Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2024-08-10 04:47:24 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_031c5df5-5428-11ef-bafe-005056a89546.ogg

Segment 1

Good evening.
We just established quorum and so if people can please take their seats, thank you for joining us this evening.
We'd like to start this evening city council meeting.
And counselor Bartlett, are you on? Yes, I am.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Bartlett will be teleconferencing from a remote location and I believe it's 3 am where he is currently teleconferencing from.
So, thank you for being here and participating in this important meeting tonight.
So, good evening.
I'd like to call to order the special meeting of the Berkeley City Council for Monday, August 5th, 2024 at 6 PM the 1st order of businesses roll call if the city clerk can please call the roll.
Okay, Councilmember Castellani is currently absent.
Councilmember Taplin is currently absent.
Councilmember Bartlett.
Present.
Vagab, Ross.
Present.
Wengraft is absent.
Lunaparra.
Here.
Humbert.
Present.
And Mayor Arreguin.
Present.
A quorum of the city council is present.
Thank you.
This is a special meeting to take up 2 items.
Item 1A is placing the Berkley tenant protection.
Sorry, once again, item 1A is placing the Berkley tenant protection and right to organize act on November 5th, 2020 for ballot submitted by Councilmember Lunaparra and item 1B is an amended version of that, which I've submitted on behalf of Councilmember Hahn as well.
So, we're going to provide opening comments on both those items.
We have a presentation with the rent board, and then we'll open up for public comment thereafter.
So, just 1st, to open on this item that I'll turn over to Councilmember Lunaparra and thank everyone for being here tonight.
So, as we know, the rent stabilization board earlier this year.
Had proposed a number of important changes to the rent ordinance.
Um, that are now being presented before us tonight.
Item 1B is an attempt to find a path to ensure that we can move this measure forward to be to be submitted to the voters.
Um, this November, and I think the key aspects of item 1B are as follows.
It uses the version of the rent ordinance changes.
That Councilmember Lunaparra had introduced, but makes several, um, substantive changes.
1, um, it.
Does not include, um, uh.
It retains the current exemption for golden duplex properties to, um, it, it, um.
Make some a slight change to the section under tenant right to organize by, uh.
Requiring that the, uh, the tenant right to organize, uh, would kick in for properties of 10 units or more or properties of 1 to 9 units if they're if they're managed by a property manager.
Um, and.
Um, trying to see what the other major change a number of other clarifying changes that were made with the input of the city attorney's office.
Um, there was 1 substantive change that we, um, we did propose, which was to strike the language under the applicability section, um, which is a section 050.
Um, under, um, uh, I guess that's 050B3 government owned and government subsidized rental units.
So rent board had previously proposed that certain government subsidized rental units be covered under rent control.
Um, uh, initially we were proposed to strike that in conversation with the rent board, um, and with further explanation about the, why this this change was proposed.
I'm proposing that we restore the rent boards, previous language.
And we'll hear from the rent board later about why they're proposing this specifically and why it's important.
I just want to emphasize that anything that's newly constructed is exempt from rent control.
Um, I think it's certainly appropriate in those cases that those properties be covered under rent control.
We're talking about things that are pre-cost to Hawkins and where they either were previously government subsidized and no longer have those subsidies, I think, Redwood Gardens, Carrot Tub and Terrace, which were built with certain federal federal funds that had certain affordability covenants, those are now gone, they've been bought by private entities, I think it's certainly appropriate in those cases that those properties be covered under rent control.
Um, 2004, the voters of Berkeley made an amendment to the rent ordinance to say for Section 8 tenants in cases where the rent exceeded the federal payment standard, that tenants will be covered under rent control.
I think it's consistent with that, making sure that in cases of people that live in subsidized housing, when the rent exceeds a certain amount, that they be covered under rent control.
I think those are all the major subsidive changes.
Uh, and this, this was in the packet that was released on Friday.
Oh, 1 last subset of change.
Which is that we added a new section, which would put in the Berkeley municipal code, a new section, a section.
Let me share screen and show this.
Um.
Section 3 adoption of chapter 13.85.
The housing retention program, this would add a new section to the Brooklyn this will code not in the rent control ordinance, but in the Berkeley municipal code to ensure that the city allocates reasonable funding from existing sources to an ongoing housing retention program.
It sets a goal that the city should try to meet of allocating no less than 1.1Million to the housing retention program and includes language around the city manager.
Promulgating rules and regulations, including eligibility criteria, application procedures and other rules and regulations necessary to administer the program.
We've had a very successful housing retention program in place for many years that we have.
Provided millions of dollars during the, during the pandemic to help people who are facing housing and security state, state, we have, we've been able to keep hundreds of households, stately house in Berkeley during during the pandemic.
And in recent years, I think we should, we should build on that.
We should, we should provide more resources.
We should expand that program.
And this, this would put into the burdenless code, a goal and a policy that we will maintain a housing retention program, setting a goal of 1.1Million for the housing retention program.
And I think it's important that we make that commitment while we're strengthening the rent ordinance, while we're making important cleanup changes, while we're strengthening eviction protections, while we're strengthening tenant protections, also recognizing that housing preservation is a critical part of our of our city's affordable housing strategy and our efforts to prevent homelessness that that needs to go hand in hand with our other housing policies like rent control.
So, those are the, those are the major changes that we made to the version of the Senate by Councilman Luna Parra and I want to turn over to Councilman Luna Parra.
Thank you.
I want to thank our community for the letters of both support and opposition that we have received for this item.
This body's fundamental job is to listen to the will of the people and make decisions informed by that.
So, I want to thank Councilmember Hahn and the mayor for bringing the supplemental material forward in the name of compromise based on my conversations with my colleagues and the messages we have received over the past couple of weeks.
And with the ultimate goal of placing tenants rights on the ballot, I am prepared to accept the supplemental material and support it as it moves forward tonight.
I would like to share that I brought this item forward originally, because I recognize the urgency to protect and strengthen tenants rights to ensure our regulations are aligned with new and local with new local and state laws and provide voters, the majority of which are renters, the opportunity to advocate for their needs, particularly while misleading landlord sponsored measures on the ballot.
I am still steadfast in my dedication and commitment to strengthening tenant protections.
Thank you all for coming out tonight and I'll turn it over to rent board legal counsel Matt Brown for a presentation.
Okay.
And so we've invited Matt Brown, the general counsel of the Berkeley rent board, and we have chaired with Simon Weisberg and Brentwood executive director to Shana.
Here's Williams here as well to just go over the various amendments that were initially proposed by the rent civilization board.
To the Berkeley rent ordinance, and as well as the new amendments, it's all turned over to Mr.
Brown.
Thank you.
Mr.
Mayor.
Thank you.
Council members for allowing us the opportunity to present.
I prepared a presentation of council member Luna paras proposal.
I would leave it to you.
Council member Luna para to interrupt me if you don't want me to discuss anything in any particular slides given your prior statements.
So, I just wanted to say, I'll be following your direction as it relates to what I presented on.
Okay, but I have here a full presentation of your particular proposal.
A moment, I think has something I don't know if I want to turn it over to the mayor.
I'm just wondering if, since I think council member has expressed that she would be supportive of.
The changes we put forward, if maybe we take a vote on her version, since it's separate, right? Do we have to take a second? No, I mean, we don't.
Well, I don't know if it's 1A or 1B.
We can approve 1A.
We can approve 1B.
Okay.
However, it gets 5 votes is what will be the action of the council.
Okay.
I thought we might have to take action on 1 in order to.
Okay, so I guess I would maybe just suggest that.
We leave it open for questions, but I'll leave that to you, mayor.
I had misunderstood procedurally where we are.
And if I may 1 suggestion is that as we're going through it, we'll try and say it's more I think we were trying to explain this PowerPoint was presented kind of prior to the recent changes and that as.
Council member council brown is explaining it.
He will try and indicate where things have.
It sounds like merged.
So, hopefully that'll be more efficient.
Yeah, I think that's helpful.
Okay.
I think it's all for the council and for the public to know what was originally proposed.
Why it was proposed.
I know we'll have questions for for a report staff about specific sections.
I just want to clarify the version that I've submitted 1B keeps the current golden duplex exemption.
We're not getting rid of the golden duplex exemptions.
You have a golden duplex owner.
You still would be exempt.
It's also would keep the exemption for.
It would, it would, it would include the language that was previously proposed around applying rent control for certain government subsidized housing language in the previous version that would allow for owners to withhold rent as a penalty for non compliance with the registration requirements.
That's stricken.
So, if you are late in filing your registration statements, you would not be subject to additional penalties beyond the beyond the, the, the fees that the board is currently established, which you have a right to appeal to the board to consider hardship and make some slight changes to the.
The section about tenant associations, and that includes the language around the allocation of funds for housing retention programs.
Those are the changes.
So, yeah, when we go to certain things, if you can just know.
What has changed that would be helpful? Absolutely.
If you don't mind, council members, I am going to start to share my screen for a PowerPoint that we prepared for this.
Okay.
So, here we are, there's a number of changes.
I'm going to go through them sort of pretty quickly at the beginning.
And if anybody has any questions about this.
You can either interrupt me on various slides, or I can take questions at the end.
I will be giving the nuts and bolts of the proposal.
So, we're going to be talking about how we develop the proposed the board of developed proposed amendments.
We'll be talking about expanded coverage and increase just cause protections for tenants, a new tenant right to organize some miscellaneous amendments that that don't really fit into any specific goals that are associated with it.
And then the golden duplex issue, which, of course, council member Lunapara and the mayor have indicated that we'll probably just brush over quickly.
So, as everybody knows, there are 2 ways to amend the rent ordinance.
Rent ordinance is a voter adopted initiative and can only be changed by the citizens of Berkeley during an even numbered election year, at a state general election.
There is no citizen initiative coming from the board this year.
So the board has asked that the measure be placed on the ballot by council.
So, these this process began about 6 years ago when the board began discussing how to expand tenant protections.
It has been discussed at 2 rent board meetings for ad hoc rent board committee meetings, considering amendments 1, 4 by 4 housing committee and rent board commissioners have gone to numerous community meetings to discuss these issues as well to get support for them.
The end result of these amendments would be that more tendencies would be protected.
Our agency would have an increased ability to collect tenancy info and provide important data to the community, including council.
We would be able to adopt better policies in order to.
Confront the data that we actually have respond to the data that we have.
It would strengthen just cause protections for tenants who live in Berkeley rental property.
Sorry, it would again, create an enforceable tenant right to organize and then just some, some tweaks that we made to monitor modernize and streamline the ordinance.
So, again, more tenants will be protected.
With the adoption of these changes, 1 of the primary.
Goals of the changes is to bring under complete protection various government owned and government subsidized housing where it's legally permitted.
In other words, where there isn't something that prohibits local price controls from attaching.
And or, or there aren't other exemptions that would serve to partially cover these units when they couldn't be fully covered.
The other example, sure.
Yeah, so 1 of the reasons that we added that specifically, and it has been brought back as the mayor had described is that I think it's everybody knows Harry Tubman is a perfect example of this after this.
If this gets on the ballot and passes, then the seniors at Harry Tubman and Redwood gardens would be would be able to receive assistance from the rent board.
And as we know, we've seen an increase in for profit companies, buying properties that originated as HUD properties.
And the reason that we weren't the city had to spend 100,000 dollars to do to get an ombudsman, because there was nobody to that had jurisdiction over these properties and were able to take action.
This would allow the rent board to to expand and be able to provide those services.
And obviously, it's very concerning when most of a lot of affordable housing is focused on seniors and that they are not able to provide those services.
So, I think it's important that the rent board understand that affordable housing is focused on seniors and that they don't have any local agency that they can obtain services from.
The other way in which this particular proposal protects more tenants is that there is currently an exemption, which exists in the ordinance where any time a property owner shares a kitchen or bath with any of the tenants in a unit, that unit is completely exempt from rent control.
This particular amendment would require that the landlord actually live in the unit at the inception of the tenancy so that a landlord wouldn't be able to move into a vacant space in the unit share a kitchen and bath and otherwise deprived tenants of protections that they had previously before the landlord moved in.
So, if the landlord lives there at the inception, and the tenants understand that this is a completely exempt tenancy that would remain the only thing that would be prohibited would be the landlord, essentially moving into an existing tenancy and depriving tenants of rights that they previously enjoyed there is, of course, 15 year new construction exemption.
This was a compromise the ordinance currently listed as 20 years.
The board had proposed 10 years after discussions with various council members and the 4 by 4 committee council member chose to put forward the 15 year.
Exemption, so all newly constructed units in the event that cost to Hawkins is amended or repealed would be considered new construction for 15 years at at the end of that period, they would be controlled by the ordinance.
Again, the proposed amendments strengthen good cause protections afforded to tenants in Berkeley.
And the board has found that there is a.
There's a good cause that currently exists for eviction, whereby a landlord is able to give a tenant a substantially identical lease and essentially compel them to sign that lease.
Um, or be at risk of eviction, and the board has found that a number of students are sort of forced to sign leases that they can't afford or for terms, which they can't satisfy.
And so this particular proposal would eliminate that good cause for eviction and all tendencies would revert to month to month after their expiration.
The non payment of rent would be adjusted to be more in line with what Oakland and Los Angeles currently have, which is that.
You are not able to be evicted until there's rental debt owed is at least 1 month fair market rent.
Thirdly, the, the breach of lease has to be substantial and cause the landlord harm to be a basis for eviction.
This still allows landlords to evict tenants who are otherwise disruptive or disturbing the piece of other tenants or neighbors.
And then, of course, the last thing, which is less of a good cause and more procedural is that eviction notices would end and.
The eviction notice would have to be filed within 3 days of being served on the tenants, which is an unlawful detainer complaints, which is an eviction lawsuit would have to be filed with the board within 3 days of being served on the tenants.
We found that tenants often don't have enough time.
Our current ordinance says 10 year.
I'm sorry 10 days.
They must file within 10 days.
Oftentimes that's after the lawsuit has long since progressed.
And it right to organize landlords have to confer in good faith with tenant associations.
This applies to properties with 5 or more rental units as the has put forward or 3 or 4 if they're managed by a management company mayor and council member Han have put forth.
Of course, the substitute.
Proposal that only units with 10 or more.
I'm sorry.
Only properties with 10 or more units qualify for this, right? Or 1 to 9, if they are managed by a management company.
And the housing service is considered a.
Would be subject to a possible reduction if there are any violations.
Okay, so let's move on to the next item.
These are the miscellaneous changes that I discussed.
1 of the things that you all as a legislative body have dealt with for last few years is 330 and how it relates to the ordinance.
So, currently, our ordinance exempts new construction, and so it's incompatible with the state law.
So this would simply provide a mechanism by which if council should so choose.
They can choose to have those replacement units be rent controlled going forward rather than the low market rate.
It lowers the annual general adjustment from 7% to 3%.
It still uses the same 65% of the inflation index, which is the price index.
It eliminates the board's authority to request that council remove rent control.
This was something that was written in the very 1st iteration of the ordinance back when the rent board was actually under the city's overall umbrella.
And so, given that now council is unable to actually make any changes substantively to the ordinance as it relates to the rights and responsibilities conferred there in there is.
Not really a need for council to suspend or otherwise modify rent control unless it goes to the voters.
So this just.
Falls in line with way the ordinance and and the city currently work.
It also provides the authority for the board to find by schedule landlords who don't notify us of a new tenancy.
After written notice.
Similar to other jurisdictions, these are these are there's more of the changes that miscellaneous changes similar to the other jurisdictions requirements.
Landlords have to provide a notice of the tenants rights.
I don't know how many people know about the Oakland rent adjustment program, but every tenancy there receives what's called a wrap notice and this would be similar to that.
So, if you're living in an exempt unit, you would be told you're living in an exempt unit.
If you're living in a unit that has rent controls, you'd be told that you were living in a partially covered and we'll develop those forms for for landlords to to send out.
1 of the ways the council member of the proposal differs is that.
Her proposal would prohibit landlords from collecting rent unless they are fully registered before.
Unless they have violated the registration component of the ordinance in some way.
Council member Han and Mary Arriguin removes that particular paragraph.
And then, of course, the ratio utility billing is just essentially that landlords are able to charge.
Ten, or have tenants pay for utilities when it's either the utilities are in the tenant's name, or if it's part of a shared meter, then the amount is provided for in the actual lease itself, but not a rolling number that could change month by month.
So, just to clarify what that means is that.
Basically, you agree at the beginning, maybe you say, okay, my rent is 5000.
2000 dollars, and I'm going to charge you 2200 and the 200 is towards utilities.
Landlords often think that that what they're saying is somehow it's separate.
But what that means is really your rent is 2200.
And that landlords can't later as utility prices go up, just continue to pass that on.
That's been we've had situations where tenants are paying more than double in utilities than what their actual rent is.
This is for the folks who folks who've paid probably way more attention than you wanted to we've reorganized the exemption section.
We removed outdated and redundant language.
We've standardized capitalization, and we've updated the findings, which were findings from 1979 when they were initially proposed.
And so Berkeley looks a little different than the findings reflect that difference.
The last 1 is 1 where.
I'm just going to take questions.
The last 1 is 1 where I'm just going to take questions.
If you have any on them, council member, Lena par's proposal would phase out.
Golden duplexes for those who currently own them, and then after they're transferred for value, or after they are passed once to 1 of a designated air, they would expire as I understand it council member Hans and mayor arrogance proposal.
Eliminates any adjustment to the golden duplex exemption as it currently exists in our ordinance.
And any questions, we'll hold questions to go after public comment, but thank you, Mr.
Brown and for being here tonight and I'm sure we'll have questions later.
I'll just say that on balance.
This is modernizing our rent control ordinance to reflect best practices from record jurisdictions throughout the state of California.
It is strengthening tenant protections, creating a right to organize and.
So, I think these changes are so many of them are long overdue and really the goal of what council and I put forward is to build on the good work that's been done by the rent board and by Councilman Luna para and to try to find a way for us to get by votes to put something on the ballot, because ultimately the council has to put because.
This did not qualify as an initiative by members of the council have to.
Vote affirmatively to put something on the ballot.
This is intended.
It doesn't it doesn't include everything everyone wants, but really trying to listen to stakeholders, trying to include the most important provisions and making sure that we can actually have a path to move something forward and get on the ballot.
And I'll just say that the step we're taking today is to put something on the ballot.
Ultimately, it's up to the people of Berkeley to decide whether to approve anything that's on the ballot.
There's another measure that's on the ballot that's been submitted by the Berkeley property owners association.
It will be up to the people of Berkeley to decide whether they want to prove this and make this a law of the city.
We are not adopting it today to make it the law of city where we would just simply be sending it to the voters.
So the voters can decide and make a decision between this and the other measure.
What is the best policy for the city of Berkeley? So, I know we have a number of people here in person who like to speak on this on this item.
We have members of the public on zoom.
We'd like to speak and to give a show of hands.
So those members of the public.
In person who like to speak.
Okay.
And then if you're on zoom and you'd like to speak, please raise your virtual hand.
Thank you.
So we're going to 1st, take public comment from members of the public here in person, given the number of speakers, each speaker will have a minute, but you can yield your minute to a maximum of 4 minutes per person.
So, if you get the other people to yield you their minute, you can have 4 minutes.
And so maybe if there's a representative of a particular organization, maybe people want to yield their minutes.
So they have more time.
Otherwise, there'll be a minute per speaker and so we can set the clock and you may begin.
Thank you.
Carol.
So, I was going to begin my statement by pointing to the letter from Julia Cato, who wrote to the city council and she also stated as Julia Cato B2 steering committee.

Segment 2

In her letter, she proposed putting the tenant protections on the ballot, but eliminating, I will read directly, I'm willing to eliminate this group from the measure in order to bring its benefits to the many tenants not living in golden duplexes.
So she states, it's my interest and the primary opposition is from golden duplex owners.
So she proposed upholding the golden duplex exemption, but placing the other rights on the ballot.
And I would support that.
I am in support of the mayor's and council member Han's measure, but I'd like to point out two gaps.
One is the actual injury to landlords.
Should that not also, should tenants also not be protected? So if you have a tenant being harassed.
If you can please wrap up.
If you have a tenant being harassed or otherwise injured on the premises, does not the landlord have a duty to those tenants? Also in terms of discriminatory things going on.
And just to end this, also the issue with the rooms.
What if the person is out of town for an extended stay on sabbatical or et cetera at the time that they rent out the property that should be addressed to.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, I am hoping that you can get this on the ballot that people can vote to get rid of the golden duplex exemption.
I live in a golden duplex.
I've lived there for 45 years and I have a life estate from the original owner saying I can live there for life.
My current landlord says, no, I'm going to get you out without just cause because it's a golden duplex.
He's lying to the rent.
He does not live there.
And I am afraid to go to trial to challenge him because if I lose, I get an eviction on my record and my daughter who lives with me gets an eviction on her record and we will be basically homeless because no one will rent to us.
It is unfair, this golden duplex exemption.
I want it golden.
Please help me get this on the ballot so that the voters can decide whether to keep that golden duplex exemption in place.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Before we proceed to our next, Mr.
Nesbitt, I need to read a statement.
Before I proceed to our next speaker, I just want to read a brief statement around our rules of the quorum.
I know we all care very deeply about the city and have very strongly held opinions.
I ask that we be respectful of each other as we proceed with the public comment discussion tonight.
And so I need a minute.
Let me find my statement.
Okay.
Okay.
Let me see.
Okay.
Sorry.
And while I'm doing this, people can line up.
Okay.
Here we go.
To allow for full participation by all members of the community and to ensure that important city business is able to be completed, we ask that all attendees conduct themselves in an orderly manner and respect the rights of others participating in the meeting.
Please be aware that the City Council rules of the quorum prohibit the disruption of the orderly conduct of the Council meeting.
The summary of these rules is available in the one-page handout on the table in the rear of the boardroom.
Disruptive behavior includes, but is not limited to, shouting, making disruptive noises, creating or participating in a physical disturbance, speaking out of turn or in violation of applicable rules, preventing or attempting to prevent others who have the floor from speaking, preventing others from observing the meeting, entering into or remaining in the area of the meeting room that is not open to the public, or approaching the Council without consent.
And we ask that you observe these rules so all members of the public may observe and fully participate in tonight's meeting.
Let's be civil.
Let's be respectful of all the speakers.
Let's ensure that everyone has a right to be heard.
Okay.
Even 1B will reduce the availability of affordable housing because property owners won't have the incentive to rent.
They won't take the risk of facing jail time if they mess up some very complicated law that they haven't even been informed about.
I cede the rest of my time to Nesbitt.
Second minute as well, I believe.
My name is Bryce Nesbitt.
You're taking your time, sir.
Okay.
Let me know when you're ready.
Okay.
Hello.
My name is Bryce Nesbitt.
I work as a permit consultant fixing problems.
Whatever the problem is, building code, rent, sometimes I negotiate buyouts.
The most recent buyout that I negotiated resulted in a payment to a tenant of $98,000, including the rent reduction.
Now, so I end up in the world between and speaking to everybody involved in this.
And my difficulty with what's been done with this ordinance is that much of it is fairly sloppily drafted in terms of its actual effect on the ground.
As an example, there's a new disclosure requirement, which I'm all for, but it's not a requirement to disclose to the tenants who need to know it the most, who are ADU tenants or Golden Duplex tenants who may read about these wonderful tenant protections, but they don't actually have them.
And I'll be passing at the end to council a proposed form for reading into the record of what such a disclosure would look like for an exempt tenant.
I think the reason is that this process has been largely done within the rent board and not spoken to the people who are on the ground doing things.
Insufficient discussion with the people who are actually offering housing, maintaining housing, repairing housing, and dealing with tenants.
As an example, it is already illegal under state law to overcharge tenants for utilities, CPEC rule.
Those owners are already violating state law, and Berkeley could be enforcing that without a need to change this rule.
For all what this has done for the missing middle housing.
So we have a long tradition in Berkeley of missing middle housing.
So thousands and thousands of owners of rental housing have opened up a room or a basement or an in-law unit.
And all of this, even with the last minute removal of Golden Duplex, is putting a chilling effect on that form of housing.
I have been asked as a permit consultant in the last months to assist people in removing housing from the market permanently.
Quite a few units.
And this is a shame.
And it's because of this adversarial landlords are evil approach to housing that I feel really doesn't work and is a real chill on housing production and maintenance in our city.
I do have more to say.
I thought I had an extra minute from somebody, but I'll wrap up per council rules.
I'm pro-housing, pro-renter, and pro-owner.
Here's your sample disclosure for exempt units.
Thank you.
My name is Sharon Marcus and I've been an owner since 1980.
And our tenants had the lease under the rent control guidelines of the time, even though we weren't required to do so.
We believe that is why tenants stay five years on an average in our in-law unit.
In most cases, tenants moved on their careers and mostly out of state.
Otherwise, they would have stayed much longer.
Let's see.
Since then, the first wrong thing, the rental rules classifieds are unattached in-law cottage as a duplex.
A duplex is only attached by a floor and a wall.
So ours is not a duplex.
Please think about that in contents to our bank contract, our country taxes, and separate house insurance policies for the two houses on the same property.
This is recognized as the county register since the houses were built in 1920.
So they're registered since 1920 as two separate homes.
By taking away the independent landowner title recognition for single unattached in-law house or cottages makes unreasonable control of leases.
And when the lease termination is ordinary.
Four years ago, we were both agile, my husband and I who will be speaking next.
I have a multiple health issue.
The worst is leukemia.
So in the near future, we need to move into our cottage.
What may be the end of our life for me? And I disagree with I am pro-housing, pro-rentier, and pro-owner.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Steve, I, your honor, honorable council members and mayor, I think I yielded my time to Mr.
Nesbitt.
Okay, thank you.
Good evening, mayor and members of the city council, or afternoon, I'm not quite sure.
Thank you, Council Member Lunaparra, for putting forward this measure.
I am disappointed that golden duplexes won't be in the final measure, but I am glad that there will be something on the ballot.
We know that the landlords lied to voters when they were circulating their petition.
They said this was a measure to protect tenants, when in reality, their measure will strip from the rent board the ability to protect tenants in uninhabitable living situations by reducing their rents.
So I'm looking forward to working to protect tenants' rights, particularly, we know, and you all know because you heard about it, at Strawberry Creek Lodge, over 70 seniors were served eviction notices.
These are low-income seniors in affordable housing were served eviction notices, some for as little as $10 of rent.
And one of the things that this measure will do is prohibit that kind of behavior.
Rent that is owed is still owed.
It can still be collected.
Late fees can still be charged on it, but no one should be evicted for less than one month's fair market rent.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
I am Dominique Walker.
I'm a mom, tenant.
I live in District 2.
I'm also a rent board commissioner.
And I would like to thank Councilmember Lupantara for bringing this item to Council.
I am here to let the Berkeley leadership know that they must step up tonight.
To do what is morally right and to choose to protect tenants by voting yes to place the Berkeley Tenant Protection Right to Organize Act on the ballot so the voters of Berkeley can decide.
We have to start prioritizing people over profit.
We have to protect those who have no protections.
This anti-tenant opposing measure would affect black, brown persons with disabilities, our elders and the working class.
The same people that have been historically displaced from the city of Berkeley.
I had the opportunity to meet with the tenants at Harriet Tubman to hear their concerns.
And if we had jurisdiction, we would be able to better serve them.
We must do what's right.
We must do what's right and what's necessary in the face of corporate money.
Those who choose to manage property as their business and put the interests of those who need it the most.
We are counting on the city of Berkeley leadership to vote to protect tenants.
And we are letting you know that we are here.
The tenants are here and our voices will be heard.
And we're going to continue to build power in the city of Berkeley.
And we're going to protect ourselves if the city won't.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm Nageen Mossad representing the Berkeley Tenant Union.
And it gives me great pleasure to speak after Dominique Walker.
We have a proud tradition of tenants rights in Berkeley since Gus Newport.
And I want to say that the Berkeley Tenant Union in its totality supports Council Member Luna Parra's position.
We also would have liked the totality of the golden duplexes to be placed on that and be also part of the tenant protections.
Although Julia Cato was quoted out of context about that, that is not correct.
That is not the stance of the Berkeley Tenant Union.
And we also want to support our seniors, Harriet Tubman and other HUD housings to come under the purview of the ramp road under protection.
Thank you very much.
Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff and voters.
My name is Deborah Matthews.
I'm a candidate for Berkeley City Council District 3, co-founder of South Berkeley Now, President of Berkeley Democratic Club.
While I don't speak for these organizations, they do help to form my opinion.
Let's say no to both alternative ballot measures.
These measures passed would have a significant impact on ADUs and missing middle housing construction.
According to state law, everyone in Berkeley can have two accessory dwellings, one freestanding and one conversion of existing space.
We face potential threat for affordable housing when the property owners will then be placed under full rent control.
In addition to that, at every ballot measure for 2024 completed the requirements for eligibility.
The procedure for this measure on the ballot by holding the special meeting is not a democratic process for everyone to have an opportunity to review all the updates.
It's wrong for our city.
Let us remember Jim Crow was legal.
However, it was wrong to mankind.
Redlining was legal.
It was, however, restrictive to say where anyone should be able to live.
Restricting gay union was legal, yet it was wrong to tell someone who they can love.
Please consider the consequences of tonight's plan to action.
Vote no on both measures.
We cannot afford to continue with policy and business as usual.
The time for a broader lens which delivers fair process and equitable policy is now.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mr.
Mayor and City Council Members.
Paola Laverde.
I live in District 5, former Rampart Commissioner and a member of the Berkeley Tenants Union.
I want to thank you very much for considering Council Member Luna Parra's proposal.
Although I can share with you that my husband and my son were evicted in July of 2022 after my son graduated from Berkeley High School.
They were evicted from a golden duplex after we had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent.
So they had no relocation ordinance and no protections under the law.
So although I will accept this, I really do hope that you consider and we need five votes to make sure that we do get protections for seniors.
Seniors living in Harriet Tubman Terrace and Strawberry Creek Lodge.
We have a goal.
We actually have someone here in this office right now who won for our country a gold medal in the 1964 Olympics, Ms.
Rosie Bonds.
And she is facing facing rent increases because she doesn't have protections as a senior living in one of these buildings.
And so we need to make sure that you, all of you, are protecting our seniors, our most vulnerable, vulnerable renters in our city.
So please, please vote yes on this proposal and please protect tenants.
We are consumers in a rental housing industry.
There are business owners.
Business owners, you know, we don't regulate how much they can charge for the initial rents.
We don't.
They can charge whatever they want and someone can say agrees to that rent, they can charge really high rents.
But as consumers, we need protections.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Frederick Fierstein.
And are there any statistics that you know of that count the decreasing minority in the city since you've been in office? I've been here for a long time.
You wiped everybody out.
They're all gone.
Your policies.
Should any of you recluse yourself because there's a conflict of interest for statements making here today? Does anybody get kickbacks from the developers that come into the city? I can't believe what's going on here.
And the rents are not for minorities.
Many who are homeless have been priced out due to your policies.
They're in the street.
Your taxes, your policies.
This wasn't magic.
This is simple economics.
Golden duplexes and Prop 13 were protected to protect people going into retirement.
Me.
Your proposal, which you have already voted down many times, will impact people.
It wasn't intended to help.
I'm glad that you're cutting the golden duplexes out.
That's the very same thing.
This is private property.
This is owned by people.
We're not multimillionaires.
We rent and we're good landlords.
I am.
Okay.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or hate, anger, and Trumpism.
You guys decide and women too.
Thank you.
Next speaker please.
I would like to yield my minute to Avery.
Hello, council members and thank you very much.
Council member for bringing this item today.
My name is Avery Arbaugh.
I'm a formerly homeless tenant.
I'm the former president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats.
I'm a student at UC Berkeley and I'm a tenant in Berkeley.
I'm here to speak in favor of the Berkeley Tenant Protection and Right to Organize Act.
As you are well aware, there's already a measure on the ballot this November, which would gut tenant rights and really make it so that the rent stabilization board of the city is unable to function and provide services to tenants.
I believe that Berkeley residents and voters deserve an alternative.
As a student with friends who have spent time homeless or been forced to drop out because of exorbitant housing prices, I support this item because even as amended, it would expand tenant rights significantly and create new rights for tenants to form associations and advocate for themselves.
So the current version as amended by Mayor Aragon and Council Member Hahn, while it is a significant compromise from the original language, I think it should be passed tonight because we need to have a version of this measure on the ballot in November that expands tenants' rights, doesn't restrict them.
So I urge you all here tonight to pass the Berkeley Tenant Protection and Right to Organize Act because it would expand tenant protections.
It would let tenants advocate for themselves, have that right, and it would most importantly give voters a choice.
Thank you very much.
Hello, my name is Debbie Sanderson.
I'm here as the co-chair of the ADU Task Force.
We encourage you to vote no on both of these options.
A primary concern is the unintended consequences of the increased controls in both of these ordinances.
We need small property owners to continue putting their units on the market to rent and to continue building ADUs and other missing rental housing.
These are not deep pockets.
These are small homeowners who've thought that it would be good to help reduce the housing crisis.
So we think that with these measures, those homeowners are going to continue to pull their units off the market and will avoid building anymore.
Thank you.
Thank you.
As we proceed, people have been leaving signs up at the podium and asked that people take their signs when they leave.
So I don't think they're yours, but anyone who wants to claim them, they can have them.
So yeah, if you have signs or other belongings, if you can please take them with you after you've finished your comments.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Khalid Mahmood.
I'm an elected leader in UAW 4811 and researcher and teaching assistant in the chemistry department at UC Berkeley.
I want to urge the council to vote yes tonight because I believe collective bargaining rights are essential in every aspect.
As a researcher, having collective bargaining rights, which we only got in 2017, means that I have access to workers' compensation, protections against harassment, and wages that match the cost of living.
Similarly, as a union member, I believe it is critical that tenants gain the same collective bargaining rights in order to have protections against unsafe living conditions, abusive landlords, and rising rents.
I support giving the rent board the authority to oversee collective bargaining rights the same way the National Labor Relations Board does, and I urge the council to vote yes.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Connor Broderick, and I'm a worker and proud rank-and-file union member in UAW 4811 at UC Berkeley.
I strongly support placing this measure on the ballot this fall, and I want to highlight my support for the inclusion of tenants' associations with bargaining rights enforced by the rent board in the proposal.
At my workplace, I've seen the power of enforced collective bargaining to recover paychecks unlawfully held by the boss and protect my co-workers from abusive supervisors.
This measure would allow tenants the same power to protect each other without risking the expense of litigation from landlords engaging in unlawful behavior from 90 percent plus rental increases to threats of eviction with little to no notice that I've seen my peers experience.
Just as my union allows for a more equitable workplace, a tenants' association of the type outlined in this measure would help level the playing field between private for-profit landlords and tenants simply attempting to live and stay in their homes in Berkeley.
Thank you very much.
Good evening, Council.
My name is Bryce Miller.
I'm a renter in Berkeley District 4, a UC Berkeley undergraduate, and the president of Telegraph for People.
Thank you to Council Member Linapara for putting this measure up for proposal.
It's disappointing that these measures may be compromised, but it's still a good thing for the city.
Berkeley renters deserve a fair and affordable housing experience, which we currently do not have.
Basic tenant protections and the right to organize should be the bare minimum for renters.
The fact that there are so many exemptions to them having the right to fair housing and the right to organize is mind-boggling.
It should not be up to landlords to decide how fairly their tenants are treated.
Give Berkeley voters a chance to decide whether or not they want these tenant protections by voting yes on this proposal.
Thank you.
All right.
Hello.
My name is Mackenzie Farnell.
I'm a worker in UAW 4811 at UC Berkeley, and I'm speaking in support of tenants' protections and right to organize.
I broadly think we need more tenant protections in Berkeley, and I'm especially excited about the idea of tenants having a right to organize, because as a union member, I've seen how organizing workers has improved our working conditions by getting things like raises and better protections for graduate student workers, and organizing tenants could have the same effect.
And while living in Berkeley, I've seen many of my peers and colleagues struggle for lack of tenant protections, including landlords suddenly raising their rent by over $1,000 or refusing to perform required maintenance.
So I think more protections and having a right to organize is really essential, and ask that you vote in favor.
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Jacob Sebastian.
I'm a Berkeley tenant from District 3 and a proud union worker in UAW 4011.
Being in a union with legally supported access to collective bargaining rights has radically improved my life and well-being.
That's just a simple example.
I identify as non-binary.
And in our most recent contract, we won the right to have access to gender-neutral restrooms.
I personally work up the hill at Lawrence-Berkeley National Labs.
So this institution, built in the 1940s, doesn't have a lot of women's restrooms, much less gender-nonconforming restrooms.
But because it's in our collective bargaining agreement, me, my trans and non-binary colleagues were able to have access to those bathrooms.
This was so groundbreaking, because we had been pushing on this for years, and it wasn't until it ended up in our contract that it ended up finally getting done.
Despite their best intentions, the employer does not know what I need to feel safe and secure in my workplace.
Similarly, landlords do not know what I need to feel safe and secure in my own home.
We believe in the power of us working folks, and that needs to extend out of the workplace into our homes.
Please support this measure.
Hello, Council Members.
My name is Connor Llewellyn.
I am a member of UAW 4811 and a graduate student researcher at UC Berkeley.
I'm here to speak in favour of the Tenant Protection Right to Organize Act, because I believe that this measure is pro-labour.
As a member of a large union, I can say that the majority of our members are rent burdened, meaning they pay more than 30% of their income into rent.
This figure used to be higher until we used collective bargaining to make our employer at the University of California pay us higher wages.
But there are still many things that we in our workplace union cannot win.
For example, I live in a unit that is filled with mould, and I have a partner who has severe mould allergies.
This is something that we just can't really deal with, as there's no health and safety standards about it at the moment.
However, tenant unions in San Francisco have recently won similar protections against similar conditions there.
I urge you to vote in favour of this measure to give tenants here the same kind of power to work for their own betterment.

Segment 3

Hello, my name is Ruby.
I'm a graduate student at UC Berkeley and a resident of district 8.
The immense privilege that I have in claiming this residency is not lost on me since I 1st moved to Berkeley 3 years ago.
I've lived in units operated by the Berkeley student cooperative and I understand that this is the sole factor, which has enabled me to comfortably afford being a member of this community, but many cannot say the same.
Over the course of these past 3 years, I've witnessed many of my peers struggle to obtain housing, face unsustainable rent increases and feel disempowered by their inability to organize around issues of housing.
Further, as a graduate student instructor at the University, I've also supported many undergraduate students through housing precarity and have witnessed the struggles of students as young as 18 years old as they are placed out of the city.
I've also supported many of my peers as they attend the University and taken advantage of by their landlords and forced into homelessness as a member of and a student worker.
I understand the importance of collective bargaining, both in the workplace and in the home I implore you to support the placement of tenant protection and right to organize act on the November 5th ballot.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Liz.
I am a researcher and teaching assistant at UC Berkeley and a proud member of you at W.
4811.
I'm a Berkeley tenant in a union in a unit to that.
I can only afford because of the contracts that we were able to win through the getting rights granted to us by California law and I believe that 1 of the most effective ways that we have to actually accomplish our goals is to be able to afford housing and to be able to organize ourselves in a way that we feel is the most effective way to do that.
And so I'm really excited about the work that we're doing.
The 1 of the most effective ways that we accomplish the thing that we're talking about, which is reducing rent prices and making Berkeley a place that more people can afford to live is if we grant those same bargaining rights to tenants in their homes as well.
Thank you.
Good evening council.
My name is Max green and I'm a graduate student researcher.
At UC Berkeley, as well as a steward with our union, you may W.
4811.
Having the union means that my colleagues and I have the right to bargain for better working conditions and similarly, the tenant protection and right to organize act.
We'll give renters like me a union at home and require landlords to meet with us over things like lowering rent and habitability habitability issues.
I also strongly support increased protections against unjust evictions and reducing the cap on rent increases.
I urge the city council to ensure that this measure is on the November ballot so that us tenants can have a democratic say in our living conditions.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Angel.
I'm a steward at the 484811.
I am also a teaching assistant at UC Berkeley and I'd want to thank you for 1st, allowing us to have the civil discussion.
I'd like to just share my benefits that I've had through being a steward.
This means we were able to discuss with our faculty about how we can actually improve the quality of teaching that we were able to do there.
And it also allowed us to inform our fellow is their rights.
Now, that's brilliant.
There is a lot of worries today about unnecessary demonization of landlords.
That is a fair worry.
And I actually think that unionization goes ahead and brings this civil discussion to tenants and to landlords.
It allows us to expand that civil discussion with between them.
Now, these discussions aren't always easy.
The best ones never are, but I just want to thank you.
And I just bring thinking of those benefits and expanding best attendance makes me excited enough to encourage you to vote.
Yes.
Thank you for your time and have a good evening.
Good evening council.
I'm Jonah.
I'm a tenant in district 4 and I'm a computer science student at UC Berkeley.
I'm also a student employee and a union member with 4811 and I'm here to express strong support for.
Putting the tenant protection and right to organize act on the ballot.
Berkeley continues to wrestle with a housing crisis and pro tenant measures are increasingly vital to ensure that renters can afford housing.
The proposed measure not only accomplishes this by expanding rent control.
But it also advocates for attendance ability to organize and bargain with their landlords just as employees deserve the right to unionize and negotiate in good faith.
Over the terms that govern their employment tenants deserve the right to negotiate in good faith about the terms that govern their living situations.
And this can only be achieved through collective organizations.
Like, the ones protected in this measure.
Well, I implore the council to allow the public to decide on a pro tenant ballot number this November.
Thank you very much for your time.
And I'm going to turn it over to Gabe to talk a little bit more about this measure and how it's been used in the past.
Hi, everyone, my name is Gabe.
I'm a resident of district 4 in Berkeley.
I'm also an undergrad at UC Berkeley and a proud member and head steward with local 4811 as an academic worker.
I was fortunate enough to have a union that was able to get $500 out of me and my coworkers paychecks and it was coming together through our union that we were able to resolve that issue.
And so not only did that right a serious wrong, but it was far less cumbersome and timely than the class action lawsuit, which would be the only remedy available to us.
And so, yes, I think it's important for a lot of tenants protections to be enforced, but having a union at home would make that a lot easier for us.
So, please stand with Berkeley tenants and workers and vote.
Yes, on the right to organize.
Thank you.
My name is Eli.
I'm a resident of Harriet Tubman and I yield my time to the next speaker.
Good evening council.
My name is also and I live in district 3 at Harriet Tubman terrace.
I'm here.
Hope that you will tonight support that tenant protection and right to organize at I've been attended in the Harriet Tubman for about 25 years and.
It's really sad because I disabled and senior tenants.
I just treated very poorly.
We changed managers and owners and we have no rights.
Sometimes they don't even recognize the tenant council after we've done millions of things to help.
And thank you for the city for helping us with an ombudsman, but that's not just enough.
We still got to go on.
We're too vulnerable, too fragile and you need to pass this because I'll rinse go up constantly.
And it's just unfair.
Please support the right.
Hello, council members.
My name is I am a graduate student researcher at Cal in the physics departments, a member of the 4011 and a tenant in district 4.
So, when I arrived at Berkeley for my 1st year last year, I was very surprised to find that I had 1 of the cheapest funds amongst anyone in my cohort.
And I was very grateful for this and meant that I could occasionally buy groceries at the Berkeley farmers market, which are sometimes very expensive.
I'd also go home when my mom, you can actually help around the house.
And I learned very recently why it was that my rent was cheaper than my peers when my tenant, my landlord, who lives in Florida announced rent increases just this month.
I was very scared.
I thought I wouldn't be able to enjoy the same benefits that I've had for this past year and very soon afterwards.
Everyone in my, in my unit, there are 4 of us made a group chat and we designated someone who's going to speak to our landlord on our behalf.
And that person was able to get those increases brought down.
Now, we're lucky.
This is not a very common situation.
We banded together.
We knew each other and our landlord was further away.
And so it was a willing to continue the fight with us, but because we were able to band together, because we want to organize together, we were able to address the needs of ourselves as tenants as people living together.
So, that's why I think it's so important for us to have the right to organize and why I think it's so important for you to pass this message.
Thank you.
Good evening everyone.
I'm Anna Alarabach.
I live in district 4 and unfortunately, Rosie Bonds, who was mentioned, the former, the Olympian gold medalist and a friend of mine, Debbie Hart, who both live in 1501 Blake Street, a SAHA managed building, 2 African American elders who are being taken advantage of.
And she has a daughter, Debbie, who is a former Olympic gold medalist.
Who in fact, Rosie had to go home right now, because she was electrocuted in her unit.
7 days ago, and her legs were bothering her so.
I have supported I met Debbie at our dojo and she, her rent has been jacked up by 400 dollars a month.
Address the issues, and it's still not resolved.
So these tenants need protection.
When I first met Rosie, she talked to me for 20 minutes about how every day of her life is a struggle every day.
Things are getting more and more expensive.
Can I have somebody's minute? Please? Thank you so much.
Thank you.
So, so we definitely need tenant protections and I hear people who are opposed to this saying there's unintended consequences.
What I know, when I ran in the special election and talk to hundreds of people in district 4 is that people are confused tenants are confused and more landlords and property owners are confused.
And so there's this demonization, which you've heard people say, what we need to do is we need to bring people together.
We need to bridge this divide of landlord tenants and educate our community so that everybody, because people don't want the elders being taken advantage of.
I think people who own who live in houses, such as myself, who have the blessing of that we want tenants to be protected.
And so I think it's our city leaders.
I ask you that hopefully to pass this tonight and then in the fall, let's educate people.
So we understand and we don't have to demonize each other, but bring people together for public discourse.
Please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, I'm a duplex owner and district 1 and I've had 3 tenants over the course of 30 years.
I ask you to please vote no on both of these measures.
This ballot measure didn't qualify to be on the ballot because it didn't get enough.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I ask the council to properly make consideration for this proposal and I, too, I'm very concerned about unintended consequences.
The most important of which is that I think this proposal will kill increased housing stock from small community members like myself who are willing to run out their units.
Thank you.
And I am a resident of Berkeley here 16 years.
I'm also a realtor 23 years and the California Association of realtors.
I am.
I just found out what was going on here, so what I wanted to share is the ballot measure does not qualify to be on the ballot because they didn't they didn't give enough signatures from the residents.
No, this is not the democratic process that we expect from our elected officials.
Isn't the time for for the county for the for you guys for the property for you guys to consider properly consider the proposal to bring them forward to the council to the voters.
These proposals will discourage owners and small properties from adding more units to the rent community and therefore we suggest you vote.
No.
Again, thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Ida.
I'm an event board commissioner.
I'm also a proud union steward for 1000.
I'm a, I'm a lifelong civil servant.
And multiple roles from UN to the state to the city here and.
Increasingly tenants, like myself, I'm a single mom to find it impossible to survive in this expensive.
Environment when a fewer and fewer of larger and larger corporations are owning more and more.
And more and more of our lives, we, especially here in Berkeley, have a tradition of fighting those corporations and proudly.
So, and therefore, I urge you to please vote to put the tenant protection ballot.
Sorry measure on the ballot to protect the most vulnerable, such as the residents of.
The portable housing minutes, we really, really truly need protections and come under the purview of the report.
Thank you very much for considering this.
I'm Elizabeth, you know, and I'm here in support of the tenant protection and right to organize active.
Many of my fellow tenant supporters have made a lot of valid points, which I certainly 2nd, and I was going to just add something else to it.
I'm a tenant in district 4, and I've been displaced for previously from district 7 and district 2.
So I know what that's about.
Currently, I enjoy the protection of rent and control in an apartment that is convenient to where I work and most of the things I do at least with enough discretionary income to do some things, but very soon I'm going to retire and my income is going to take a deep dive and the amount of increase is not going to keep up with cost of living.
We do not get cost of living increases, not people on retirement, not a lot of people on fixed income and many of the people who even our students or other employees, if you see, even under the contracts that we all had to fight for, all we really get is maybe 3%, 4%, 4 and a half percent.
It sure as hell isn't 7.
so you go backwards and that cuts into whatever income you have and it's really not good enough.
Sorry, for people to can I just wrap this up when I'm getting to a discretionary income is that if people become so rent burden that they've barely got anything left and can't do anything.
You know, who else loses in this deal? It's not just about pursuit of happiness here.
It's small business because that's money that isn't being spent locally.
This is more people who cannot go and see the matinee at the Alamo people who cannot get a nice coffee for themselves.
Or a muffin, and it all adds up.
That's why small businesses are struggling and why we can't have nice things.
So, all the money is going to mithril capital management or so.
Thank you.
Good evening city council.
My name is Alfred too.
And as we all know, to solve our housing crisis, we need to 3 piece of protecting tenants.
Preserving existing low cost housing and producing more housing.
We're building a lot of shiny new buildings downtown and South side, which is great.
But we also need to make sure that we protect and preserve.
So that our older buildings don't fall apart through neglect and other corner cutting.
And that's where the right to organize is so important.
Because only through right to organize our tenants.
In Berkeley, many of whom are brand new to our city and unfamiliar.
With our housing laws was right to organize a leader in the community can then bring together.
And for everybody and create habitable conditions for everyone.
And for similar reasons, we also need to bring our older senior housing, like Harriet Tubman Paris.
Under our rent ordinance, so that they too can be preserved and protected.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Glenn Connor.
I am a resident and homeowner of a duplex in Berkeley and I came here specifically to address that and say, like, we've actually had a fantastic experience.
Renting to students and young couples in our, in our house.
This is our house where I raised my kids and we live with them and often be friends.
And we're often our friends with our tenants, because they live in our house.
And I want to, and I've came here and I hear the heartbreaking stories here and I moved.
And I want to say, I hope the council finds the right methods to protect the people who are renting and are suffering here.
While not targeting those, like myself, who are just residents, we put everything we have into our house and we open it up to other people and we love them and we want more of that.
So, please protect the people who are hurting.
But don't take away the rights of the homeowners who live here too.
Hello, my name is Shane.
I'm a student and I want to point to, as a young student, most students are living off campus.
They're renting and a lot of them are 1st time renters.
They're not going to be aware of their rights, which I think is why a notice of rights is really important.
And in addition to that, the ability to organize would enable students to activate sorry, organize for their rights and be aware of them and advocate for themselves.
And what they need as 1st time renters and also I, along with thousands of other people signed the 10 protection right to organize act, which was only barely short of the required signatures.
And I think that voters should be given the option to have a pro tenant measure on the ballot, rather than just this landlord funded 1.
and I also want to say that.
Um, as 80 use are not owner occupied owner occupied duplexes, they would not be affected by either of these proposed measures.
So, again, I urge you to allow us to have the option to vote for tenant rights.
Thank you.
To do 1 last edit before I speak.
Sorry.
Hello, I'm Xavier Johnson and I'm proud to have chaired the rent stabilization board committee to help draft this ordinance and I want to thank all the people who've been a huge part of making it come to this stage so far, including the council members, including all the people who gather the signatures.
Everyone's worked all up to this process.
It's been an experience and this measure represents forward thinking.
It represents equity and it represents common sense in crafting this measure.
We looked at other jurisdictions and saw how they would modernize their ordinances, even in advance of Berkeley, and we worked together to bring the best of those models to the city of Berkeley.
I support mayor and council member Hans supplement, but I just wanted to add a little bit on golden duplexes.
Oakland has already closed their duplex and triplex exemptions in their entirety.
There is no such thing as a golden duplex or any type of duplex.
It's not covered by rent control stabilization in the city of Oakland, and it hasn't exploded.
Their housing market has a class housing market.
They continue to be a viable and thriving city.
And in addition, this measure represents an opportunity to protect tenants in Berkeley, give the people of Berkeley a chance to choose what they want restrictive landlord measures or opportunity to have access in a tenant measure.
Give voters a choice.
Thank you.
I'm Dan union member and 1 time multiple time victim of a capricious landlords.
I'm in favor of increased tenant protections.
Of course, I.
Disagree with having exemptions.
For various types of rentals tenants.
Are deserving of the right to form tenants unions.
And have other tenants rights, regardless of the type of rental unit that they live in.
No, 1's more deserving of tenants rights than and anyone else just based on what kind of living situation they have to live in.
Um, and in conclusion, housing, it's a human, right? Hi, good evening.
My name is Jocelyn.
I am the co-coordinator for the 10 to 1.
Uh, Berkeley chapter, which is our community services and recreation leaders chapter.
And I urge you to vote, yes, to place the Berkeley tenant protection and right to organize act on the ballot 10 to 1 endorsed measure, because tenant protections and rent control are crucial to addressing Berkeley's housing affordability crisis.
City of Berkeley workers should be able to afford to live in the community that we proudly serve.
I personally can only afford to live here because of my family connections.
But many of my colleagues have these long commutes from and so if we want to be competitive and attracting retaining these amazing workers that we have, we need to have housing affordability.
That is proportionate to pages.
Also, I work.
Oh, can I just have like, just a few more seconds? I work with small families with little small kids and I, I, I just want to speak up for these families that are often brand new immigrants that aren't aware of the rights.
I've heard from them about mold.
Lead all these unsafe conditions and.
This can cause a long term health consequences for these kids asthma developmental disabilities related to lead poisoning.
These are, this is affecting families over the lifespan and over generations and is very much an equity issue because we know who's mostly impacted our most vulnerable population members.
So, I, once again, I want to urge you to place this on the ballot and let the voters have the choice.
Thank you.
Hi, good evening mayor council.
Thank you.
My name is Michael Hegarty.
I'm a resident of district 4 in Berkeley.
I want to speak in favor of the tenant.
Um, I, you know, there's been a lot of good things said here.
I have a couple of points in general.
Um, you know, I'll look at some of my notes here.
So, you know, failure to control housing costs and allowing uncontrolled speculation has negative effects on our community.
It results in displacement.
It results in gentrification results in the erosion of commercial and retail business sectors.
It results in negative climate impact.
It results in negative and physical mental health impacts, and it results in an overall transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and from the local to the national and the global.
Okay.
So.
Although I respect the rights of my fellow community members who are landlords and property owners, and I respect the rights of the people who are in the business of real estate and property owning and renting.
We, as a community, and we, as individuals, do not owe these people a profit in any way, shape or form.
Okay.
It's a speculative endeavor.
We need to remember that.
Thank you very much.
Please pass the measure.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Council, my name is Judy hunt.
I'm a resident of district 1.
And I'm a former commissioner on the Berkeley rent stabilization board and I represented small property owners as well as the African American community.
I'm here today to vote.
No.
And I'll tell you why 1st of all, the ordinance was created.
To register and control rents, not property.
I would advise you to refer back to the United States Constitution.
5th amendment.
Regarding private property rights.
Number 3, those of us who have golden duplexes.
Are primarily women at this point.
Older adults, and those of us in the African American community, I know I'm over time, but I'm keep going because this is the 1st time I came and I'm going to have my piece tonight.
We are primarily African American.
Older adult women, there was a woman, 3 women in my neighborhood in district 1.
1 was over 100 years old.
She died and she made it clear.
That rent control.
Harassed her, and she also made it clear to me, because I talked to her.
Judy, anyone I rent to is younger than I am.
And they use rent control to control me.
My husband and I bought this property.
And now that I'm older, you want to tell me when a golden duplex, I can't have my cousin to come live in the unit to help take care of me.
That's wrong.
Now, you want to talk about ethics.
And what it does, these are the unintended consequences.
Another older adult in district 1.
Her daughter asked her to move in Walnut Creek.
Because the tenant harassed her so, and even told her, if you don't do what I want you to do, I'll take you to the rent.
Now, when I was a rent board commissioner, I also now Matt Brown is here.
He'll remember if he's gone.
Where is he? Oh, he's gone.
He'll remember when I said, if you're going to have a harassment regulation, it needs to be fair.
It needs to be balanced, not just landlords harassing tenants.
What about tenants who harass landlords? There was an older adult in district 2.
A tenant harass him, so even the other tenants.
Had to help the old gentleman.
Is that fair? What's the balance on the rent board? The rent board is a tenant board.
Name 1 commissioner who is a rental property owner name 1.
You do not have adequate representation of the community.
Okay, I'm going to ask you to write.
I'm almost finished.
I'm the presiding officer.
Just a minute.
I'm almost meeting.
I'm going to let you complete your thought.
I'll finish my thought.
I know you don't like human, but you need to.
Okay, I want you to go 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
I'm going to try to stop this talking for more seconds and I'm done.
Because you need to hear it.
It needs to be balanced.
The rent board needs and before this came before the body, we should have had input.
From property owners and property management, not just in it.
It's not fair.
It's not balanced.
Vote no.
Okay, next speaker, please.
As I'm sure people have observed, I've given a lot of latitude to speakers to go beyond their time when people go when the when the clock goes off.
Encourage people to complete their thought, but I'm getting latitude because obviously this is important issue.
Want to hear from everyone.
Okay.
I was given an extra minute.

Segment 4

Well, I love coming up.
Near the end, because I always get to thank you all for still being here and thank everyone else for being here and the last speaker reminded me of what really matters the most to me about how and why I want you to hopefully accept this for the ballot.
And it's the idea of mediation.
This isn't a nothing deal.
This isn't a fight right.
Deal it's about coming together and working things out in my view.
So, let me just speak from personal experience.
I'm living in a building now.
And I am getting no response to physical assault.
Elevators that do not land level with the 4 they arrive on.
That's a tripping risk.
Pushing someone out from an elevator door that's squashing them someone trapped in an elevator.
I mean, there's so many issues that as.
A very helpful supportive.
Person, I'm just trying to protect the safety.
Of tenants that live with me, and there is no 1.
That is responsive because we have property owners and then we have.
Management companies, and then we have other folk with invested interest such that sometimes the nonprofits or the so called affordable situations are actually not really.
So, even to discover who is only what and who is in charge of what and navigating who to go to.
There's litigation or there's mediation.
And this is why the notion that we can come together, I've built things for people to live in.
So I appreciate property owners.
I really do for wanting to gain income and wanting to provide housing.
There needs to be.
Fairness and mutual consideration.
Thank you.
Mr.
mayor and city council.
My name is Nathan.
My cell.
1st, I was going to see all I've been gone on vacation for a minute.
Much needed as much as I'd love to say council meetings.
Everyone needs a break every now and then.
I want to thank you for bringing forward item 1 a.
I also want to thank you for the compromise and we do talk about going to duplexes and some of the issues there, but.
Overall, this is a very good thing for our city.
I thank you for helping us get this on the ballot.
I hope we have the votes for it tonight.
I'll tell you just a bit.
Personally, also, I guess I'm 1 per commissioner.
I'm also African American.
I'm.
Currently elected in this community, so just to be clear on some things, this is good for.
Broad communities of our city, but certainly folks of our income, whether they're black or any other race, because reality is rents are high.
I experienced that as a student.
I've experienced it now and.
The protections that we need to be in place.
Part of the consequence folks is that we started early in Berkeley.
We started early up.
We started early.
A lot of issues when you start early.
You learn other jurisdictions do things a little bit better and you have to apply the learning lessons to changes.
And really, these are.
Mostly basic changes substantive and important.
But things that we've learned from other jurisdictions, and that can greatly benefit our city.
Now, these are not changes out of the ordinary.
And I think we have to remember that the consequences.
I'm not passing this tonight is allowing this landlord measure.
Which I'll just read off to just 4 points were moved was power to download just rents for location repair power to affect health and safety laws ability to intervene in litigation.
The whole point is to get rent control in the city and this measure we have tonight.
Fortunately.
With the power of tenants with the power of community has the ability to strengthen it and put a change the landlords and really the property owner groups can't stop.
So I thank you.
I hope we have the votes for tonight.
Thank you for your time.
I'm going to turn it back over to the mayor and city council for the next item on the agenda.
Evening, mayor and city council.
My name is Olive.
I live in Berkeley district 6.
I'm a graduate student and a union steward in 4811 and have lived renting in Berkeley for about 7 years.
I have been in my time, living in Berkeley, lied to and mistreated by landlords.
I know my neighbors, friends, community members who have been lied to and mistreated by landlords.
Landlords are not owed profits.
Houses are for people to live in not for profit.
Please put this measure on the ballot.
I urge you to vote.
Yes.
On this item to stand with Berkeley tenants and workers.
Thank you.
Hello, everyone my name is Bethany and I've been a tenant in Berkeley for 4 years.
I know a week ago I lived in a golden duplex.
I'm strongly against this exception to this to the rent control for these golden duplexes because what have because of what I've experienced while living in this unit.
At 1st, I was super excited to live in a unit owned directly by the landlord.
They were super close by.
We were able to be in close communication.
If there were any issues.
However, after living in this unit for 3 years, my landlord unilaterally increased our rent by $500 a month from $4,000 to $4,500 a month.
This rent was allowed because the unit is not rent controlled.
My, my roommates and I were lucky and that we were able to actually sit down and have a conversation with our landlord and decrease this rent increase to only $200 a month instead.
However, this is still a substantial increase and well above what a rent controlled unit would be.
At then more recently, the landlord moved out of the property because they were old and became rent controlled.
However, they decided then that they wanted to sell the property and so they decided to try to buy us out.
However, if our landlord had just chosen to live in the unit, and then we're still living in there.
We would not have had any of the renters protections that we are all so proud of in Berkeley, and we would have just been able to be kicked out with little to no notice and no compensation.
This is not right where most people owning golden duplexes as we've heard from today are small time landlords and really care about their tenants, all tenants, no matter the landlords really deserve the same rights I strongly urge you to reconsider moving out of the unit because it's not going to be as safe as it used to be.
I strongly urge you to reconsider removing the golden duplex exception from this measure and ask you to support the full tenant protection act.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Council members, my name is Luca.
I'm a student and a, and a renter I want to thank Cecilia for for all her amazing work defending tenants, but I also want to thank council member, Igor, you know, I disagreed with much, much of what you ran under in district 4.
And I hope to see you vote for the resolution tonight.
I also want to say when we make tenants richer, it makes us all richer when when tenants have an extra 50 bucks to spend on groceries or to buy coffee, it brings more businesses into Berkeley, it supports the businesses that are around right now.
It brings more people in our city.
It makes us all richer.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Are there any other speakers here in person? Okay, if not, we'll go to speakers on zoom.
If you're on the zoom platform and wish to speak on item 1, a, 1, B, please raise your virtual hand.
And we'll go 1st to Linda.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes, okay before I begin my 1 minute, I would like to remind a protocol you mentioned with your rules at the beginning of the speakers about signage and stuff.
Somebody.
I don't know where it was Alana Alana all of honor something, put a pro tenant sign on the disabled seating in the front row.
That's right in the middle of the camera for the speaker.
And there was a woman sitting there also who's making gestures.
Pro and not supporting whoever's at the speaker that's right in the middle of the camera.
So I've been viewing this the whole night.
If you could please enforce the, your protocol, I'd appreciate it.
Okay, I'm going to start my minute now.
My name is Linda.
I'm a small landlord.
I'm a senior.
I'm in my mid 70s.
I own and manage units personally.
All of our rents are below market and we pay 200% higher utility bills than 10 years ago.
We own a couple of golden duplexes.
I now have health problems need to move into 1 of the golden duplexes.
I would need to increase friends when higher operation costs are not included in the rent boards annual permitted increases.
Here's a brief list of my increased costs.
10 years ago, a 40 gallon water heater costs 199 dollars and 200 dollar installation costs today.
The same water heater is 1500 bucks.
Not including installation costs 10 years ago.
Garbage disposal was 35 bucks.
Today's 200.
5 years ago.
Lumber for a fence cost 700 today is 1400 dollars double.
That's 5 years ago.
10 years ago.
Plumber charge 50 dollars an hour today is 200 an hour.
Plus a 125 dollar site visit that's 325 dollars for 1 hour refrigerators, stoves, microwaves, garbage, disposals, lighting, fixtures, flooring, paint, lumber pest control, locks, windows, screens, doors.
All of them have increased 300% and more water and sewage costs of skyrocketing the permitted annual rate increases based on 211 items in the CPI basket.
But if you examine those items, only a few pertain to property management expenses, we can't even get decent insurance costs.
Now, the truth is that costs of managing operating and handling our business is not being met by current rent board increases.
I have planned to live in our golden duplexes till I die and depend on the rent to offset my increasing health costs.
Maybe I need to sell it instead to a corporate investor, which is the scenario you have created and which has led to the misery expressed by the tenants tonight.
Your policies have created the high housing costs.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Riyor Beret.
That's correct.
Can you hear me? Yes, thank you.
Okay.
I'm a voter in Berkeley.
And a resident of district district 5.
And I would, I would urge the council to vote no on.
I'm also a housing provider.
I have several buildings and which I maintain.
With great love and love for my tenants, and I urge the council to vote no on the proposal because this ballot measure did not qualify to be on the ballot because it didn't get enough Berkeley voter signatures.
This is not the democratic process that we expect from our elected officials.
There isn't time for council to properly make consideration for this proposal, and this proposal will kill increased housing stock from small community members like myself.
We're willing to rent out their units.
So, I urge you to vote no against the, the annual increase the annual 3% the cap on rent increases to 3%.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Agatha.
At least that's on my list.
Excuse me.
You should be allowed to.
Okay.
Agatha, you should be able to speak now.
You'll have 1 minute.
I want to thank you for taking the folding duplexes off of this measure.
We are senior citizens who are on fixed incomes and we rent to people for the past few years.
And they're like our family and we don't raise the rent.
We're really good to them and they're very good to us.
So they live in our house and we're really thankful that you're removing this aspect of the ballot measure off.
The other thing I'd like to say is, as other people have just mentioned, that this reduction of the annual general adjustment from 7% to 3% is really unfair.
Because the increase of the water and the sewage and the insurance and everything for people who need to raise their rent and their repairs are just outrageous.
So, if 1 needs to raise the rent, they should be able to raise it for the 7% instead of the 3% because that doesn't even keep up with the annual cost of living.
Thank you very much and thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Alan Dixon.
You should be able to unmute and you'll have 1 minute.
Okay, thank you.
This is actually Allison.
I just wanted to have you guys think of the fact that the way that if I treated my tenants the way that you treat landlords, it would actually be called illegal, unjust, and unfair.
I mean, what if I told my tenants that even though it was their home, that I actually knew it was best for them and then randomly raised the rents over and over again? And then what if I told them that I decided that there are new rules and regulations at the last minute without their input, all because I claim to know what's best for them in their homes that they live in? That's essentially what the council and the rent board continue to do to landlords over and over again.
This would not be tolerated since it's illegal and neither the right nor the fair thing to do to either tenants nor landlord.
And I continue to hear discussions of fairness this evening.
And I like that.
I think it's important that there is some fairness in this process.
I'm neither a corporate business owner, nor someone who makes a profit on my property.
And I'm really tired of those who are constantly discriminating against us landlords, including the council.
My ask is that the council treats landlords fairly, rather than hostile and please vote no on these measures.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is David Charay, followed by Michelle Haley.
David, you should not be able to speak.
So, if people don't know in 2025, the rent board is going to be audited by the city auditor.
She put that out last week.
There's going to be a report.
There will be recommendations.
Voters have a right to read that report before being asked to make this choice.
Those recommendations ought to be a part of the ballot measure.
It should not go on without them.
It's easy for me to imagine why an audit of the rent board might be called for.
I am not a landlord and I am not a tenant, so I am not under the rent board's jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, just about every year, I and hundreds of other residents of Berkeley get a bill from the rent board telling us that we owe them hundreds of dollars.
Then the next year, when you don't pay the bill that you don't owe, they tack on a late fee.
They don't respond to emails.
They don't answer the phone.
If a landlord did that to a tenant, we would call it harassment.
When a government agency does it, it's called a scandal.
So, I agree that we need changes at the rent board, probably not a massive expansion in their jurisdiction and authority, not until these problems are solved.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Michelle Haley, followed by Vanessa Morero.
Michelle Haley, should not be able to speak.
Please unmute yourself if you wish to speak.
Michelle Haley, followed by Vanessa Morero, followed by Christopher Quill.
Hello.
Yes, we can hear you.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Hello.
I just wanted to chime in and say that I think we are facing a situation where it's just getting heavily, overly regulated and I myself, after spending so much time, I'm a small owner and I couldn't, I am in this industry.
I couldn't basically grasp all of the different changes.
I can't imagine others who don't have to even live in this every day and that have one property.
It's just getting overly complicated and it continues to be solutions for problems that don't exist.
I urge you guys to start trying to have conversations actually with property owners and small landlords as you try to draft these different nuances and changes.
We deserve to be a part of the conversation.
I yield my time.
I mean, thank you.
Our next speaker is Vanessa Morero, followed by Christopher Quill, followed by Agatha.
Vanessa, you should now be able to speak.
Vanessa Morero, you should be able to speak.
Okay, Vanessa, I'm going to go back to you one more time.
You should now be able to speak.
Okay, we'll come back to you.
Christopher Quill.
You are up.
Hi, thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
I wanted to cede my minute to Tony Mester, who hopefully is in the queue there, but I'd like to give her my minute.
Thank you.
Okay, I'll note that for the record.
Thank you.
Let me go back to Vanessa, see if she's ready to speak.
Please unmute yourself.
Vanessa Morero.
Okay, please re-raise your virtual hand if you wish to speak.
Karen Chinoy, followed by Zipporah Collins.
Good evening City Council, Mayor Karen Chinoy of the Bridge Association of Realtors.
Bridge AOR is extremely disappointed in what may transpire tonight.
Given the behavior of the rent board measures supporters and the disdain the chair of the rent board publicly voiced against this body in the lead up to their failed signature gathering effort and inability to qualify their measure, we sincerely hope that City Council will exhibit the leadership needed to stand up to their intimidation tactics and forward nothing to the ballot tonight.
Other than perhaps the harms that non-profit owners have bestowed on elderly tenants, the rent board has not presented a single data point indicating an increase in evictions, a threat to housing stability, or any other factual non-hypothetical need to expanding the restrictions they have proposed today.
While we appreciate that golden duplex owners will retain their exemptions under one proposal, Bridge AOR opposes all other proposals containing both items 1a and 1b.
Thank you.
Okay, Zipporah Collins is our next speaker, followed by Twan, followed by Lindsay Duncan.
Thank you, Mayor Arrogan and Council Members.
I'm Zipporah Collins, a resident of Berkeley since 1962, first as a renter and then as a homeowner in District 5.
I see how neighbors and friends around the city struggle to find and keep a rented home that they can afford.
I urge you to vote yes on Council Member Lunaparra's proposed tenant protection right to organize initiative and put it on the ballot to give voters a choice about whether large landlords have almost unfettered control over the city's rental market or whether tenants have a collective voice and some protection against unaffordable rents and uninhabitable conditions.
There is a shortage of rentals available to students, low and even moderate income tenants and elderly tenants on small fixed incomes and a shortage of accessible rentals for people with disabilities.
The renters initiative came very close to qualifying with enough signatures using all volunteer signature gatherers.
The property owners measured qualified because they had much greater wealth to pour into hired signature gatherers who had no interest in the issue and little incentive to tell signers the truth about what they were signing.
That is not an argument to say that the renters initiative was not democratic.
Zipporah, if you can please complete your thought.
Yes, I hope you see the need to put the measure on the ballot so that voters of Berkeley can choose which path they want our city to take to meet the needs of the majority of Berkeley's population which is renters.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Swan N followed by Lindsay Duncan.
Swan, you should now be able to speak.
Thank you.
I just want to emphasize the importance of having a harmonious relationship and that all stakeholders are brought to the table so that we have balanced policies that work for everybody, that minimizes unintended consequence.
An example of unbalanced policy is what you see in neighboring Oakland.
The city of Oakland has $177 million budget deficit.
They have a structural ongoing deficit and they can't solve it.
One of the underlying reasons is the public sector unions made sure that they got a lot of raises.
So now each employee is earning $237,000 per year.
And that means, just for context, an average household with multiple wage earners in Oakland is $140,000.
So here you have one employee union that is earning $237,000.
And the city is cutting 9-1-1 response services, cutting fires, cutting medical emergency response.
Not the city of Oakland, but if you can please complete your thought.
I'm just saying the unbalanced policy could be very harmful.
And it's not just either or, but we need to find something that works.
When you have a rent cap that doesn't, and it's at 3%, inflation would be more than that.
How do you can maintain buildings? And then we lose housing stock.
So be very balanced.
And this proposal didn't qualify for the ballot in terms of signature gathering.
So I just suggest we work with the community and the stakeholders.
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Lindsay Duncan, followed by Stephan Elkstrom.
Hi.
Juan in the room is going to yield time to me.
Okay.
Thank you.
You can add an additional minute.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Lindsay Duncan, and I am a student, a tenant, and a District 7 resident.
I'm also the president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats.
And on behalf of Cal Dems and all Berkeley tenants, I want to encourage you all to support the tenant protection and right to organize ballot measure.
I helped gather signatures for this ballot measure.
And overall, it gathered thousands of signatures and was only 60 signatures short and was not corporately funded and voters were not lied to during the signature collection process.
The tenant protection and right to organize ballot measure creates tenant associations, allowing tenants to organize without fear of retaliation to improve habitability.
It expands rent control in Berkeley, lowers the rent cap and gives tenants additional and much needed protections.
Berkeley is a majority renter city and residents deserve these basic rights.
Voters deserve the chance to democratically decide between this pro-rent control measure and the Berkeley Property Owners Association anti-rent control measure.
I urge council to place a pro-tenants measure on the ballot tonight.
I personally believe the unamended ballot measure proposed by Council Member Lunapata in item 1A does the best job of supporting tenants, but it's crucial that we support our tenants in this city by putting at least one of these items before the voters this November.
Specifically, Council Member Trageb, I appreciate you telling the voters on the campaign trail that you supported the measure, the version of the measure that was circulated to voters.
So I look forward to you keeping your word and voting yes on item 1A.
Thank you all.
Okay, Stephan Elgstrand, followed by Gregory Kalkanis, followed by Claire Works.
Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.
This is Stephan Elgstrand, the Rent Board Commissioner, but speaking in my private capacity.
I'm deeply concerned at the impacts to Berkeley residents if the qualified Rent Board measure is approved, which I would argue is one of the biggest attacks on rent control and tenant protections in the city's history.
That is why I believe it is essential that a competing measure is introduced so that we can have a fighting chance in not only protecting tenants, but advancing their rights.
I also acknowledge that at the end of the day, we need five votes of the Council to make this happen.
I'm speaking in support of item 1B.
While this proposal does not include everything I personally would like to see, I believe this has the best opportunity to get enough support from both the Council and the community.
I do not want to gamble on the livelihood of Berkeley's working-class residents by increasing the chances of the other measure passing.
This proposal gives a clear choice to voters.
Now is the time to create a broad coalition that recognizes the needs of tenants while acknowledging the important role small landlords play in providing housing, often at a cheaper rate compared to corporate landlords.
I appreciate the work that has been done over the last few months at bringing us to this moment.
Please support this thoughtful measure and let the people decide.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Gregory Kalkanis, followed by Claire Rokes.
Okay, good evening, Mayor and Council members.
My name is Gregory Kalkanis, and I'm a resident of District 3.
I'm also born and raised in Berkeley.
I'd like to thank Council Member Lunafarra for bringing the Tenants Protection and Rights to Organize Act to the Council, and I'd like to thank Mayor Arreguin and Council Member Hahn for making amendments in an effort for the Council to pass the measure and place it on the ballot.
I am presently a property owner, but I rented in Berkeley for years, or I've rented in the Bay Area for years.
In 2014, my brother and I tried, he was ill at the time, we tried to find an apartment in Berkeley, and we weren't able to find one.
In 2015, I had to move in with a friend because I couldn't find a place in Berkeley.
So we need more protections, and I urge you to place this on the ballot.
And I wanted to add one more thing.
In the amended version, there's a restriction that the building has to be larger than 10 units, and I'd like you to be careful about that, because some of the apartments that are being built today have units that are four-bedroom apartments.
So the term unit,.

Segment 5

it I think can be stretched.
Thank you very much.
Okay, we'll go next to Claire, followed by Iris.
Claire Rokes, you should now be able to speak.
Please unmute yourself if you wish to speak.
While we're waiting for the speaker, we'll go to Iris RS.
Iris, you should now be able to speak.
Please unmute yourself.
Good evening, council members.
My name is Iris Rosenblum Sellers.
Can you hear me all right? Yes.
Okay, great.
Yes.
I am an academic worker at UC Berkeley.
I'm the student worker unit chair of UW 4011 there.
You've heard from many of my co-workers tonight about the many ways that we've benefited from unionization.
Tenants have also benefited greatly from unionization in San Francisco and elsewhere.
I think that this kind of framework that the measures that are being considered would implement could really help build tenant organizations that would help address the cost of living.
Really excited, our whole union, really excited for our elected representatives to use their discretion and put this to a vote.
Appreciate everyone's work, especially council members Lunaparra, Argueen, and Tan.
Thanks, everyone.
Thank you.
Claire, you should now be able to speak.
Claire Rokes, we'll go to you one last time.
Please unmute yourself.
Okay, if you wish to speak, please raise your virtual hand.
Lisa Teague, followed by Tony Fitzpatrick.
Good evening, council, mayor.
Thank you for considering this ballot motion.
I urge you to place it on the ballot.
I want to echo comments by Alana, by Maria Sol, by many others.
But I also, I feel it's important to say that those who are saying that this is not democracy because the measure was 60 signatures short to make it on the ballot.
We got a whole lot of democracy going on tonight.
Hours of democracy.
This is the democratic process to allow us to have a voice as the tenant's right to organize is also a part of the democratic process that we should uphold here in Berkeley.
Thank you so much.
I urge you to place this on the ballot.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Tony Fitzpatrick, followed by Angelina Zavalos.
Hi, Tony Fitzpatrick.
I'm a Golden Duplex Owner in District 3.
I've been renting my cottage for, well, almost 30 years.
Never evicted anybody.
My last tenants moved out last November.
And until I see what happens with this legislation and the statewide legislation in the fall, I won't be renting my unit again, which feels just awful to me.
But I have always given my tenants notice about the Golden Duplex not being subject to the rent control ordinance.
And I think everyone should get notice about whatever their tenant's rights are.
But if I cannot control my cottage in terms of my own needs, I can't offer it for rent.
If I can't regain control of it, if I need my daughter to live there, or if I need a caregiver for myself, I can't rent it out.
And I'm not the only one.
And you're decreasing the rental units that are available for people by regulating these small units like this.
It's completely counterproductive.
It also just kind of cracks me up to have so many students talking about negotiating.
I have no problem with collective bargaining.
But in a tenant situation, UC has thousands more students a year coming into Berkeley without building housing for them.
So part of why the market is as expensive as it is, is because of UC students for everybody else who's here.
If you don't let people, landlords, raise rents to be able to maintain properties, collective bargaining isn't going to get anybody anything, because there isn't anything to get in terms of habitability, because people can't cover their costs.
Anyway, I do think procedurally not being able to get the required signatures is kind of dispositive here, although I'm sure that you will vote for one form of this or another.
If they can keep regulating golden duplexes, I won't be able to rent my property, and I will voice that not to.
And it's not because I'm making a bunch of money on it.
It's because somebody could be living there.
Thank you.
Okay.
Our next speaker is Angelina Zavalos, followed by Ricky, followed by iPhone.
I'm just reading the names on the screen.
Hi.
My name is Angelina, and I'm a voter and resident in Berkeley.
I'm here to urge you to vote no on both measures proposed by Council Member Luna Parra.
As the daughter of Latino immigrants who have been small property owners in Berkeley for the last 20 years, I have seen firsthand the financial and emotional hardship they have suffered at the hands of Berkeley City Council.
For many years, City Council has protected the rights of tenants and refused to protect small property owners like my parents.
Many small property owners in Berkeley are hardworking, black and brown elderly people, including immigrants who have given their blood, sweat, and tears to maintain their properties and provide safe and affordable housing to tenants.
I want to remind everyone tonight that golden duplex owners are not corporate landlords.
Golden duplex owners are small property owners who need protections and deserve to be a part of this conversation.
Additionally, the elimination of small owner protections actually encourages larger investors to purchase and scarce away future small owners who are willing to live on site with their tenants.
With that said, I urge you to please vote no on both valid measures forward and actually fulfill your duty to serve all Berkeley residents, not just tenants.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Ricky, followed by iPhone, followed by Michelle or Pine.
Ricky, you should not be able to speak.
Please unmute yourself.
Can you hear me now? Can you hear me? Thanks.
Actually, before I start, I actually want to thank the Council and the Mayor for reconnecting the camera.
I had requested that a few weeks ago, and it's working, and I really appreciate that.
It's much easier on Zoom, so thank you for that.
I'm here.
I'm actually a landlord, born and raised in Berkeley, went to Cal, so I've been a renter.
Now I do own a home, and I'm a landlord, and I would urge you to vote yes on this and get this on the ballot.
I'm pro-rent control, and I'm an owner of a single-family home, and I rent out a unit.
I feel protected as an owner, and the tenants need to have the right to organize.
I want Berkeley to be feasible for all kinds of people, not just wealthy individuals.
I don't think you need the golden duplex exception.
I support Council Member Luna Parra's measure.
Do the democratic thing.
Put it on the ballot.
Let people vote for it.
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is the name iPhone.
You should now be able to speak.
Please unmute yourself.
Yep.
Sorry about that.
The login didn't work.
This is Chris Moore with the East Bay Rental Housing Association.
I urge you to vote no on both these proposals.
With these proposals, especially when you don't take the time to go through them, it hurts the smaller providers, the smaller, low-cost housing providers in the community primarily, and it forces them out of the market.
They are the ones that are providing affordable housing in the community.
I point to a survey that was done for golden duplex and ADU owners a few years ago.
Thirty-two percent of those respondents were identified as a person of color.
Over 50 percent were over 60 years of age.
They are the ones that are providing this low-cost housing to the community.
I'll also say when you put in these restrictions on these homeowners and these rental housing providers, 78 percent say they will not rent going forward.
You are actually ultimately hurting renters.
You're hurting the low-cost housing providers.
You're obviously going around the system here.
These didn't qualify, and they're trying to go around the process.
I appreciate the time today.
Please vote no for both.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Omowale Fowles, followed by Sam Kaplan-Pettis.
Good evening.
Thank you so much for this opportunity, Mayor and Council.
Definitely in favor of both of these measures.
We want to have a lower adjusted increase on the rent because the inflation rate is such that people are having enough difficulty as it is trying to keep food on the table and pay rent.
We also want the tenants to have an opportunity to organize and protect themselves.
There are many tenants who do not know what their rights are.
They do not have an opportunity to go to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board classes that are taught and that include both landlords and tenants.
I think that that rent board class should be turned into a dialogue between the landlords and the tenants so that both groups can survive.
We have not dealt viably with either of these two people, sets of people, who have the same interest in housing and land management that the banks have.
I think the banks and the fact that the City Council has passed innumerable small tax parcel taxes, not good people.
It makes it too difficult for landlords to function and then they have to pass the cost on to the renters.
Keep in mind that the City of Berkeley has 62 percent renter occupancy.
So we need to have renters protections and we need to have a three percent rent increase, not seven.
Thank you.
Sam Kaplan Pettis followed by Israel Gonzalez Loza.
Hello, Council.
This is Sam Kaplan Pettis.
I understand that this is a complex topic and that most of the speakers here against tenant protections are not evil, big, scary corporate landlords.
I'm a student but I also was born and raised in Berkeley.
My parents have owned and rented an ADU in District 2 for a decade and as I often remind them, the worst thing that happens if tenants or if landlords don't have enough rights or don't have rights is that homeowners lose profit.
But the worst thing that happens if tenants don't have enough protections is that people lose housing and that's really bad.
So thank you Council Member Hahn and Mr.
Mayor and the queen of all Berkeley politics, Council Member Cecilia Lunaparra and I look forward to voting, y'all voting yes to put this on the ballot.
We'll go next to Israel Gonzalez Loza followed by Yash N followed by Juan Lu.
Israel, you should now be able to speak.
Good evening, Council Members and Mayor.
My name is Israel Gonzalez Loza.
I'm a student, tenant, community member and resident of District 7.
I'm speaking today because as someone directly impacted by rising housing costs, I'm deeply concerned about the lack of protections for tenants.
Last year, our community faced the highest rent increase in four decades.
For students like me living in rental units, this trend is unsustainable and threatens our ability to remain in our homes.
Expanding rent control and providing tenants the right to organize are crucial for keeping people housed and ensuring fair rent.
Tenants like students and workers deserve the right to negotiate in good faith with landlords.
The current system leaves us vulnerable to exploitative practices.
We need our pro-tenant Council Members to stand with us and place this measure on the ballot.
The voters deserve a say in this matter, especially with a competing landlord's measure this November.
I want to thank Council Member Lunaparra and urge the rest of the Council to support this measure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Yash N.
followed by Juan Lu, followed by Rosina Karen.
Hello, Council.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
I'm a resident of District 3.
We recently moved to Berkeley.
We are small landlords.
It took us 10 years to realize our dream of living in Berkeley, while me and my wife working, renting, and living way below our means and commuting two hours a day.
We bought a Golden Duplex and we appreciate that the exemption is maintained.
We are landlords and we are also normal people and we don't have deep pockets.
The reality of inflation is real for both tenants and landlords.
Protecting the tenants from inflation and not protecting landlords from inflation is not fair.
And the costs to maintain the property are astronomical when compared to four to five years ago.
So reducing the rent increase to 3% is unfair on landlords and people like me who are trying to, you know, maintain the property well and have a good life.
The choice of us renting one of our units is either we rent or we don't have a second kid because the costs are so high for even for people like us to live because we are normal people.
We are paying our bills and we are also trying to make a, you know, trying to live.
We are not looking for a profit.
We are only looking for survival like everyone else who are renting, right? So the properties, you know, if we are discouraged from living in a city like Berkeley, you know, the city will, the properties will start, will be owned more and more by private equity firms which is definitely defeating the purpose of, you know, having a rent board and having rent control.
So please say no.
Please say no on these measures and thank you so much.
Our next speaker is Juan Lu followed by Rosina Karen followed by Janine.
Thank you, Mayor.
I'm Juan.
I'm a property owner in District 4.
I'm speaking against the proposition and I, last year, I owned one property.
Last year, my insurance company dropped coverage for a bunch of houses in Berkeley because of the high cost of operating in the city.
I was one of them.
I scrambled to call around other insurance companies to cover me.
Luckily, I was able to find another company, but the cost is 250% more than what I'm paying.
If I were not lucky to find anybody to cover me, I would have to resort into the California fallback plan, the fair plan, which would have cost me almost 500% more.
The reality of the cost is real.
Everything's increasing.
There's no reason you could, should limit the increase to 3%.
You're picking on a small population, making sure they lose money to fund the public goods.
I'm all for it to make housing affordable.
I'm on your side, but single out this one audience just doesn't make sense.
I used to think California did a great job regulating the insurance industry, but until that time when all insurance companies pulling out of California because of unsustainable business practice, you don't want to be the city three years from now seeing everyone pulling out of the city.
Thank you very much.
Decide to continue on this journey.
Can you also limit the groceries cost, restaurant costs, everything? We need to move on, sir.
Thank you.
Rosina, Karen, followed by Janine, followed by Joshua P.
Rosina, you should now be able to speak.
Yes.
Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you so much for your time tonight.
I'm urging you to please vote against both of the measures, and I'll tell you why.
I've lived in South Berkeley.
I work in Berkeley Unified, and I've been here for decades with us at the end, and I was able to raise my now adult children here in Berkeley specifically thanks to the tenants that we've had in our home who share our house, and like many of the other home owners have said, the tenants become part of our family.
They're our friends.
We get to know them, but we need the protection that if something doesn't work out if it's not a good match, we need the protection because it is our home to be able to ask them to please leave, and I also always give my tenants the right to terminate the tenancy whenever they need to if they aren't comfortable, and luckily that hasn't happened, but the rights need to be on both sides, and it's thanks to those tenants that I was able to cover my mortgage while I was raising my children, and then I raised our house to create a duplex, and that was able to help me send one son to Morehouse, and my other son went to BCC and another college, and it's thanks to having people living with us that I was able to maintain a life that I want to be able to support my children, and now my adult children live upstairs in the duplex, and I live downstairs, and I still have housemates because we still need help with the costs of maintaining a home, but if the small owner protections are removed, then we will end up with fewer affordable rental units in Berkeley.
It's because of the protections that we have that we feel more comfortable to welcome people into our home, and I've always charged below market rent, always help out our tenants with whatever they need when they're moving to Berkeley, and I've enjoyed those relationships, and I agree with the young students who spoke who are members of a union.
I'm a member of a union.
I want people to have affordable housing in Berkeley, but what will happen is like all the other people who own houses and rent out units as small property owners, we'll end up with fewer properties on the market, and then larger investments will take over.
Okay, we're going next to Jeanine followed by Joshua P.
Hi, it's Jean, actually.
Thank you, and thank you for hanging in as long as I've been hanging in here tonight.
Last night, I submitted email comments on the two items on tonight's agenda when I chose to support item 1B.
Today, I learned there's a third approach, the Berkeley Rent Relief and Homeowners Protection Act that already has qualified for the ballot.
I reviewed its provisions today and find that approach superior.
Thus, I encourage the council to decline to act on either item on tonight's agenda and to avoid confusing the public with overlapping ballot measures.
I've been an owner for over 35 years of the Golden Duplex in Council District 3, and I believe it's imperative to preserve the rights and interests and to maintain property values when owners live on site and have a second rental unit, whether it's a duplex, a rear cottage, or an ADU, and regardless of whether the owner lived on site on a magic date that qualifies them for a Golden Duplex.
The important reasons to maintain the existing rights of Golden Duplex owners and to extend these to all owner-occupants of two-unit properties are first, I've not heard clear evidence that there is a huge problem that needs to be solved with either of these measures with regard to duplexes.
Secondly, dueling ballot measures are exhausting and imperfect, yet this issue presents itself again.
Several years ago, I proposed that the city consider convening a more conciliatory approach where landlords and tenants could get together and work out some mutually agreeable approach.
Something like that still needs to happen.
Third, if you can please complete your thought after.
Yes, I have three more points, just one sentence.
The constant threat of adding obligations on duplex owners is ultimately going to reduce property values and the revenue that the city receives as fewer people like myself are willing to become buyers, and it reduces the pool of potential buyers, meaning sales prices go down, property goes down.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Joshua P, followed by Julia Cato, followed by Donna Dedamar.
Good evening and thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Joshua Paulston.
I am a small housing provider as well as a board member for the East Bay Rental Housing Association.
One of the elements of this proposal that the Council is looking at is the definition of good faith, and it allows the rent board to essentially write its own regulations on good faith.
I think rather than looking at anecdote, let's look at the actual track record.
The actual track record is that in the United States, we had a crisis.
We had a COVID crisis.
It lasted for about a year and a half, but there was one city where it was the very last city to remove the draconian COVID restrictions.
You had people sitting in bars, going to restaurants, moving on with their lives, but the City of Berkeley and Oakland were the last in the nation to remove those.
So let's look at good faith.
I would say that's a demonstration of bad faith.
Then let's look at who controls the rent board.
We have a chair in Leah Simon-Weisberg who is essentially an ideologue.
It's clear where she stands, and it's clear it's not a balanced and a approach that takes all of the members of the public views into account.
Because in Berkeley, it's harder to move on a tenant.
Sometimes relationships do sour, but it's easier to get a divorce than it is to move a tenant along where there is a troubled relationship or there is a violation of the lease.
Thank you so much for your time.
My next speaker is Julia Cato, followed by Donna Dedamar, followed by Meryl Siegel.
Good evening.
I support your putting these measures on the ballot.
I would like to say that somebody quoted me earlier out of context, and I resent that.
I said that I was willing to compromise and let go of the restrictions for, let go of the restrictions so that all, as many tenants as possible could have the protections offered in this measure.
I would like to also point out that landlords have a lot of protections under rent control.
They were guaranteed a reasonable, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble thinking.
I waited so long.
It's your thought.
We'd appreciate it.
A reasonable return on their investment.
Who else in Berkeley gets a reasonable, gets guaranteed a reasonable return on their investment? Certainly not the people that owned all those clothes shops down on Shattuck Avenue.
When we talk about being unfair to landlords, I don't think that's really the case.
They get their protections too, they just don't talk about them.
Thank you.
Donna Dedamar, followed by Meryl Siegel, followed by Lauren Sheeler.
Please unmute yourself, Donna Dedamar, if you wish to speak.
I am here just to cede my minute to Tony Meister.
I will take that, thank you.
Thank you.
Meryl Siegel, followed by Lauren Sheeler, followed by Kelly Heminger.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
I would like to cede my minute to Tony Meister.
Okay, and that's the last person who could see.
She has a maximum of four minutes.
And I'll just announce, after we complete the speaker's queue on Zoom, we will need to take a caption break.
We have a remote captioner live transcribing the meeting, and then we can come back to begin discussion and take any potential action.
Kelly Heminger, followed by Mimi Moon.
Hello.
I'm just sorry with this measure that we don't have a way of differentiating between the large national and international management organizations and property owners from our local small owners of a unit or two.
I think I was very concerned after reading about RealPage and the business plan for rent gouging instead of filling units, that that business plan is really concerning and its impact on tenants here locally.
And as I wrote in the activist diary, Fresno is suing over RealPage and rent manipulation.
And I'm sorry that we are having to wait for 15 years before we can do rent controls on the big buildings.
I wish that was a much shorter period of time for these very large buildings.
Thank you.
Okay.
Our next speaker is Mimi Moon, followed by Mary Orm, followed by Peter Fehrenbach.
Hi.
My name is Mimi Moon.
I am a homeowner and a resident of District 8.
I'm a working mom, and I'm here to urge you all to vote yes on the tenant prediction and right to organize ballot measure and give voters a choice in the fall.
Many people have spoken super eloquently about both sides of this issue.
I don't envy any of your roles trying to find consensus and do the most.

Segment 6

positive change for our city, but I do think that our tenants, our renters, are the people in our society that need the most protection demographically, monetarily, and so I urge you to vote yes on this measure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mary Orm is our next speaker, followed by Peter Fehrenbach, followed by Iris Searks.
Hi, I'm a resident of District 8 and I've been a property manager for owners of small numbers of units in Berkeley for almost 40 years.
I think a lot that is proposed in these two ordinances to be put on the ballot already have solutions and I don't think that they're comparable to what all the people from the union from UC were talking about.
A lease is a contract, just like labor people sign contracts, but a lease is a different kind of contract.
In Berkeley, once a lease is signed, it's binding on the owner, but it's not binding on the tenant.
The tenant can move anytime they want.
The time that tenants have to negotiate is when the contract is signed.
By definition, all units in Berkeley that are under rent control are already subsidized by the owner since the rent can only increase by 66% of the increase in the cost of living each year.
So 33% of the virtual increase is a subsidy to the tenants.
The rent ordinance does say owners are allowed to make a profit, but over the years I've seen costs go up and up and up much faster than the increases allowed by the tenants, by the rent board.
Now the latest thing is insurance.
As a gentleman who spoke before me said, we've had increases of 250 to 500 percent when insurance policies have been canceled and we've had to find new sources for those insurance.
Most of the increases in the costs are not included in the cost of living.
For example, when the East Bay mud bill goes up or the garbage bill goes up or the rent registration fee goes up, all of those are at percentages that are much larger than the increase in the cost of living that the rent board grants and they are not included in the calculation of the cost of living.
Comments.
I urge you to rethink all this stuff and consider consulting with small property owners and property managers before you decide to put something new on the ballot.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Peter Fehrenbach, followed by Ira Serks, followed by Tony Mester.
Peter, you should now be able to speak.
Please unmute yourself if you wish to speak.
Okay, quickly.
More than 30 years ago, I moved to Berkeley when I was evicted from a property in Oakland, so I know how that feels.
We bought a property with a cottage made to you.
We did that because we had a friend who wanted to move in.
When we subsequently got to renting the property to others, we never charged market rate.
We charged what we thought was fair, which was under market rate.
We never, except once, in almost 15 years, increased the rent at all, okay, because we wanted to be contributing to our community and because we're Berkeley residents and we were really thoughtful about who we rented to.
We rented to people who worked for local non-profits.
But I also worked 40 years in social justice, and that was my life's work as in a non-profit, and I can tell you I've seen many times where people have pushed things forward thinking that was a good policy solution for all the right reasons, and they had it backwards.
This is the removal of protections on gold into blanks is really bad policy, and I'll tell you why.
Because, just wait a minute, I'll tell you why.
People like me will not rent under those circumstances, okay? I'm not going to have my children living in a situation where I have, like, no control over who's living there.
So if you want to take rental properties off the market, then proceed with eliminating the provisions for gold and duplexes.
It is the opposite of solving the problem.
Well-intentioned, but very foolish policy.
Thank you.
Okay, I'm going to do one last call for public comment on Zoom.
Please raise your virtual hand if you would like to speak.
If you do not raise your hand in the next five seconds, I will not call on you because we need to close the queue.
I'm going to close the speaker's queue on Zoom in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Okay.
And so these are the last hands I will recognize, and then we'll take our captioner break.
Ira Serks, followed by Tony Mester.
Hi, can you hear me okay? Not that well.
I'm going to change your speaker, excuse me a moment.
Is that better? Yes, it is.
These proposals should not be on the ballot.
I'll also talk about good faith and the fact that it's the rent board, the sole power to define good faith.
This is the same rent board led by an attorney that once told Golden Duplex owners they had lost their exemption because they held title in a living trust.
A living trust is simply part of the state planning.
It's one more example of bad faith on their part.
Imagine how the rent board, largely if not solely consisting of renters, would define good faith.
As a yellow dog Democrat, I never thought I'd vote Nancy Reagan.
Just saying, though.
Okay.
Tony Mester, if we can set the clock for four minutes.
She was allotted three additional minutes.
And Tony Mester, the floor is yours for four minutes.
Thank you, everybody, and I want to thank my friends for having such good faith in me because they think I'm going to be coherent.
I'm probably as weary as you guys are.
I'm not going to tell you who I think you should vote.
I think you already know what you're going to do.
But I would like to talk about policy on housing and how this intersects with our desire to create more rental units.
The great untapped wealth of this city lies in homeowner equity, which can be used to create units within the framework of the existing housing stock.
After Measure Q passed in 2018, exempting single family house with one ADU from the rent stabilization ordinance, the city permitted 533 ADUs.
That's over 100 ADUs every year, and I think that's a huge achievement for Berkeley homeowners to do that.
At the moment, owners of golden duplexes like myself are holding units empty, awaiting a decision whether our 44-year-old exemption will be removed or, like me, just kind of decided to retire because I can't handle all this anymore.
I mean, this gets kicked down the road every two years, and it's like a sword of Damocles over our heads, and I'm a little old for this.
There's a possibility that my property will be devalued, and that's what happens.
They're called golden duplexes for a reason.
They're more valuable on the market, and our lives forever changed.
So the potential of using homeowner equity to create new housing can be stifled or it can be unleashed, depending on whether or not the risk to owners is increased with the burden of complicated regulations.
I built a unit based on the golden duplex exemption, and I rented it for the greater part of 30 years under state law.
It's not like golden duplex exemptions are unregulated.
State law is very complex, and it now includes the just cause for eviction, and I must say, even though I'm very critical of rent control as an economic policy, Berkeley has succeeded in the just cause of eviction to influence state law in this effect, and I think that it's a very great accomplishment of the rent board.
The tenants whom I housed came and went of their own accord until I decided to stop renting because of the constant threats to the exemption.
There's no need to treat every tenancy as permanent because not all tenants want to stay here permanently.
Owner-occupied duplexes are a small niche market.
They're a niche rental market.
We are not absentee landlords.
We manage our own properties, and we live in close proximity with tenants, and without owner-occupied exemptions, the RSO becomes a method to harass and extort owners who, in order to sell an empty property or move in their adult children or whatever their lives demand, are forced to pay a so-called voluntary buyout that usually runs into the tens of thousands of dollars.
Without exemptions for owner-occupants, Berkeley will never have a robust JADU program, and junior ADUs are the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way to add to the housing stock, but they require owner protections because they're created within the house, and owners are not the enemy.
We provide housing.
Thank you.
Okay.
Our next speaker is Whitney Sparks, followed by former Councilor D'Avila, followed by Vanessa Moreira.
Hello.
I am a District 7 resident, and I'm a renter, a tenant.
I have experienced unhouselessness, and I just want to say that this has been an astounding, from the landlords who've been speaking up, display of whitesplaining and an awful display of privilege.
Low cost is not the same as low income, some definitions, some basic definitions for you guys.
Losing profit is not the same as losing housing.
This is not an equal situation if you're a landlord versus if you're a tenant.
We need to protect the most vulnerable in our city, as we've discussed numerous times in City Council on other days when we're talking about protecting the homeless against grants passed and creating safe spaces in our state and in our nation, as it retreats into this incredible fascism.
If you are a property owner and you are choosing to hoard your property and your wealth and privilege, that is your own problem with being marginalized.
You cannot twist logic to blame renters for that or rental protections for that.
We must protect the most vulnerable to protect our city, to protect our values, and nothing else can really explain that away.
I have spent months dealing with the rent board and with the bureaucracy of trying to protect myself against predatory landlords, and let me tell you, even with advocacy and education and knowing that I'm in the right, it is a grueling process that threatens me at every step with losing my housing and the protection for my child.
I have a Black child, and they are the most vulnerable of being evicted nationwide of any demographic whatsoever.
You can't compare that to having built your own little golden treasure box to bring in cash, and now you can't do that? Like, that's just not the same as my child potentially losing housing.
Okay.
We need to go to former Councilor Gavila, followed by Vanessa Morero, followed by Dan McDunn.
It's kind of rude how you cut people off like that.
You didn't even give her a warning, but that's okay.
Good evening.
That's prerogative, I guess, and you have control.
But it's also interesting there how I can recall when I was on the Council, how you and another Council member had to recuse themselves from the meeting when you were talking about golden duplexes.
Yes, this evening, you are not, and I don't think you've moved, so that's interesting.
And, yeah, you need to protect tenants, and these landlords who are displaying their wealth and privilege and also, to some degree, it sounds like they're being discriminatory in their tenant — you know, leasing to tenants and deciding that they only want to rent to a certain type of tenant sounds like they're not following legal practices in their decision-making, so that's also interesting.
Privilege and wealth — yeah, that's interesting.
And some of these people that have these vacant units that they're holding hostage, if that's ridiculous, they need to get charged for the vacancy tax.
Thank you.
Okay.
I'll just note for the record, the previous speaker had mentioned a potential conflict of interest.
We have a legal opinion from the State Fair Political Practices Commission that's saying there's no economic interest that prohibits me from being able to participate in today's decision.
It was alleged two years ago, fraudulently, by individuals that I could not participate.
I can clearly participate.
That's why I'm chairing the meeting.
That's why I'm going to be voting tonight.
Vanessa Moreira, followed by Dan McDonough.
Hi.
Good evening.
Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
Thank you.
My name is Vanessa Moreira, and I'm a single mother of three, one child with a disability.
I serve as an elected Rent Board Commissioner, and I'm also on the Commission of Disability.
I also work extensively with partners at the national level with the Biden-Harris Administration.
I wanted to thank Council Member Luna Paga for your leadership in bringing this measure forward, as well as the 4x4 Committee and the Berkeley Rent Board.
While I appreciate everybody's interest and willingness to uplift the tenant's right to organize for Berkeley voters, to Berkeley voters, I believe it is beholden in the Council to act adamantly to ensure that people who are disabled, seeing your aging in place, and people who are from Black and Brown communities are protected by this measure.
Our people have already faced redlining, gentrification, and other barriers to stay here in Berkeley, and Berkeley must act in alignment with its values to ensure that diversity and equity are seen and felt by communities of which have been marginalized.
I've lived in an eight-unit building in D4 for 18 years and faced eviction as my apartment was filled with mold and lead, resulting in me becoming very sick.
Obviously, me calling in now from Kaiser, showing the problems that I face, this is my second time online.
Removing these types of properties from the Tenant's Right to Organize Act would be harmful to vulnerable tenants like myself and move them away from freedoms.
Thank you so much.
We're 25 seconds over time.
If you can wrap up your thought, thank you.
That's it, Council Member Hahn.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, Dan McDonough, and hopefully you can hear.
There is a beep when the one minute is up, and I'll let you know if you didn't hear it.
Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, Council Member Hahn.
I just wanted to make a note that only a handful of property managers and owners were named, and they were part of the much-loved-by-council non-profit housing sector.
Saha was named by a tenant, as was Foundation Housing by a number of tenants at the Harriet Tubman facility.
So I just want to point that out, that our tax dollars are being directed to these non-profit housing providers, and they were the only ones that named their management companies by name.
I just want to point out that the economic illiteracy of either one of these actions and getting us on to the ballot is staggering, really, really staggering.
No connection at all to the reality of how things work in the rental housing market.
And I want to point out for anyone that thinks that they're going to stop at Golden Duplexes if that is exempted, they're coming for Golden Duplexes next time too, just like they're coming for any other Western value that you care about, free speech, you know, private property rights, all of it.
It's all on the table with this group here, and don't think it's not.
Anyway.
Time is up.
Thank you.
The next speakers are Sam, and then Bernadette, and then Lauren Schiller.
Sam, you have one minute.
Hi, everyone.
Sam Greenberg speaking in favor of the Tenant Protections and Rent to Organize Act.
Let me just start by saying that the East Bay Rental Housing Association is not sending their bets today.
And I want to, you know, emphasize that renting a property is a social contract, just like being a business owner in a civil society.
You have to follow, you know, some pesky regulations.
And landlords who choose to take on the responsibility of managing somebody's home, the place they live, have responsibilities just like business owners do.
There is no point of deregulation that you as council members could enact where landlords would not be here complaining.
There's no point where they would not be complaining.
A lot of landlords have provided comments saying that we'll see their units taken off the market.
We have a vacancy tax we passed for exactly this reason that many of you on Council supported, the voters supported by over 60% of the vote.
And landlords are not irrational.
By and large, they're going to be keeping their units on the market.
The scale, as many commenters have mentioned, is completely disproportionate.
Renters face displacement out of the city, they face homelessness.
And, you know, I understand that some small property owners have difficult situations, but it's a completely different scale of financial difficulty.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Bernadette, one minute.
Hello.
Can you hear me? Hello.
Yes, we can.
We can.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Bernadette Okereke, and I'm here to urge you individually and collectively to vote yes and put Council Member Luna Perez's version of the Tenant Protection and Rights Organized Act on the November ballot.
We all know that Black Berkeleyans are being disproportionately displaced.
This will give Berkeleyans an opportunity to stop the bleed and make things more racially equitable by providing desperately needed tenant protections.
We've heard so many people who have given their personal testimonies of experiences that they've had.
I know people right now who are working four jobs, single parents, four jobs, just to maintain a place for their children to be able to live.
We need to be able to support those who are so vulnerable in our society.
That's what we do as Berkeleyans.
Moreover, this is going to give the Berkeley voters an opportunity to make a democratic decision in November.
I just want to thank you so much for this opportunity.
Please vote yes.
Okay.
Lauren Schiller is our next speaker, followed by Michael Parman.
Hi.
Thank you.
I want to say I do appreciate your willingness to compromise to come to the meeting with an alternative.
Tenants do need to be protected, but so do homeowners.
We need to maintain a balance.
Homeowners put money into their properties to keep them livable and also pay property taxes to support the many city services that renters have access to.
I'm a Golden Duplex owner in District 4 and have rented out our back cottage very amenably for the last 20 years.
This has provided housing and also helped me to pay my mortgage.
I raised two children in this house.
Renting out to someone who shares our backyard space and our water bill on a property where I and my family also live is a totally different situation than a landlord with multiple units.
Homeowners deserve protection, too.
There needs to be equal protections that go both ways.
I want to preserve the right to decide who lives on my property and preserve the right to have space for those who care for me on the property that I own and care for.
Even though the rent board has repeatedly been rejected with these proposals by voters and this council, they continue to bring them back.
If you do choose to vote through one of these proposals, please choose the option that exempts Golden Duplexes and ADUs, which, by the way, Igor promised he would protect when he was campaigning.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Michael Parman, followed by the call with the number 816.
Michael, you should now be able to speak.
Michael Parman, are you there? Yes, hello.
Can you hear me? Yeah, yes, thank you.
Great, thank you.
Several issues I'd like to address, but I think the most important one in this policy that is sort of significantly in aberrance with typical policy in Berkeley is the decision to provide unlimited utilities to a variety of tenants.
It's a well-documented fact that without people having to pay for the economic resources and natural resources that they consume, they tend to consume significantly more than they otherwise would.
This is why East Bay Mud, this is why PG&E all have increasing rate tiers as rates, as usage increases.
If people do not have skin in the game regarding their utilization of these resources, they will use significantly more.
For this reason, this proposal in the policy is one that has significant unintended consequences, or more importantly, is just bad policy from an environmental perspective.
The other thing that I think is worth noting, and it has been commented on many times, is that the rent board has continually waged a war against small property owners in Berkeley and has, as a result, caused a large number of units that would otherwise exist for people to live in to not exist on the market.
Thank you.
The rent board should focus its efforts on large corporate landlords and should encourage small units to come onto the market.
Thank you.
Okay, call with the number 816.
Please press star 6 to unmute.
Call with number 816.
Please press star 6 to unmute.
We're going out of the call with the number ending 816.
Please press star 6 to unmute.
Okay.
Let me give you five seconds.
Five, four, three, two, one.
We're going to the next speaker.
Okay.
Andy Kelly.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor, members of the Council.
I'm calling in today as a rent board commissioner elected to represent the voters in Berkeley, as are you.
A lot has been talked about the substance of these measures tonight, but I don't want to talk about that.
I want to talk about democracy.
We worked very hard at the rent board to craft an inclusive and thoughtful policy through a public process.
Many people here tonight chose not to participate in that process or express their concerns, which is disappointing because we had no opportunity to address them.
The decision was made to circulate petitions that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Berkeley voters decided to sign.
Unfortunately, we came just slightly short of the threshold needed.
I just want to remind Council whatever you do tonight, you can vote to honor the spirit of democracy by putting on a pro-tenant measure, even if you choose not to support it.
It's clear that the will of the voters of Berkeley was to have the opportunity to vote on this, and we weren't able to get enough signatures given the difficulties in organizing up against a very volunteer effort without a lot of money or corporate interests.
We ask you to be thoughtful and put that measure on the ballot tonight so that voters have a chance to decide this issue that's been being discussed in our community for decades.
Thank you.
Jeff Lomax is our next speaker, followed by Nico Marisol.
Thank you, Mayor and Council.
I guess from the Department of Legislative Jerry-Rigging, it's probably worth noting that if the other measure had failed by 60 votes, we wouldn't be having this conversation tonight.
I urge you to reject both measures because you're rushing a substantially revised measure that will radically alter housing policy with no objective evidence for need and a de minimis amount of time for analysis and public engagement.
The continued targeting of owner-occupied affordable housing through punitive and unfair regulations serves to reduce the stock of housing in Berkeley, as you've heard.
As other speakers have noted, reduction in housing supply caused by these measures hurts tenants, drives up rents, and serves the interests of hedge funds that have come to dominate the rental market, and that's the true crime.
Berkeley residents are able and willing to make owner-occupied parcels part of the affordable housing solution, but under these punitive regulations, few, including myself, will be willing to take the risk.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Nico Marisol, followed by Lucky Thomas.
Nico Marisol, you should now be able to speak.
Nico Marisol? Hello.
I'm a recent UC Berkeley alumni and a renter in District 4.
I would like to thank Council Member Trageb for expressing your support for this measure while you were campaigning, and I hope to see you vote in favor of it tonight.
I am rent burdened.
I pay more than half of my income toward rent.
As a tenant, I did not know my rights coming into my current housing situation, and that left me living in a mold-infested house with a leaking roof and locks that did not work.
My previous home was a Raj property, which was also severely infested with mold, with elevators that rarely worked.
I've experienced housing insecurity, spent nights sleeping on my friend's beanbag, in rental gig cars, and in People's Park.
I want the chance to be able to vote on this measure.
What we're doing here tonight is not going around the system, as many have suggested.
It is perfectly legal and democratic for a measure to be put on the ballot via a City Council vote, and I encourage you to do so tonight.
Lastly, while we are here fighting for tenant rights in Berkeley, I am inspired by the freedom fighters in Palestine who are subject to violent displacement by illegal Israeli settlements that this city has yet to condemn.
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Lucky Thomas, followed by Protect Tenants' Max Smith.
Hello, Council.
Can you hear me? We can, yes.
Hi.
Lucky Thomas.
I'm asking that you vote no on both of those measures to go to the voters, and the reason being, I've been a property owner for 35 years or more, and originally one of the members of Berkeley Black Property Owners Association, and as you know now, there's no longer a Berkeley Black Property Owners Association because there's very few Berkeley Black Property Owners, and largely those impacts came through rent control.
Black property owners got out of the business, and they were bought up, and they were gentrified, and as we've seen the Black population drop in Berkeley, or you saw the Black property ownership drop in Berkeley, such has dropped in the Black population, so there are some items that I really am opposed to.
The three percent cap on rents, I think that needs to be taken off.

Segment 7

and then also organizing it just further burdens property owners and especially small property owners.
And I like to, I have, you know, a lot more to say about it, but thank you very much.
Oh, I have a few more minutes here, I guess.
No, no, you have your- I don't, I'm done.
Thank you very much.
Please, your thought.
Well, yes, I just would like to say that there's a ballot measure coming up at the state level that's going to try to kill Costa Hawkins.
And if we're trying to get rid of corporate control of our rental property and maintain rents and create, as I've heard often from this board, generational wealth, and you want to protect small property owners, we have to do something.
And this measure, the two measures that you're putting forward will certainly further burden small property owners.
Thank you.
Okay.
And our last raise hand we'll go to is Max Smith.
And that will be our last speaker.
Apologies, I have COVID.
I live in District 5, as does the rest of my family, though, I will likely be moving to District 3.
Please vote yes to put this on the ballot.
We just heard so many outright lies from the landlords today.
They have been talking about golden duplexes or ADUs, even though this ballot measure has nothing to do with that.
The Council Member Lunapara has made clear that that is not being touched.
And so why are people, why are landlords talking about this? It's clear that it's because they have no good argument, just like they had no good arguments for their ballot measure.
They had to go out and trick people into thinking that it was the Tenant Protection and Right to Organize Act.
In fact, that's one of the reasons why people couldn't get enough signatures, because tons of people thought they'd already signed it because the landlord tricked them into thinking that they were signing the real ballot measure.
Thank you.
Okay.
So that completes public comment.
I did do a last call for public comment.
I did a five-second count.
Those were the last hands I saw raised.
So I apologize to anyone who's raised their hand.
Subsequent to that, we did give people an opportunity to be added to the speaker's queue.
We do need to take a captioner break.
So we'll take a 15-minute captioner break, and we'll be back to begin our discussion.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Segment 8

Thank you very much, Mr.
Mayor.
I want to thank all of the people who gave public comment on this Monday evening.
I appreciate hearing from you.
The item from the mayor and Council Member Hahn states that 53 percent of Berkeley renter households are rent burdened, paying more than 30 percent of their household income towards rent.
I think we heard tonight what that does to students, young people starting their careers, and older folks.
This is a supply problem that is decades in the making, and I desperately want to see our city, our region, and our state create more homes for people of all income levels.
In general, I think Berkeley has very strong tenant protections.
I appreciate that the proposal from the mayor and Council Member Hahn restores the status quo for Golden Duplex owners.
I think that when there are two units on a lot and one is owner-occupied, the Berkeley voters have spoken through prior ballot measures that those are special cases.
I think it's reasonable to provide greater flexibility for those units to encourage them to be rented out.
I also want to say that I strongly support the right of tenants to organize.
I'm most concerned that the cap of three percent might not provide adequate resources to make improvements to units, particularly in an inflationary environment.
I don't know what the financial situation or mortgage or individual circumstances are for property owners.
It is hard for me to gauge whether this three percent cap is going to be adequate.
I am concerned that there could be unintended harm to tenants if a property owner just simply doesn't have the resources to make upgrades and improvements and repairs that are necessary.
I'm wondering, was there any analysis done to arrive at that percentage? I'd like to ask Mr.
Brown or Ms.
Simon-Weisberg to come up.
My understanding is that this is similar to San Francisco, Santa Monica, and Oakland, which have set a three percent rent cap.
I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what went into the decision on that and what information was made to come to that.
Yes.
I also want to just remind Councilmember Castroni if you're unaware, that anytime a landlord is not making a reasonable return investment, which includes the need for capital improvements, they can always file a petition.
The idea that a landlord would not be able to do that would be in that situation.
We absolutely have an avenue for that, and landlords can file those, and there are forms that help them.
They just have to fill them out, and then there's a hearing.
That shouldn't be a concern.
The three percent, and as folks know, many cities adopted that during really the one year that we had, 7, 8, 10, 12, it was actually 12 percent inflation.
When that was done, the reason three percent was chosen was because San Francisco did a study, and they surveyed developers and different folks who were in the industry, who had to say what their increases need to be when they were doing their performance, what it would be, and they said it was three percent.
That was where we got the three percent.
But remember, what's really, really important is any landlord at any time where that rent increase is not sufficient, may file a petition and get that because they have a constitutional right to have it, and within that is capital improvements.
Anytime if you have a constituent that says, gosh, if I'm only being able to raise it to three percent, I can't do X, Y, or Z, please let them come and we'll explain to them how to file a petition.
Thank you for that.
I don't know if my time was held for the answer.
I assume it was.
Thank you so much.
Next on the utilities, I do see that there was an amendment made.
It sounds like we're trying to provide more flexibility.
I'm not sure what the financial implications are of adding the individual meters or these new technologies, mechanisms, and policies.
I just don't know what the landscape is like in terms of how utilities are currently being allocated.
I know we're using this ratio method currently, but I am concerned that when there isn't the individual metering or there isn't the voluntary technologies that this flat cost does not encourage conservation.
Was there any discussion about that? What can be done to remedy that? The purpose of why we're trying to make those changes is actually to encourage landlords to take the step to do individual metering.
Because I think as there are speakers who said, if you have skin in the game, people are going to be more responsible.
Yes, there are some saints out there that do a good job regardless.
But we want landlords to move to the individual.
Now, in the event that a landlord decides to do that, that's called a capital improvement.
If they are then allowed to file a petition so they can change what the rent is to reflect that.
The system really is set up to address all of these kinds of structural issues.
Ideally, people should have individual and the new buildings are all individually metered.
We're really talking about older buildings.
Right now, if a landlord has a contract where it's included, it's part of what we say is the base rent, and they don't even charge for utilities.
It's just part of the rent.
They're seeing this huge increase and it's having a huge impact.
Again, they can file a petition and show that there's this huge increase and now they don't have a reasonable return on investment anymore.
Again, that system is set up so that we have these generals for everybody, which the Supreme Court required.
For individual situations, people always have an avenue to say, hey, in this situation it's different.
I have all long-term tenants.
I don't have people paying four times as much.
I don't have majority of the tenants paying.
That system really is why it's protected and that's why we have growing.
It's a policy that continues in California and is only growing because it allows for that outlet of those situations that you're rightly concerned about.
Okay.
I don't know if you happen to have these stats on hand.
I'm wondering how often property owners are availing themselves of that ability now.
How are they aware of this? Do you have stats on how many petitions were made in the last year and how many are through there? It's very rare because the majority of landlords in Berkeley have more than half of their tenants are new construction.
All of these things that you're concerned about are really relevant if we had vacancy control.
It used to be in Berkeley when we had the least amount of rent increases in the state, because every year whether a tenant moved or not, the rent would only go up a certain percent.
That's called vacancy control.
We don't have that.
Most buildings have a huge number of people who just moved in, most rents are at market.
That actually makes it quite profitable because you have that mix because there's no vacancy control.
If we ever go back to having vacancy control, then landlords will probably more often have to do that because they won't be the diversity of rents.
It's rare.
We do have, I think last year it was 14, but I'm not sure which category, but landlords regularly do it.
Most of the petitions are about landlords believing that the primary tenant has left and that the rents, they should be able to reset the rents.
That tends to be one of the most common petitions.
Thank you.
Then on page 34 of the mayor's ordinance, I was working from that one, page 34-52, there's language related to the substantial actual injury, which is this new language.
Yeah.
My question is for our city attorney's office about whether this is a term that is clear and understood by the courts.
It wasn't a phrase that I was familiar with.
That language came from Oakland and I can tell you the context of which how they city attorney.
I want to ask the city attorney first.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This is Deputy City Attorney James Chang.
I have some of my colleagues on Zoom who have been working with the council on this legislation.
Rima, do we want to bring in one of our knowledgeable colleagues here? Yes.
I'm going to turn it over to Steve to see if he can answer the question.
I do not know offhand.
I can look into it.
Would it be helpful for me to give you the context of where it came from? Yes, please go ahead.
There is a case, it's called Boston versus Gutierrez, I think, that came out of Los Angeles where the Court of Appeals affirmed that you can't just evict people for no reason, and that any term in a contract that's evictable has to have an impact on the landlord.
Essentially, this language is to basically codify that case, and that's why cities are including that.
We have situations where landlords will put notices in against tenants for really minor things that the tenants don't know, that you shouldn't be able to be evicted for it.
It should be meaning we have a lot of people who self-evict at the notice stage.
When we were coming out of the moratorium, Oakland wanted to make sure that we didn't have those, the main people consider them frivolous evictions.
It came out of that case, the Boston case.
It's not from, it's just the landlord's name was Boston.
There was a negotiation with the landlords, with FEBRA in Oakland, and they negotiated that language with the tenant advocates.
What they're doing is in some ways it's importing, it's trying to clarify injury using the common day understanding of, it has to actually have an impact.
It can't just be.
I am out of time though.
This is my last question.
Just to paraphrase.
I'm going to give my understanding of what you've said.
There can be many minor lease terms that a tenant has agreed to, and if the tenant has violated maybe some of these minor terms that are not causing harm or injury to the landlord, then those are not going to be the grounds for eviction.
Whereas if we don't have this language, any lease violation can be a cause for eviction.
Is that fair? Yes.
In the case that this comes from, the landlord was trying to evict the tenant because they hadn't gotten rental insurance.
The court said, this doesn't even benefit the landlord.
Okay.
That's all I have for now.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Council Member Humbert.
Yes.
Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
First of all, I want to thank, just as I start out here, Council Member Luna Potter for her efforts on this measure.
She's only been on council a short while, but she's really hit the ground running.
I have great respect for her efforts to make sure tenants know their rights and are treated fairly.
But I do want to, even though the golden duplex exemption is now essentially, I guess, off the table, I do want to address that because it keeps coming up.
The golden duplex owners, the vast majority of them are very worried about it, and it's a red line for me.
For micro housing providers, which is what golden duplex owners are, the issue of who's living in your duplex and how they're conducting themselves, it can be a very, very big deal.
Similar to ADUs and JDUs, the relationship you have with your tenant in a duplex is very different than it is for larger multi-tenant buildings.
This goes for situations even where one of the duplex occupants is a friend or family member rather than the owner herself.
I want to be completely clear that I believe duplex landlords still have the responsibilities to their tenants, but I'm not prepared to draw more small golden duplex owners into the often fraught and fractious rent board processes.
In saying that, I'm confident that I'm articulating the truth.
Those processes are often very difficult.
ADU owners are not subject to local rent control laws, neither should golden duplex owners be subject to them.
They're a whole lot alike, meaningless differences, I think.
I've heard this many times and we heard this tonight and I've heard it before.
Golden duplex owners will simply not rent their units if this ordinance is passed.
It undercuts our goal to increase housing, does not promote it.
I realize we're talking here theoretically, but I don't want to see it come up again two years from now.
I've seen no data.
I heard a couple of anecdotes here today for the first time, but I've seen no data that there's a problem with golden duplex housing providers.
In fact, I'm aware that there's been at least one public records request directed to the city to inquire about complaints against golden duplex owners, and this request yielded no evidence that there were any complaints.
I think it's a draconian solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist, and under any circumstances, I can't support it.
Beyond the golden duplex issue, and we've been just talking about this, I think utilities element of the item wasn't workable.
I hope it's workable with the amendment.
That's very interesting.
I do want to point out that rewiring a whole building and putting in separate meters in an old building, and in fact, all of the buildings that are subject to rent control are old buildings, is extremely expensive.
It can run into tens and tens of thousands of dollars.
Units could theoretically be separately metered with current technology, although I know nothing about this cutting edge technology.
But again, it's really just another burden on the cost of housing.
I also want to address the Costa-Hawkins provision.
In my view, it's a nullity and it's performative.
The city can't reduce the time for a new building to come under rent control to 15 years because that's barred by Costa-Hawkins.
Twenty years is also barred.
All buildings built after, is it 1985, I believe, are not subject to rent control as a matter of state law.
Ninety-five, ten years off.
I believe we should reform Costa-Hawkins, and maybe there should be a 15-year or a 20-year standard.
But I'm not aware of any feasibility study that tells us 15 years is enough to encourage the construction of new housing.
We don't know because there hasn't been a 9-2-1-2 report on the rent board's failed measure.
It didn't qualify for the ballot and we haven't seen that report.
That's a point worth noting.
We had 9-2-1-2 reports, I think, on all the other ballot measures.
There could have been one that we didn't.
This one came sailing in at the last minute and we haven't had the time to do that.
I view the rent cap included in the measure as draconian.
Currently, depending on inflation, rent increases under the Berkeley Ordinance can top out at seven percent per annum.
I think it's been rare that that's ever happened.
This measure would limit it to three percent.
There's been a lot of discussion about this, that that would increase the likelihood that housing providers wouldn't be able to keep up with inflation, keep their buildings properly maintained.
Please continue.
I don't think this is good policy.
It really ties the hands of a housing provider and limits the improvements that she can afford to have done to the building.
I'm also concerned, another item, and this is the item that remains in the Hahn-Ehrgein version, that a three-day notice can only be given once the tenant owes one month of fair market rent.
That adds an element of uncertainty in what needs to be a cut and dried process.
How is a housing provider supposed to do a one-off estimate of fair market value on a particular unit? This would always be subject to challenge, unlike the very specific rent amount set by a lease.
This penalizes housing providers who might rent a unit for much less than market.
They'd have to wait longer to provide notice to a non-paying tenant.
If it was way under market, sometimes that might be months.
Those are my items because I've already, let's see.
I think that's it.
I've collapsed the two measures together.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Humbert, on that last comment you had made, I believe you're referring to language in Section 130A, A1, non-payment of rent.
I similarly, and I talked to Mr.
Brown about this today.
I know that you're trying to deal with an edge case, but I'm concerned that the scope of it could, if applied, could result in situations where you're not, say, at Strawberry Gardens because it's saying using the fair market for the unit of an equivalent size in the Oakland FMR.
Wouldn't an easier standard just be that in the situation where a tenant is behind on less than one month of rent for their unit, that they're not evicted? I think that's the underlying issue, is you're proposing that we not evict people if they are short, less than one full month of rent.
Well, I guess the one thing is that Los Angeles has the exact same language and they referred to the HUD fair market, which is a set amount and it's already gone to court and they got a ruling supporting it.
My only concern is that there's protection for the City of Berkeley because the courts have already said that you can do this.
One of the things that the court found compelling was that it was a set amount that was set objectively because I don't know if you realize that it's a set amount, it's everyone can look at the same chart that says what that amount is.
The point of that is that we find that landlords, where people pay really high rents, they'll give them more cushion, even though in theory they owe more rent when they're late.
They tend to focus more on tenants who are paying significantly below market, the minute they are a day late, because the landlord has more to gain by displacing that tenant because they'll be able to raise the rent to market.
The other thing is that for those low income tenants, which are tenancies will never be able to replace because they're paying more rents, because they're rent controlled, it gives them additional time to go seek rental assistance from the City of Berkeley.
That's what they've seen in the benefit of that in both Oakland and Los Angeles.
The tenants are able to, low income tenants who qualify for those programs are able to do it, and you're able to more easily preserve those really valuable tenancies that can't be replaced, that those folks will never find housing again that they can afford.
I don't know if that, because the idea is, if the landlord puts in the notice the wrong amount for rent for one month rent, then they'll notice it's affected.
If there's an objective amount and everybody knows for a two-bedroom, it's X, and then it reaches that, then they can do it.
What if their rent is less than what that, or more than what that FMR is? If it's less than that, then they'll end up getting 60 days to pay that rent.
The reality is, they don't get the rental assistance.
They're going to be evicted and they're out.
In that time period, if they're able to get rental assistance, the landlord gets their rent and their tenancy is reinstated.
Okay.
Council Member, you had raised this.
Do you have any further questions about this issue? Yeah.
Thank you.
Just to jump in.
I know we're thinking about edge cases or extreme cases.
We heard some extreme cases during the pandemic.
I was wondering if somebody is significantly below this amount, this fair market rent amount.
Maybe it's helpful to pick a number.
They're only paying $500 a month.
The fair market rent says for that unit, it's actually $1,500.
I'm worried about, can they just keep paying small amounts so they never actually get up to $1,500? But they're not keeping up with their rent payments, but the landlord has to wait.
I'm just worried about this gaming possibility.
I'm not that familiar with how this might work.
We haven't seen that to happen in Los Angeles, which obviously is a huge city.
That hasn't been a situation where people are every two months, getting $5 behind and a never-ending situation.
What we found is it's giving the city enough time to give people their rental assistance.
It also is preventing and barring.
I think you're referring to the 80 notices that went out to our seniors at Strawberry Creek by one of our dear non-profits.
It was because their attorneys advised them to do that across the state.
I think that it's just been very valuable in both Oakland and Los Angeles.
The key thing was to create an objective amount so that everybody can look at the chart that HUD puts out.
That was how that policy arrived.
I think that we are in a situation where we want to keep most people housed.
Most people pay their rent.
Most people pay their rent all through the pandemic.
The folks who are homeless often arrive there because they weren't able to pay their rent fast enough.
Councilor Humbert.
Yeah.
I understand.
Thank you for the information about the objective amount that can be derived from the HUD table.
I think for each individual tenancy, the objective amount that's readily available is the monthly amount of rent.
If somebody has been in a tenancy for many years and they are, for example, paying $1,000 a month for a unit that now might rent for 5,000, I understand that there's a good for bad landlords and motivation to push them out.
But the landlord would have to wait five months to be able to serve a notice if the fair market value was 5,000 and the tenant was paying 1,000.
That's not fair market and it's about $2,500 for a two-bedroom.
I think it's $2,500.
I'm just using an example.
I know, but it's important to understand that's not at all what's being provided.
It also means that somebody who pays 5,000, they never get extra time.
It really is about protecting people who are low income paying low rents.
Landlords who may be intentionally charging lower rents just to keep their units occupied are going to suffer and have to wait longer before they can demand that the rent be paid on penalty of eviction.
I still don't think it makes sense.
That's my view.
I think we got clarification on the intent of the language.
Does anyone else wish to speak? Councilor Hall? Thank you.
First of all, there's some things that no one's been talking about tonight that I'm really excited about in this measure.
The tenant right to organize is what I am most excited about.
In this measure, it's huge.
It's so important.
Anyone who knows me knows that I really believe in social housing, and tenant unions are a big part of that.
They may not be constituted exactly like this, but the idea that the tenants are in a cooperative organization and that they have agency over where they live, is something that I am really committed to and excited about.
Notice requirements.
I have been talking about that since I joined the council in 2016, and I am really excited to see this here.
I think it's extremely important.
Again, everybody's forgetting so many other things that are in here that I'm excited about.
It's when there's things that are just like a third rail in Berkeley.
That's all you hear about, and you don't hear about any other stuff.
I also wanted to speak to some of the comments that public commenters made about bringing everyone together.
There's some people in this room who know that I spent 10 days or two weeks trying to get that Kumbaya.
It's very disappointing that we couldn't get there, and I don't believe there's anyone in this room who was not open and willing to try and do that.
I just want to express my deep disappointment that this image, which I think the people of Berkeley really want to see us work that way, and that's how I want to see us work in this community, it wasn't able to happen.
Again, I don't think anyone in this room was part of that.
I just wanted to say that, yes, some of us do try to do that.
I wanted to better understand Mr.
Humbert, Mark.
You made a number of different comments.
Are you satisfied with where things landed on the metering? I'm not sure.
I don't have enough information on the amendment, but it certainly sounds better than the original version.
Yeah.
Okay.
Then you had also raised the question of the cap on rent increases.
Yeah.
Could you say a little bit more about that, please? Well, I think the cap is too low and I.

Segment 9

I think the cap is going to prevent landlords from sort of readily keeping their buildings in decent shape.
We've seen these tremendous increases in insurance lately.
And if they're able to raise the rent a little bit more than 3%, 7%, somewhere in that range, maybe they can be able to finance the significant increases in insurance costs.
So I think 3% is really just too small.
And what do you think is reasonable? Well, I think the current standard is reasonable.
7%? Yeah, no, I think the current standard is reasonable.
But something between three and seven might also function acceptably.
I just don't have enough data here to be able to answer that question.
I mean, there wasn't a 9-2-1, 9-2-1-0 report.
And so, I mean, I'm kind of grabbing numbers out of the air.
I think the 7% has worked to date.
There were a couple of years where it was a problem.
Can I give you some data about the, no, thank you.
Okay, I guess I don't know our city manager, the city attorney, or we can just look it up.
I'm just curious what CPI has been the last few years.
Someone could answer that for me directly.
Do you have that number? Can you answer that without additional information? Well, what I was going to say is that the AGA, the increases have never been more.
When we had it up to 7% as the cap, other than in 2023, the rent increase has never been even 3%, not even once since the rent control started.
So it sounds like the cap doesn't make a big difference.
It does when the inflation goes up to 12%.
And then it went to 25%, 0.4%.
Okay, so- It's 60, it's hard-coded in the ordinance at 65% of CPI.
Say it, I couldn't hear that.
It's hard-coded in the ordinance at 65% of CPI for the local Central Bay Area with a maximum of 7%.
So 7% is 65% of what? So is that where the 12% number came from? 65% of- Somebody threw that number.
It can't be 6.5.
Okay, so something like that.
So maybe five, maybe five works as a- So it's never gone above five.
It's never gone above a 2.8%, but you said it went to 4.4.
Well, I know, except for that one year, but since 1985, it's 1981.
So on average, it's never done that.
Landlords have never needed that and make this- I just asked for the numbers.
I appreciate it.
Yeah.
I'm going to make a friendly, a request for a friendly amendment to the motion makers.
Okay.
Given that this has never gone above 5%, I would like to raise that ceiling or floor or whatever you want to call it to 5% from 3%.
The seconder was Councilor Lunapara.
Yes.
I do not accept that motion.
So if that's not accepted, then you can make a motion to amend the main motion to add a particular provision, but that's otherwise- I guess maybe just in trying to be still friendly, do we want to pass this tonight? It's a friendly amendment, but it's a desired amendment.
I understand.
I think that, would it be possible to do a substitute motion and then- Well, we could end with a draw.
All right, I'm just going to- Alternatives, you make a motion to amend to add the particular amendments that you're seeking to be included in the main motion.
If that gets five affirmative votes, then that is in the main motion.
If it doesn't get five affirmative votes, then it is not.
And the city attorney advised that we can't sever because it's one ballot measure.
So these things are not severable.
So any additions that aren't accepted as friendly amendments, you need motions to amend.
Mr.
Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to amend to set the cap at 5%.
That's part of my motion.
And the second part of the motion is to allow a notice of, a three-day notice to issue once one month's lease rent is unpaid.
Second.
So that, on that latter point, just to clarify, you're talking about the language in section 1376.130, which I just put up on the screen, I'm assuming, where it says, subsection should not constitute grounds where the amount of rent demand is less than one month of fair market rent, et cetera, et cetera.
You're proposing to amend that to be where the amount of rent demanded is one month of the tenant's monthly rent? Is that what you're saying? Thank you for helping me out, Mr.
Mayor.
Okay, I'm just trying to get clarity on what we're discussing, okay.
Okay, so that, I believe, Mr.
Clerk, just to clarify, two things can be included in that.
I haven't done this in a long time, so.
I need to ask this procedural question.
Yes, that's in order.
Okay, so that's moved and seconded by Kiselwani.
Yes, I just wanted to clarify, the paragraph that Council Member Humbert is proposing to amend is to move away from the HUD fair market rent as the standard and just say one month of rent.
Unpaid lease rent.
Unpaid lease rent.
That's correct.
Okay, so that's what you're proposing to amend.
Rent.
Unpaid lease rent.
Unpaid lease rent.
That's what I understood.
I just wanted to clarify.
Okay, okay, thank you.
Okay, so the way we do this procedural, if I'm not mistaken, is we just debate the motion to amend, then after we have discussion, then we vote on the motion to amend.
So is there any discussion on the motion to amend before we vote? And, yes, Councilor Schreger? I would like to sever those two amendments.
Can we vote separately on the two portions of the motion to amend? Or is it all just, we haven't done this in many, many years.
Specifically, things are friendly and we've delivered, there's a substitute motion.
So I need some procedural guidance here.
I think you're requesting that we vote on the 5% and then the amendment to section 130 with respect to the less than one month rent.
Mr.
Mayor? Yes.
If I could.
If you do make that motion, can you make it in the form of this subsection shall not constitute grounds where the amount of rent demanded is less than one month of the most recent period, I'm sorry, of the most recent lawful periodic rent? I think that makes sense.
Because if you're talking about the excess rent, yeah, okay.
Yeah, no.
Okay.
Can you just repeat the rephrase? Take out the words one month's rent and put in the words the most recent lawful periodic rent.
Okay, that's fine.
Because, exactly, yes.
Because that would- Cover everything.
That more particularly refers to what is owed.
Okay.
It sounds good.
Mr.
Mayor, because I'm just taking note of that.
Sure.
The subsection shall not constitute grounds where the amount of rent demand is less than- One month of the most recent lawful periodic rent.
Okay.
Yeah, and I think that makes sense because it may not be the amount of rent set forth in the lease.
It may have been increased over the years.
Right, and not all rents charged or go up to the rent ceiling that they actually could go up to.
Understood.
So that makes it more particular to what the tenant might actually owe.
Yes.
Okay, so I'm just gonna share screen to show what that looks like based on what you just described.
And confirming the seconder's good with that? Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay.
The division of the question for amendments is- Okay, so that's, we do allow severance.
So we'll separate in the two separate portions which are one, be the 5% rent cap and two, the, I guess we take them in the order that they're in the motion, correct? Yeah.
5% rent cap and then the change we just described to section 130.
Okay, Councilor Humbert, you pushed your button.
Councilor Trek, did you speak already? No, that was my request.
Any other discussion on the motion to amend? Yes.
I would like to make a friendly amendment to change it to 4% instead of 5%.
Okay, so that is not accepted.
Any other debate? Okay, if not, we'll vote first on the first element of the Humbert-Kistelwani motion which is to amend the language in section, let me just read the right code section, forgive me.
I think it's- I think you know where the 5%, 3% is.
It's section 1376.110, annual general adjustment of ceilings, subsection A, it's changing the language in the second, what is it? The final two sentences to change the word seven to five and the number seven to five, correct? Yeah, that would effectuate the amendment you're proposing.
Okay, on that, please call the roll.
Okay, on the first part of the motion to amend the 5% cap, Councilor Humbert-Kistelwani? Yes.
Councilor McApher, it's absent.
Council Member Bartlett? No.
Okay, Tregub? Pass.
Han? Yes.
Wengraf is absent.
Lunapara? No.
Humbert? Yes.
Mayor Arragin? Pass.
Council Member Tregub? Yes.
Mayor Arragin? Yes.
Okay, that carries.
So that's in the motion.
On the amendment to section 130, that I can pull up the language that we just talked about.
I'm giving one second.
So it's as stated here.
Let's call the roll.
Okay, on the amendment and the three-day notice, Council Member Kistelwani? Yes.
And Council Member Bartlett? No.
Tregub? No.
Han? Yes.
Lunapara? No.
Humbert? Yes.
And Mayor Arragin? Abstain.
Okay, that fails.
5% is in.
Okay.
Further discussion? Okay, so we'll now vote on item 1B as presented in the supplemental packet with the following changes.
I'll just note for the record.
And I'll share screen to walk everyone through this.
Okay.
We're adding the language back in, in section 050, applicability, with regard to the government-owned and government subsidized running units being subject to rent controls.
This is the language that was in the original proposal.
Okay.
And I'll share screen to walk everyone through this.
And I'll share screen to walk everyone through this.
Okay.
The change that we discussed previously in section 100, establishment of base rent ceiling, adding the language here, similar to separate and individual metering.
And then this was not accepted.
So I guess we go back to the original language.
And and I will send this to the clerk and the city attorney.
And then the language, the amendment to the section around 5%.
That was 1-1-0? Yeah.
Hold on, I'm just trying to find this.
God, it takes a long time to scroll.
Okay, this is 1-3-5.
Okay.
Okay, right here.
This is a section 1-1-0-A, and this would implement the amendment that was just accepted.
In no event shall, however, shall the annual adjustment be less than 0% or greater than 5%.
And I'd like to incorporate in the motion direction to the city clerk and city attorney to make any non-substantive clarifying changes to implement the direction we provided today before this measure is submitted to the registrar voters.
There may be typos, maybe things we need to clean up.
And so I want to include that in the direction that any non-substantive changes that staff feels need to make, that those changes can be incorporated.
Okay, hearing no objection, I'll be in the motion.
So that's the motion.
Unless there's any further discussion, we can call the roll.
Yes.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Mayor.
I do appreciate that we were able to make the amendment that we made and made other changes as relates to utilities and other things.
I just want to appreciate that there is clearly a lot of work that has gone into this.
There are a lot of positive things about this ballot measure but just given the limited time that I had to review this, I just wanted to make that publicly known that just given that, I will be abstaining on this.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
So unless there's any further discussion, we can call the question and I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.
Okay.
On my motion.
On the main motion as amended.
Council Member Kesarwani.
Abstain.
Okay.
Council Member Bartlett.
Please restate what's the vote.
This is my motion to put item 1B on the ballot.
Oh, yes.
And Council Member Chagut.
Aye.
Han.
Yes.
Luna Parra.
Yes.
Humbert.
Abstain.
And Mayor Argyle.
Yes.
Motion carries, it's on the ballot.
Okay.
All right.
I move that we adjourn.
Was there any objection? Hearing no objection, we are adjourned.
Oh, oh, Mayor.
Oh, hold on one second.
Did you want to designate authors? Yeah, I'll be the author.
Does anyone else want to join? Luna Parra? Trigger? Okay.
She'll work with Ms.
Sandweiss-Berg and people on that.
Okay, so that will be incorporated in the motion and I move to adjourn.
Is there a second? Second.
Any objection? We are adjourned.
Recording stopped.