand. So maybe I'm just, I wanna take advantage of this moment to maybe speak to some of the more like discursive and narrative elements of this, potential, yeah, piece of legislation. One, there's been a number of comments that, in my view, or gave me the sensation that people were anticipating from tenants a bit of like conspiratorial or like, people conniving in order to cheat the system. And I think that a lot of the people who have already offered their public comment have mentioned that they have very concrete examples of landlords doing, you know, trying to manipulate the system in ways that could provide them in the end more profit. And I think that's like, I don't doubt that there's instances in which that type of thing may have happened, but at the end of the day people are trying to keep a roof over the head, and I think that should take precedent over most everything. And at the end of the day, I don't think tenants and landlords deserve the same degree of protection work kind of speaking them, like as if they're on equal terms, I don't think that's the case. I think what's at stake for tenants is keeping a roof over the head, and what's at stake for landlords is whether or not they have access to a source of passive income. So we should just like, you know, name that for what it is. And that's all I have to say, because my time's up. So thank you. Thank you. Jose Ramos, then Esparza Mayo, and then Ryan Bell. Bye. Good evening. I'm really happy to hear these discussions, and I'm able to understand what you're talking about. It is good to try to help those providers of homes. And as well as the talents. I really hope that we reach a favorable decision for both. In my case, my provider is trying to help me, I'm also behind, but there are others who are trying to take the link to take advantage of it, and that's a lot more. Like I said before, in my case, they're trying to help me, and he's giving me a break, But many others are not doing that. They're taking advantage of the situation and they're trying to evict people. That's all I hope you really reach a favoral decision for both. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. As far as Esperanza male then Brian Bell. Uh, me queda. Uh, orita de las conversaciones que hemos escuchado aquí. Es verdad. Como arrendataria. Uh, uh, tuve que llenar una aplicación. Tuve que hacer un pago de 35 dólares to be able to seek a new place. I listened to what you're talking about now. And to me find another place to live. I did have to pay the $35 trying to find another place. And for each adult, mayors, the 18-year-old, they had to pay $35 for personal. For each adult, anyone who's over 18, I had a pay $35 per person. And that doesn't even guarantee that you qualify for that home. I've lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I have lost $300. I've lost $300. And as they said, there were lists of those applications. 50, 60 people. So I say nothing more for me. It's difficult for me. But for many people we lived in the arena. And there was a list of 50 up to 60 people who were going after the same apartment as I was. So imagine, I'm not the only one that was out that kind of money. There were a lot of other people that went through it. The other thing I observed is the rent went went sky high way too high. I just lived in the house where my daughter lived. I told her that she was talking to her for a long time to pay the rent because I lost her money. So we'll talk about an example of my daughter. She called me some time to pay because I've lost my job. I don't have any money. Can you give me some extra time to pay the rent? And he said, why don't you just get out? I'll give you $10,000 to get out. That's not what't asking for money, but it was just asking for a little more time so we can pay the rent. Thank you. Thank you. Ryan Bell followed by Simon Gibbons and Ryan's coming in virtually. Hi, good evening, council. Thanks for taking my comment. Apologies I'm not there in person. I'm out of town for work today. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things that I heard that have been stated, but I thought maybe it would be worth emphasizing again that the point of the LS Act is to give landlords the right to leave the rental market. And it's an absolute right. They don't have to qualify for it. It's just a, and we have no jurisdiction over it. So the LSAC is, it just exists and it's an ability for landlords to evict their tenants in order to tear down the building, convert it into offices, condos, tear it down and build their own house there, whatever they wanna do. The tenant protections that are attached to the LS Act are to prevent bad faith on the part of the landlord. So it's to keep a landlord from saying, I'm gonna go out of business, evicting everyone, and then saying, just kidding, I'm going to re-rent all these units, but now because it's under rent control and because we have cost of Hawkins and I can raise the rents between tendencies, I can in some cases double or triple the rent because tenants have been there for a while. The application of the LS Act I thought could also maybe use a little clarification. So the LS Act applies to any unit as Ms. Martinez said, but the rental protections that go with the LS Act, I'm pretty confident are just for rent control units. So it's not as though tenant protections, like rent protections are gonna suddenly adhere to a single family home or something like that. So I think the idea of a 10 year right to return, it's just a right to return, it's not a right to return at the previous rent. That would be the five year, the next tier of protections. And so I think it's important to, just to remember that the tenant would also have to submit their mailing address every time they move so that because the city could only reach a tenant for a first-ride or refusal if they can reach them. So it's a 10 year strategy. It's a pretty long con for a tenant to play. So yeah, I just wanted to clarify a few of those things and happy that we'll be taking another look at this. Thank you. Simon Gibbons. I think I'm on mute now. There you go. Go ahead. Rather than going into the details of some of these points, I want to talk about the real crisis with facing. We have a desperate shortage of housing and things that make it harder to keep housing, to build housing, to create new apartments are always going to be a problem. Many of these regulations being proposed are extremely punitive. They have a long period of time and they don't take into account that circumstances change. A lot of owners right now are approaching their golden years. They may be wishing to either sell or hand it down to next generations, and putting a restriction on what can happen for up to 10 years on a property severely damages their ability to do that. The other regulation after the first three is saying that if there is a full tear down for whatever reason and then there is a new construction that will no longer benefit from the Costa Halkan's act. And that's a big deal too, because the last thing we need is to prevent the construction of new places. We need to ensure that we've got a healthy market ranging across all types of economic situations. So please consider carefully the massive impact that these can have on the most fundamental problem we have to supply of housing. Thank you. And thank you. That completes public comment on this item. Thank you. Any further discussion before we take the We'll call vote on the motion. And what's the motion? I'm sorry. The motion. And what's the motion? I'm sorry. The motion was made by Councillor McColle, seconded by Councillor McColle, to continue the item. I don't know if it's for next week. It wouldn't be from March 31st, so it could be the following week after that. Because it's not a public hearing. Right. so it's whenever it's ready to come back. And I would note as the speaker commented, and I didn't refer to this, but there was some legal review and a memo from outside council. So we will regroup and keep in mind some of the questions, thinking about the fact that we have a charter that's perhaps unique and we have state laws, so I think our outside council was trying to come up with a way to make both enforceable. So we will continue to look at that and come back whenever we come back within the next week to three weeks with further review and analysis. In the case of outside council, though, in that case, that outside council is retained by and answers to the rental housing board. And we need, I think, independent analysis by our own city attorney to us. Yes, I understand. Or adopt theirs, but I read theirs, but it didn't satisfy the question that I asked here. Understood. Councilor Hathen, I'm Adrian McHugh. Yes, I am. I did have a question. It's related to maybe some of the rental housing board could take up or look into maybe they come back to the council to make a decision on this. The application fees to rent a property, I think it is actually there are a lot of properties that a lot of folks are putting in applications for and these properties have been vacant for a year, right? And if the property owner constantly gets applications, that application, I mean, some of these properties have hundreds of applications, they're essentially collecting rent on just applications that keep in a property vacant. I don't know if we're looking into that, and if there's a way to cap the amount of application fee and if there could be one application because I think it is ridiculous that they require a application for every individual that will be living with and I understand there's somean stuff, but if it's under one person's name, it should only be that person that is being held to that credit, right, over that, whatever that issue, whatever that may be. Um, I think that it's something that needs to be investigated. I don't know if it's something that your board is looking into, um, but if it's something that the council needs to take action on, we should cap the amount of applications and not to whatever the market is, right? I mean, you have to do a life scan. I understand there's some paperwork that goes along with that. I don't know what that number would be, but a life scan is not $35 per version. I'll tell you that. And that's just a regular cursory Google search. That's... You guys know I like my Google search. Mr. Hampton, when you have an apartment, you have to have all the adults listed. I understand that, but I think it's ridiculous that they make all of the adults applaud, put pay for an application as well. I think that you should just have the adults list it, right? That this is my thought. I mean, it's really up to the mental health board to really take that discussion on. But I do think that some, not only, I think some housing providers may be keeping units empty and just collecting applications. And you can make a decent revenue if you have hundreds of applications coming in or 30 or 40 applications coming in. So just move for that. And action item hopefully for the housing board to consider. can bring it back to to the housing board. Yes, and thank you, Councilmember Hampton, and the member of the public who brought that up. I think it's definitely worthy of further study and hopefully the rental board, the rent stabilization department can come back, either take action on their own or come back to us with a recommendation. If there's no further questions or comments, let's have the roll call. Motion is to continue the item. Yeah, I don't typically we wouldn't do that on a non-public hearing, continue it to win. Doesn't say. What direction? I think it was the more legal analysis and specifically as to, yes. I mean, it was just to provide analysis, to provide more exposition from the staff report and related to the questions, there were a lot of questions I don't want to try and review them all here. Well, I'm just concerned about the properties in the queue that have already started the process. So, when will it be ready to come back? I think we'll either come back next week or three weeks because there's no meeting on the 31st, right? It says our shop is day so it'll either be depending on progress next week or more likely in my mind April. So if our party agreed we don't need to go back to the board. April 7th. Correct. We can deal with this here now. Yes. Okay. But isn't the whole state under the LSAC anyways? Yes, they are. So these properties can get out if they wanted to with or without our action. But the LSEC requires that a city that is under rental restrictions that they actually develop a resolution or an ordinance that establishes and adopts, they have to adopt the LSEC. So it is not an effect right now, they have to adopt the ALICE Act. For the landlord protections, there's the tenant protections or both. They have to adopt, I believe both, in order to ensure that the ALICE Act protections are in place. I guess we'll get that analysis back in. Yes, we can go forward with that. Yes, we can. We can bet you're part of that analysis. Yeah. Can we vote? All right. Let's take the vote. Council member Cole. Yes. Council member Hampton. Yes. Council member Jones is absent. Council member Lyon. Yes. Council member Madison. Yes. Council member Moussouda. Yes. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. Mayor Gordo is absent due to recusal. The motion passes unanimously. That. Vice Mayor Revis. Yes. Mayor Gordo is absent due to recusal. The motion passes unanimously. That leads the agenda, Vice Mayor. And we are- How far did we adopt? Didn't we skip over? Maybe I missed it. Was the consent calendar included 14? Yes, sir. Okay, good. Okay. It was the full consent calendar except for the other items. Okay. All right. Vice Mayor, we do have an adjourned in memory of Don Nollor. Yes, let's please adjourn in memory of Don Nollor. Please stand and recognize the moment of silence. Thank you so much. Have a good night, everyone. Good night. We are adjourned.