Long Beach City Council
January 4, 2022

CITY OF
LON Development Services Department
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3'" Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-5237
December 7, 2021

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:

Request the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.99 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, Just Cause for Termination of Tenancies, to include the modifications included in Option Two proposed herein and, Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.102 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to extend the prohibition on termination of certain lawful residential tenancies described therein through February 28, 2022, declaring the urgency thereof, and declaring that the Ordinance shall take effect immediately. (Citywide)

DISCUSSION
On July 13, 2021, the City Council approved an Ordinance establishing a temporary prohibition on substantial remodel lease termination notices and evictions, establishing a moratorium through December 31, 2021. The City Council also asked staff to: ( 1) explore the feasibility of, and costs associated with, establishing a Renovation Administration Program (RAP), and (2) meet with tenant and property owner representatives to discuss such a program and alternative options to address substantial remodel-related displacement.

This analysis is built upon a larger study conducted in 2018 when tenant and owner representatives joined City staff for a series of meetings to discuss potential tenant protection policies to address rising rents and tenant displacement. At that time a report on Tenant Assistance Policies was prepared, and the City Council adopted a Tenant Relocation Ordinance requiring property owners to pay relocation benefits to tenants that received a notice of annual rent increase of at least 10 percent and to tenants in good standing that received a notice to vacate (Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 8.97). The policy was rescinded by the City Council in connection with the State's adoption of Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482).

In order to address concerns that tenants were being unnecessarily displaced by substantial remodel projects, on February 18, 2020, the City Council passed an Ordinance (Just Cause Ordinance) generally adopting the just cause eviction provisions of AB 1482 (Attachment A) and providing more specificity with respect to conditions under which a tenancy could be terminated due to substantial remodeling of the subject unit.

Staff explored the feasibility of establishing a RAP that included an investigation of program requirements and a review of existing programs. The City of Los Angeles (LA) has implemented a Tenant Habitability Program (THP), which is a component of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Program. The THP was adopted by LA to facilitate landlord investment in primary

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 2021

renovation work without subjecting tenants to either untenantable housing conditions during renovation work or forced permanent displacement. It is also designed to encourage landlords to extend the useful life of the rental housing stock through substantial renovation. In exchange, the landlord can recover a substantial portion of the investment through rent adjustmen ts to rent-controlled apartments. The THP removes substantial remodel as a just cause for termination of tenancy and requires landlords to mitigate such temporary untenan table conditions, either through actions to ensure that tenants can safely remain in place during construction or through the temporary relocation of tenants to alternative housing accommodations. The THP is regulated and administered by LA, which oversees the entire process of tenant notification, mitigation of renovation impacts, temporary tenant relocation and construction of the residential improvements. This includes a requirement that the landlord submit a Tenant Habitability Plan that must be reviewed, approved, and overseen by LA staff.

The THP also includes the ability for the landlord or tenant to appeal LA's determination to a Hearing Officer in a process that can take up to 55 days or more. A summary with more details on the THP's process is attached (Attachment B). In addition to providing additional protections against tenant displacement and untenantable housing conditions, a THP helps prevent vacancy de-control of rent controlled apartment units (loss of rent controlled units). Other cities that have studied or implemented a THP (or similar) include Oakland, Berkeley, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica. These cities all have a rent control Ordinance in place with rent stabilization staff and oversight boards to manage the various components of their rent control programs.

As requested, City staff met with tenant and property owner representatives to discuss the potential development of a RAP in Long Beach as well as alternative options to address substantial remodel displacement allowed by the Just Cause Ordinance. Placeworks Consulting was hired to assist with this effort. Tenant and property owner stakeholder meetings were held on August 25 and 26, 2021, respectively. A third meeting including both groups and the public was held on September 22, 2021. During the sessions, staff provided presentations and collected comments. In addition, a survey was made available on the Development Services website (Website) and its availability was published via social media and shared during the stakeholder meetings. While the respective groups had different opinions on the subject, both agreed that "substantial remodel" should be more clearly defined. The presentations, meeting summaries, comments, and survey results are available on the Website at https://longbeach.gov/lbd s/hn/srtd/. The meeting summaries, survey summary and written comments are attached (Attachment C - Summary Information from Stakeholder Events and Written Comments).

Tenants and tenant representatives have shared concerns regarding tenant displacement due to substantial remodel-related notices to vacate allowed by the Just Cause Ordinance. Tenant advocates contend that lower-income residents and working families are most affected by the perceived flaw in the Just Cause Ordinance. While these claims are likely valid, it is possible that the displacements are concentrated in certain buildings where property owners or investors are vacating entire buildings in order to substantially increase rents. City staff have no solid data to determine that the substantial remodel just-cause for termination provision is being widely used to systematically displace tenants. The City of Long Beach (City) is not a party to and has no database of evictions. Reporting by CalMatters shows 221 Sherriff-

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 2021

enforced evictions since mid-2020 but detailed information on the cause of these evictions is not available. During the COVID-19 period, 879 building permits were issued that appear to be eligible as "substantial remodels" of multifamily properties, but information is not available to determine which permits may have led to evictions or displacements. The COVID-19 period is not statistically different from 2019 or 2018. This data does not clearly show that the evictions were a result of a substantial remodel just cause termination or that the permits issued resulted in a substantial remodel just cause displacement. Nevertheless, the substantial remodel provision of the Just Cause Ordinance may create a negative impact on lower-income tenants when landlords or investors are using the provision to vacate units to substantially increase rents. The immediate past data does not and cannot show how the substantial remodel process would impact tenants and landlords in the future as COVID-19 related moratoriums expire and the rental market and eviction process enters a new "normal." The City Council may wish to consider modifications to the Just Cause Ordinance to mitigate any impact based on past occurrences but also the potential for future impacts.

It is also important to note that Long Beach has an older housing supply with 82 percent of the City's housing units being built before 1980. Housing typically requires major renovations at year 30, and then more frequently for buildings over 50-years old. Seventy-one percent of the City's housing units are more than 50-years old. In order to maintain a safe and healthy housing stock, a significant number of units will likely need significant upgrades in the coming years. It is necessary to conveniently allow for these upgrades without unnecessarily permanently displacing residents.

Potential Solutions
City staff have reviewed the THP implemented by LA. The cost for the City to implement and administer such a program is estimated at $2 million dollars annually, and it is expected to take at least one year or longer to develop the program and hire staff. Staff considered other potential changes to the Just Cause Ordinance that would address the issue much faster than the development of a costly new administrative division tasked to mediate the renovation of rental housing units. Stakeholder and community input were considered when preparing the following options for the City Council to consider.

Option One
Create and implement a THP similar to the Los Angeles model. Such a plan would create a program requiring staff oversight of residential rehabilitation projects that would be subject to a THP submittal, review, and approval at a cost estimated at $2 million annually. The City would need to allocate funding from the General Fund Group to cover these costs on an annual basis, and it will take a minimum of one-year to get the program up and running. Other funding sources available to the Department of Development Services cannot be used because they are restricted to specific purposes, like Development Services Fund Group fee revenue, which must be used to provide the services for which the fees are paid, or the Housing Development Fund Group revenue, which may only be used to create newly affordable units or for efforts that meet specific grant requirements. Future costs could be passed on to property owners and would likely trickle down to tenants, and would need further study. It is important to understand

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 2021

that costs in Long Beach would be higher than in Los Angeles or other jurisdictions because there is no existing staff infrastructure for intervention between landlords and tenants as currently exists in cities with rent stabilization programs in place. Additionally, necessary property repairs may be deferred by owners possibly resulting in increased substandard housing conditions.

Option Two
Implement the following revisions to improve the Just Cause Ordinance:

1. Revise the definition of substantial remodel to include work that would require a tenant to vacate for at least 60 days as opposed to the current 30 days;

2. Revise the definition of substantial remodel to more clearly define what does and does not qualify as a substantial remodel;

3. Establish a civil fine of up to $15,000 payable by a landlord to a tenant when a landlord has been found by a civil court to have intentionally violated the City's Just Cause Ordinance when issuing an invalid termination notice based upon the substantial remodel just cause termination of tenancy provision;

4. Revise the Just Cause Ordinance to require property owners to notify the City when applying the substantial remodel just cause for termination provision in conjunction with related construction work. Require staff to track data on this type of displacement and deploy housing navigators to assist tenants who are displaced; and,

5. Revise the Just Cause Ordinance to require a 90-day notice to vacate for any no-fault just cause termination of tenancy.

Option Three
Modify the Just Cause Ordinance to increase permanent relocation benefits to $4,500 per household from the current AB 1482 relocation requirement of one-month's rent equivalent.

Upon City Council approval, the City Attorney will prepare a draft Ordinance to effectuate the necessary changes to the Just Cause Ordinance. Staff recommend adoption of Option Two or some combination of Options Two and Three. These adjustments to the Just Cause Ordinance could be implemented immediately and could provide substantial protections to impacted tenants at lower cost to both the City and landlords. The compensation adjustment in Option 3 was recommended to the City Council as part of the prior study on April 2, 2019 (Attachment D), however that level of compensation was not approved at that time. The City Council may wish to consider the $4,500 level as more commensurate with the true cost of a tenant relocating and submitting first and last month's rent plus security deposit at a new residence.

The City Council would need to weigh this benefit against the increased cost to landlords.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 2021

Because the current prohibition on substantial remodel notices and evictions (LBMC Chapter

8.102) expires by its own terms on December 31, 2021, and there are no further scheduled City Council meetings prior to that date, if in the very likely event direction given by the City Council requires future City Council action (including Ordinances), then such direction cannot be implement ed prior to the expiration of the moratorium. City staff suggest extending the existing prohibition through February 28, 2022, it being understood that the prohibition can be terminated by the City Council prior to that date if the City Council has taken final action to address the issues described in this letter.

This matter was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Richard F. Anthony on Tuesday, October 26, 2021 and Budget Operations and Development Officer Rhutu Amin Gharib on November 11, 2021.

TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
City Council action is requested on December 7, 2021, to allow program changes to be made prior to December 31, 2021, when the current temporary prohibition on substantial remodel lease termination notices and evictions expire.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the recommended Option Two would have no fiscal or staffing impact beyond the normal budgeted scope of duties and is consistent with existing City Council priorities. Option Three would have the same fiscal and staffing impacts as Option Two. If Option One is selected, the staffing impact would be considerably beyond the budgeted scope of duties for existing staff. An estimated annual $2 million in General Fund Group appropriation would be necessary to implement a structural RAP. There is no local job impact associated with this recommendation.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Approve recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,
/-,,,,,/ ,-
? c, .. ..-- "' L-----
OSCAR W. ORCI
APPROVED:
�
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THOMAS B. MODICA

CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS: ORDINANCE
A-LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 8.99 (JUST CAUSE)
B -CITY OF Los ANGELES TENANT HABITABILITY PROGRAM SUMMARY

C-SUMMARY INFORMATION FROM STAKEHOLDER EVENTS AND WRITTEN COMMENTS D -APRIL 2, 2019 CITY COUNCIL LETTER AND REPORT ON TENANT ASSISTANCE POLICIES 1 RFA:bg A21-02066 (12-02-2021)
01338603.DOCX
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LONG BEACH AMENDING THE LONG BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 8.102 TO

EXTEND THE PROHIBITION ON TERMINATION OF

CERTAIN LAWFUL RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES THROUGH
FEBRUARY 28, 2022 ; DECLARING THE URGENCY
THEREOF; AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE

SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the City Council approved an Ordinance establishing a temporary prohibition on substantial remodel lease termination notices and evictions, which such prohibition lasts through December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council will be considering changes to Section 8.99 of the Long Beach Municipal Code governing just cause lease terminations and evictions, including substantial remodel lease terminations and evictions; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned temporary prohibition should be extended so that it does not expire prior to final action by the City Council with respect to possible changes to Section 8.99;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach ordains as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 8.102 of the Long Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

8.102.010 Purpose.

On July 6, 2021, the Long Beach City Council directed the City Manager to undertake a study and prepare a report exploring the feasibility 2 RFA:bg A21-02066 (12-02-2021)
01338603.DOCX
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
of, and costs associated with, establishing a renovation administration program in the City to ensure landlords can invest in renovation work without subjecting tenants to either untenantable housing conditions during renovation work or the forced permanent displacement of the tenant due to said renovation work. In advance of the presentation of the report to the Council and potential action taken by the Council as a result thereof, this Chapter will temporarily prohibit no-fault notices and evictions based on certain demolition or substantial remodel permits through February 28, 2022.

8.102.020 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this
Chapter, shall be construed as defined in this Section:

A. Owner. The term “owner” is any person, acting as principal or through an agent, offering residential real property for rent, and includes a predecessor in interest to the owner.

B. Residential rental property. The term “residential rental property” is any dwelling or unit that is intended or used for human habitation and which is offered or is currently being utilized for rental purposes.

8.102.030 Prohibition on no fault demolition and/or substantial remodel notices and evictions.

Through February 28, 2022, the owner of residential rental property shall not issue a notice to terminate a lawful tenancy, or otherwise move to terminate a lawful tenancy, based upon: (i) a permit issued by the City of Long Beach on or after July 6, 2021; and (ii) otherwise on the authority provided by Section 8.99.020(b)(2)(D) of the Long Beach Municipal Code, 3 RFA:bg A21-02066 (12-02-2021)
01338603.DOCX
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
unless the termination is required to comply with an order issued by a government agency or court requiring that the residential rental real property be vacated; or to comport with due process, federal, or state law, which situation or circumstance shall be stated with particularity in the written notice of termination of tenancy. This Chapter may be asserted as an affirmative defense by a tenant in any unlawful detainer action brought by an Owner against a tenant. Any notice issued in violation of this Chapter shall be null and void.

8.102.040 Severability.

If any provision of this Chapter is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, that invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Chapter which can be implemented without the invalid provisions, and to this end, the provisions of this Chapter are declared to be severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Chapter and each provision thereof irrespective of whether any one or more provisions are found invalid, unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable.

Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by the City Council of the City of Long Beach and shall cause the same to be posted in three conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach.

Section 3. Pursuant to Section 211 of the City Charter, the City Council hereby finds that the ongoing statewide housing crisis and displacement of low-income and other vulnerable populations constitutes an emergency requiring immediate action in order to protect the public health and safety. Therefore, this ordinance is an emergency ordinance duly adopted by the City Council by a vote of five of its members and shall take 4 RFA:bg A21-02066 (12-02-2021)
01338603.DOCX
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
effect on December 7, 2021. The City Clerk shall certify to a separate roll call and vote on the question of the emergency of this ordinance and to its passage by the vote of five members of the City Council of the City of Long Beach, and cause the same to be posted in three conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach.

Section 4. This ordinance shall also be adopted by the City Council as a regular ordinance, to the end that in the event of any defect or invalidity in connection with the adoption of this ordinance as an emergency ordinance, the same shall, nevertheless, be and become effective on the thirty-first (31st) day after it is approved by the Mayor. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by the City Council of the City of Long Beach and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach.

I hereby certify that on a separate roll call and vote which was taken by the City Council of the City of Long Beach upon the question of emergency of this ordinance at its meeting of ______________________, 2021, the ordinance was declared to be an emergency by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers: _______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________
Noes: Councilmembers: _______________________________
_______________________________

Absent: Councilmembers: _______________________________ _______________________________
///
///
///
///
5 RFA:bg A21-02066 (12-02-2021)
01338603.DOCX
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
I further certify that thereafter, at the same meeting, upon a roll call and vote on adoption of the ordinance, it was adopted by the City Council of the City of Long Beach by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers: _______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________
Noes: Councilmembers: _______________________________
_______________________________

Absent: Councilmembers: _______________________________ _______________________________
I further certify that the foregoing ordinance was thereafter adopted on final reading by the City Council of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of ______________, 2021, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers: _______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________
Noes: Councilmembers: _______________________________
_______________________________

Absent: Councilmembers: _______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________
Clerk
Approved: ______________ _______________________________ (Date) Mayor

ATTACHMENT A
Created: 2021-10-12 09:54:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 34, Update 1)

8.99.020 Just cause termination of tenancy protections. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate the tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy. If any additional adult tenants are added to the lease before an existing tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 24 months, then this subdivision shall only apply if either of the fo llowing are satisfied:
(1) All of the tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months or more.
(2) One or more tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 24 months or more.
(b) For purposes of this Chapter, "just cause" includes either of the following:
(1) At-fault just cause, which is any of the following:
(A) Default in the payment of rent.
(B) A breach of a material term of the lease, as described in paragraph (3) o f Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the lease after being issued a written notice to correct the violation. (C) Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. (D) Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
(E) The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after January 1, 2020, and after a written request or demand from the owner, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Chapter or any other provision of law. (F) Criminal activity by the tenant on the residential real property, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the California Penal Code, on or off the residential real property, that is directed at any owner or agent of the owner of the residential real property.
(G) Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant's lease, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. (H) The tenant's refusal to allow the owner to enter the residential real property as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 of the California Civil Code, and Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1 of the California Health and Safety Code.
(I) Using the premises for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
(J) The employee, agent, or licensee's failure to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
(K) When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the residential real property after providing the owner written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the California Civil Code of the tenant's intention to terminate the hiring of the real property, or makes a written offer to surrender that is accepted in writing by the landlord, but fails to deliver possession at th e time specified in that

ATTACHMENT A
Created: 2021-10-12 09:54:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 34, Update 1)

written notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
(2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) (i) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
(ii) For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, clause (i) shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if the owner, or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents, unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property. Addition of a provision allowing the owner to terminate the lease as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1). (B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market. (C) (i) The owner complying with any of the following:
(I) An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
(II) An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential real property.
(III) A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property. (ii) If it is determined by any government agency or court that the tenant is at fault for the condition or conditions triggering the order or need to vacate under clause (i), the tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance as outlined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). (D) (i) Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property. (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, "substantially remodel" means the replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system t hat requires a permit from a governmental agency, or the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place and that requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least 30 days. Cosmetic improvements alone, including painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the residential real property vacated, do not qualify as substantial rehabilitation.
(c) Before an owner of residential real property issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for just cause that is a curable lease violation, the owner shall first give notice of the violation to the tenant with an opportunity to cure the violation pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. If the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, a three -day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure may thereafter be served to terminate the tenancy. (d) All pending notices of termination issued on or after January 1, 2020 but before the effective date of this Chapter by a residential real property owner for no-fault just cause described in subparagraph 2(D) of subdivision (b) shall be null and void and of no force or effect. Before an owner of residential real property issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault just cause described in subparagraph 2(D) of subdivision (b), the owner shall have obtained all necessary permits for the substantial remodel from all applicable governmental agencies. All termination notices for no-fault just cause described in subparagraph 2(D) of subdivision (b) shall include a copy of all issued permits and include reasonably detailed information regarding each of (i) the scope of the substantial remodeling work, (ii) why it cannot be reasonably

ATTACHMENT A
Created: 2021-10-12 09:54:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 34, Update 1)

accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place, and (iii) why it requires the tenant to vacate for at least 30 days.
(e) (1) For a tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the tenancy under subdivision (a), if an owner of residential real property issues a termination notice based on a no -fault just cause described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the owner shall, regardless of the tenant's income, at the owner's option, do one of the following:
(A) Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the tenant as described in paragraph (3).
(B) Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
(2) If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault just cause, the owner shall notify the tenant of the tenant's right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this Chapter. If the owner elects to waive the rent for the final month of the tenancy as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the tenancy.
(3) (A) The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be equal to one month of the tenant's rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice. (B) If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. (C) The relocation assistance or rent waiver required by this subdivision shall be credited against any other relocation assistance required by any other law.
(4) An owner's failure to strictly comply with this subdivision shall render the notice of termination void. (f) This Chapter shall not apply to the following types of residential real properties or residential circumstances:
(1) Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in subdivision (b ) of Section 1940 of the California Civil Code.
(2) Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section 1569.2 of the California Health and S afety Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures published by the California State Department of Social Services. (3) Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.
(4) Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner who maintains their principal residence at the residential real property. (5) Single-family owner-occupied residences, including a residence in which the owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
(6) A duplex in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner's principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy. (7) Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years. (8) Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, provided that both of the following apply:

ATTACHMENT A
Created: 2021-10-12 09:54:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 34, Update 1)

(A) The owner is not any of the following:
(i) A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code. (ii) A corporation.
(iii) A limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation. (B) (i) The tenants have been provided written notice that the residential property is exempt from this Chapter using the following statement:
"This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil C ode. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation."
(ii) For a tenancy existing before July 1, 2020, the notice required under clause (i) may, but is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement.
(iii) For any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, the notice required under clause (i) must be provided in the rental agreement.
(iv) Addition of a provision containing the notice required under clause (i) to any new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). (9) Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and famil ies of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes.
(g) An owner of residential real property subject to this Chapter shall provide notice to the tenant as follows:
(1) For any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy provided to the tenant. (2) For a tenancy existing prior to July 1, 2020, by written notice to the tenant no later than August 1, 2020, or as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement. (3) The notification or lease provision shall be in no less than 12-point type, and shall include the following:
"California law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code for more information. California law also provides that after all of the tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the property for 12 months or more or at least one of the tenants ha s continuously and lawfully occupied the property for 24 months or more, a landlord must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a tenancy. See Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code for more information." The provision of the notice shall be subject to Section 1632 of the California Civil Code. (h) Any waiver of the rights under this Chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy. (i) For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Owner" and "residential real property" have the same meaning as those terms are defined in Section 1954.51 of the California Civil Code.

ATTACHMENT A
Created: 2021-10-12 09:54:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 34, Update 1)

(2) "Tenancy" means the lawful occupation of residential real property and includes a lease or sublease. (j) This Chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed. ( ORD-20-0007(Emerg.) § 1, 2020)

ATTACHMENT B
Tenant Habitability Program Summary
(City of L.A. Rent Stabilization Ordinance)
The Tenant Habitability Program (Program) was adopted to facilitate landlord investment in primary renovation work without subjecting tenants to either untenantable housing conditions during renovation work or forced permanent displacement. It also is designed to encourage landlords to extend the useful life of the rental housing stock through substantial renovation . In exchange, the landlord is able to recover a substantia l portion of the investment through rent adjustments to rent-controlled apartments (allowed by the Program).

The Program requires landlords to mitigate such temporary untenantable conditions, either through actions to ensure that tenants can safely remain in place during construction or through the temporary relocation of tenants to alternative housing accommodations.
• Requires 60-day written notice prior to commencement of work. • Requires landlord to submit a Tenant Habitability Plan to the Building Department in conjunction with an application for building permits. • The City shall clear the permit for primary renovation work if both of the following conditions are met
o The landlord has submitted the Tenant Habitability Plan that the City finds to adequately mitigate the impact of primary renovation work o The landlord has submitted a declaration documenting service to affected tenants of both a Notice of Primary Renovation Work and a copy of the non-confidential portions of the Tenant Habitability Plan.

Tenant Habitability Plan(THP)
A THP must provide the following information along with any other information the Building Department deems necessary to ensure that the impact of primary renovation work upon affected tenants is adequately mitigated:

1. Identification of the landlord, general contractor, and any contractor responsible for hazardous material abatement.

2. Identification of all affected tenants including the current rent each tenant pays and the date of the tenant’s last rent increase.

ATTACHMENT B

3. Description of the scope of work covering the primary renovation work and any related work, including work in common areas and in each unit, along with an estimate of the total project cost and time (total and in each unit).

4. Identification of the impact of the primary renovation work and related work on the habitability of affected rental units, including a discussion of impact severity and during with regard to noise, utility interruption, exposure to hazardous materials, interruption of the fire safety systems, inaccessibility of all or portions of each affected rental unit, and disruption of other tenant services.

5. Identification of the mitigation measures that will be adopted to ensure that tenants are not required to occupy untenantable dwelling outside of the hours of 8:0 0 am through 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and are not exposed at any time to toxic or hazardous materials including, but not limited to, lead-based paint and asbestos. Such measures may include the adoption of work procedures that allow a tenant to rem ain on site and/or the temporary relocation of tenants.

6. Identification of the impact of the primary renovation work and related work on the personal property of affected tenants, including work areas which must be cleared of furnishings and other tenant property, and the exposure of tenant property to theft or damage from hazards related to work or storage.

7. Identification of the mitigation measures that will be adopted to secure and protect tenant property from reasonably foreseeable damage or loss.

Plan Acceptance
The City shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of a landlord’s THP within five working days of the receipt of the THP for review. The City shall accept plans that meet the requirements of a THP.

The City’s acceptance of a THP shall be subject to the landlord having no outstanding balances due for rent registration (RENT CONTROL PROGRAM) or code enforcement fees.

The City shall provide landlords with written indications of deficiencies which must be addressed whenever a THP is determined to be inadequate. A landlord may submit an amended plan in order to correct deficiencies

ATTACHMENT B
Landlords and tenants may appeal the City’s determination regarding a THP to a hearing officer within 15 days. The hearing shall be held within 30 days, and the hearing officer shall provide a written decision within 10 days of the hearing on the appeal.

Notice of Primary Renovation Work
The Notice of Primary Renovation Work must be written in the primary language that in which the original lease was neg otiated and include the following information:
• Estimated start and completion dates.
• A description of the primary renovation work and how it will impact the tenant or household.
• The details of temporary relocation, if needed, and associated tenant rights. • Instructions that tenants with questions should consult the landlord or the City.
• Notice of a tenant’s right to reoccupy the units under the existing terms of tenancy upon completion of primary renovation work.

LONG BEACH SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL

ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY
MEMOR
ANDUM
DATE October 25, 2021
TO City of Long Beach
Patr ick Ure, Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau, Manager Chris topher Koontz, Long Beach Development Services Management, Deputy Director FROM Wendy Nowak, AICP, Principal
Alexsu ndra Captan, Senior Associate I
Renata Langis, Project Planner
SUBJECT: Substantial Remodel-Related Tenant Displacement – Public Workshop and Online Survey Summary of Input Received
A. Background
This memorandum provides a summary of the key take aways from the Substantial Remodel -Related Tenant Displacement Workshop ( Attachment A: Summary of Key Takeaways from Public Workshop, September 22nd) and the Online Survey, including both Spanish and English responses. The survey was conducted from September 13th to October 4st, 2021 and was hosted in conjunction with the Public Workshop held on September 22nd. Approximately 70 people attended the public workshop and 87 people responded to the survey prior t o the closing date. The majority of respondents were women, were tenants and were of white or Hispanic/Latinx origin as further identified in the tables below.

The purpose of th e workshop and survey was to gain understanding of the biggest challenges residents and property owners experience related to housing with a focus on collecting information that will help inform possible edits to the City’s Just Cause for Termination of Tenancies Ordinance. The survey provided an opportunity for the public to give feedback to the City in the event that they were unable to participate in recent stakeholder meetings or the public workshop. The feedback shared regarding experience with substantial remodels and recommendations can help the City brainstorm solutions that encourage landlords to invest in renovation work without subjecting tenants to deplorable housing conditions during construction or forced permanent displacement.

Sect
ion B of this memorandum provides the resultsof the discreet survey questions and results . Section C provides a summary of key ideas from the open -ended responses collected in the survey.Detailed open-ended responses can be found in Attachment B (English responses) and Attachment C (Spanish responses with English translations). Section D provides the results of the demographic questions asked in the survey.

ATTACHMENT C
October 25, 2021 | Page 2
B. Substantial Remodel and Tenant Displacement Survey Questions Question 1. What is your interest in this process?
The majority of respondents were tenants (fifty -seven percent or 57%), and the second largest group was rental property owners (twenty six percent or 26%).

Question 2. What do you feel are the greatest housing issues facing the city of Long Beach? Rank the following issues in order of importance As shown below the top three responses were 1) unaffordability of housing (total of 71 of those who response to the question and ranked score of 5.34), 2) insufficient rental housing (total of 66 responses and ranked score of 4.68), and 3) evictions triggered by substantial remodels (total of 66 responses and ranked score of 4.27).

Note: The ranked responses were analyzed using SurveyMonkey’s methodology for average ranking. The methodology for average ranking involves grouping answer choices according to their rank. A weight was assigned to the groups based on the rank, in r everse numerical order to the ranking. For example, answer choices ranked number 1 were assigned a weight of 7 (because there are 7 total answer choices), answer choices ranked number 2 were assigned a weight of 6, answer choices ranked number 3 were assigned a weight of 5, and so on. The formula for calculating scores is shown below. The calculation is the sum of the product of the p ercentage of responses for each answer choice and its associated weight, divided by the total response count for each answer choice. The scores are ranked in order of importance from highest to lowest. The highest answer choice had a score of 5.33 and the lowest ranked answer choice had a score of 3.34.
26%
5%
57%
3%
9%
Rental Property Owner
Property Owner Representative
Tenant
Tenant Representatives
Other (please specify):

Percent of Responses
Answer Choices
Q1: What is your interest in this process?

3.57 4.66

3.28 4.38

4.12 5.33

3.34 Not enough for-sale housing
Not enough rental housing
Renovation costs
Evictions triggered by substantial remodels
Poorly maintained or aging housing
Housing is not affordable or not enough affordable
housing available
Housing available does not meet my needs (senior,
studio, family housing, etc.) for my life stage or…
Rank
Answer Choices
What do you feel are the greatest housing issues facing the city of Long Beach? Rank the following issues in order of importance (1 being the most important, 5 being the least important)
October 25, 2021 | Page 3
Question 3. Are you familiar with the City's "Just Cause for Termination of Tenancies Ordinance" (LBMC Ch 8.99)?
The majority of respondents had heard of the ordinance before taking the survey but were not familiar with the contents of the Just Cause ordinance (fifty-three percent or 53%) and 33% had heard of it and have used it were not familiar with the ordinance and fourteen percent or 14% had not heard of it).

Que
stion 4. Have you experienced eviction due to a substantial remodel of your unit?
As shown below, nearly a quarter of respondents ( 18 out of 52, or 35% , of responses by tenants) had experienced an eviction due to a substantial remodel.

Question

5. Do you expect to undertake a substantial remodel of your unit within the next:

For those that were property owners, the most common response was within a period of 1 -3 years (fourteen percent or 14%), followed by no plans to remodel (ten percent or 10%). 33%
53%
14%
Yes - I’ve used it and am familiar with it.

I’ve heard of it, but I am not familiar with what it
addresses.

No – I have not heard of it and am
unfamiliar with how it affects me
Percent of Responses
Answer Choices
Q3: Are you familiar with the City's "Just Cause for Termination of Tenancies Ordinance" (LBMC Ch 8.99)?
24%
46%
30%
Yes
No
Not applicable, I am a property owner
Percent of Responses
Answer Choices
Q4: Have you experienced eviction due to a substantial remodel of your unit? 14%
4%
3%
3%
10%
4%
62%
1-3 years
5-10 years
I do not plan to remodel
Not applicable, I am a tenant
Percent of Responses
Answer Choices
Q5: Do you expect to undertake a substanital remodel of your unit within the next:

October 25, 2021 | Page 4
C. Summary of Key Ideas from Responses to the Open -Ended Survey Questions Related to Substantial Remodel and Tenant Displacement
The survey included a series of open-ended questions such as:

Question 6: For tenants and property owners : Do you have any recommendations the City should explore to help property owners make substantial improvements to rental housing without permanently displacing residents?
Question 7: Property Owners : What are the biggest challenges you face in maintaining and making repairs to your units?
Question 8: If the City were to do one thing to help balance the needs of tenants and property owners during a substantial remodel of an existing unit, what would that be? Question 9: If you have experienced eviction due to a substantial remodel of your unit, what was your experience? Please describe the circumstances and the consequences in a few sentences.

Summary of Key Ideas
For ease of reference a summary of the key ideas from the op en-ended questions is provided below. The detailed survey responses can be found in Attachments B and C.

1. Tenants believe the city should be more involved and hands on with the process of remodels and rental upkeep with more prerequisites of the title of Substantial Remodel should it continue to be a just cause for evictions.

2. Tenants believe that the city should remove Substantial Remodel as a Just Cause completely as it is observed of being abused.

3. Have the city create more incentives for owners to maintai n their properties, instead of having to do a high-cost substantial remodel.

4. Property Owners believe process for pulling permits for home improvements is too slow and renovation costs are too high; in addition, there is enough government interference with property management and rent costs, thus they would prefer to leave the current ordinance as is, and let the current moratorium end without any additional modifications to existing laws.

5. Property Owners believe the pandemic and eviction moratorium set them back financially with their property.

6. Tenants believe there needs to be more affordable housing in the city and/or more strict rent control laws.

7. Tenants believe there should be more protections from evictions and require owners to provide temporary housi ng and stop rent increases; therefore, the City should be more involved in the oversight of the eviction process.

8. Tenants believe that Investment companies are contributing to the high cost of housing because they are purchasing apartment buildings that used to be affordable and are increasing the rent with their renovations.

9. The significant majority of tenants and tenant advocates support the proposed Option 1: Implement a Tenant Habitability Program similar to the Los Angeles model.

10. Property Owners are having difficulty finding affordable and reliable contractors so property improvements are difficult , therefore additional regulations would be an unnecessary additional burden for them. Property owners would like additional information and oppose the impl ementation of a new Tenant Habitability Program.

October 25, 2021 | Page 5
D. Demographic Questions
Question 10 asked respondents what their zip code of residence is. As shown below , the three most common responses were 90814 (thirty -four percent or 34% of responses), 90802 (sixteen p ercent or 16% of responses), and 90803 (nine percent or 9% of responses). • 90814 encompasses Carroll Park, Alamitos Heights and the 4th Street Corridor. • 90802 encompasses East Village, Alamitos Beach, and Long Beach Downtown area. • 90803 encompasses Belmont Shore, Belmont Heights, Marina and Marina Pacifica.

Zip Code Number of Responses Percent of Responses
90712 0 0%
90715 0 0%
90716 0 0%
90740 0 0%
90755 0 0%
90801 0 0%
90802 11 16%
90803 6 9%
90804 5 7%
90805 4 6%
90806 3 4%
90807 4 6%
90808 0 0%
90810 4 6%
90812 0 0%
90813 6 9%
90814 23 34%
90815 1 1%
90822 0 0%
90831 0 0%
90832 0 0%
90833 0 0%
90834 0 0%
90835 0 0%
90840 0 0%
90842 0 0%
90844 0 0%
90846 0 0%
90847 0 0%
90848 0 0%
90853 0 0%
90899 0 0%
October 25, 2021 | Page 6
Question 11 asked respondents about their racial or ethnic identity. As shown in the graph below, the racial groups in descending order were as follows: White (thirty -eight percent or 38%), Latinx (twenty-six percent or 26%), Black (twelve percent or 12%), Other (seven percent or 7%), and Asian (three percent or 3%). Of those who identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, two resp ondents identified themselves as having more specific ethnicities (one Cambodian and one Vietnamese).

Que
stion 12 asked respondents about their gender identity. As shown in the graph below , t he majority of respondents were women (sixty- eight or 68%), followed by men (twenty- three percent or 23%), and non-binary persons (3 percent or 3%).

Que
stion 13 asked respondents if they described themselves as transgender. Shown in the graph below, the majority of respondents were not transgender (eighty-seven percent or 87%), while eleven percent (11%) preferred not to answer and one percent (1%) identified as transgender. 3%
12%
38%
26%
1%
0%
14%
7%
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black/African-American
White
Hispanic/Latinx
Middle Eastern/North African
Native American
Prefer not to answer
Other
Percent of Responses
Answer Choices
Q11: I identify as:
68%
23%
3%
7%
0%
Woman
Man
Nonbinary
Prefer not to say
Other
Percent of Responses
Answer Choices
Q12: I am a:
1%
87%
11%
Yes
No
Prefer not to say
Percent of Responses
Answer Choices
Q13: Would you describe yourself as transgender?
A
TTACHMENT A:

Summary of Key Takeaways from Public
Workshop
September 22nd, 2021
S
ummary of Key Takeaways
Public Meeting Listening Session
September 22, 2021
O ctober 22, 2021
Number of attendees: 70 Attendees (Excluding City Staff and Consultant Team)

1. Twenty-six (26) attendees gave public comments sharing stories of their experiences with eviction, substandard housing, and displacement associated with substantial remodels.

2. Tw
elve (12) attendees specifically expressed support for Solution #1, the establishment of a Tenant Habitability program. Property Owners do not support Solution #1, given that there are already enough limitations on rental properties and the Pandemic, and the rent moratorium has set them back enough.

3. Th
ose who participated in the comment portion of the meeting believed that e victions should be trac
ked by the City to gather data and help understand the magnitude of the problem and trends.

4. S
everal participants (tenants and property owners) believed there was a lack of clarity around what constitutes a substantial remodel in practice and how it is defined

5. S
trong support from Tenants and their advocates for a just and fair process for managing remodels with more remodel incentives from the city.

6. A
participant cited that many recent evictions during the pandemic have occurred after small upgrades that take less than 40 days (i.e. plumbing repair).

7. C
oncerns expressed from tenants regarding corporate real estate firms that a cquire and remodel large properties for private gain , transforming the community and displacing residents who need affordable rent.

8. Te
nant representatives expressed those landlords should provide temporary relocation of renters at no cost for tenants instead of evictions.

9. A
fter the lifting of the moratorium on evictions related to COVID restrictions , future tenancy is uncertain and there is fear of eviction among renters.

10. Many
tenants have either experienced eviction firsthand or have seen it happen to friends, neighbors, and family members. Many feel uncertain about their housing stability, which causes a great deal of stress and anxiety regarding their future living situation and whether or not they will be able to afford to remain in Long Beach.

O ctober 22, 2021

11. Residents and their advocates have c oncern that substantial remodels are used as a loophole for raising rents.

12. Th
ere are concerns that tenants (mostly low-income tenants of color) will be evicted for reporting a code violation or making their own improvements to the re ntal property. Lack of regular maintenance by the landlord, even after tenants have brought up the need for repairs, can result in substandard housing.
a. Substandard housing conditions, if not addressed, can result in long term degradation t o t
he property and eventually result in eviction due to unsuitable living conditions.

13. C
ode enforcement is active in Long Beach but does not monitor all projects (including some substantial remodels).

14. Res
idents and their advocates believe citywide rent control measure could help limit the rise in rent after renovations.

15. P
refer the C ity to provide more education to both tenants and landlords regarding substantial remodels so they are aware of their rights and responsibilities.

AT
TACHMENT B:

Survey Responses - Open Ended Questions (English)
#
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
14 15
16 17
18 Q6 For tenants and property owners: Do you have any recommendations the City should explore to help property owners make substantial improvements to rental housing without permanently displacing residents?
Answered: 62 Skipped: 20

RESPONSES DATE
Have city subsidize some very low cost housing that renters could rent while housing is being renovated. Give former tenant first choice at rerenting, with inrease not exceeding x% over their rent before renovation. x% might be 10%. 10/1/2021 3:42 PM
Give tenant opportunity to purchase a home 9/30/2021 5:09 PM OPTION 1 9/30/2021 8:51 AM
Bugs, rude management saying we have bugs because our houses are dirty when repairs had to be done to our apartment that left holes in our apartment walls, floors and our cabinets sat outside with the elements. Homeless stealing our mail.
9/29/2021 10:59 PM
Option 1 is a great way to go. Also, we have to value people more than profit. 9/29/2021 4:58 PM Allow displaced tenants to return at the same rent. 9/30/2021 12:35 PM Specifically define substantial remodel. Require the LB Building Dept. to inspect and review units and plans for substantial remodel before a landlord can evict tenants. Also, the City should not approve permits if the proposed work could be completed in less time. Or, in the case of ANY remodel, require that the landlord pay to temporarily relocate the tenant into another rental equal to their existing one until the work is completed regardless if it takes more than 30 days.

Afterwards, the tenant should be able to move back into their unit at their previous rent. This latter suggestion would be much more cost effective and timely than the first one. 9/30/2021 12:00 PM
Yes - help us tenants with a fund to help us move we want nice new modern apartments but need public funds to help us when owners want to renovate 9/30/2021 11:45 AM
Your focus should be on incentivizing rental housing improvements and secondly focus on government assistance to help tenants relocate. No one should expect their current housing and rent will always remain the same. If you do not make it easy/cost effective for property owners to improve their property you will end up with duct tape and Bondo repairs covering hidden damage with resulting long-term damage. I’ve heard rumors that would require property owners to foot the bill of temporary lodging, do a substantial remodel, and yet not be allowed to get market rent. Sounds like a good way to make sure no one does a substantial remodel.
9/29/2021 11:20 AM
9/29/2021 10:47 AM13
Reduce cost of rent since is really expensive 9/29/2021 4:31 PM If the tenant cannot remain in the home while remodel is ongoing then Require owners to return 100% of deposit w/ interest and a minimum of 3 months rent at current average rate. This would minimize false claims for remodel. Owners can avoid payout of they allow tenants to return at the same rate they were paying. If tenants have an option to return owners should assist with some food and temporary housing costs. I understand remodels are desperately needed but in a time when homelessness is out of control, homeless services are minimal and difficult to attained, and the fact that there simply isn't anywhere to move to, it's just extremely unfair and unjust to ask tenants to leave with only 1 months worth of rent
9/29/2021 4:24 PM
The city should really take into consideration of option 1. Get rid of substantial remodel as a means to evict tenants. This is unjust and was previously unlawful.
9/29/2021 4:07 PM
Starting out by making small changes or constant upkeep of housing problems. The problems in housing are resolved constantly so that’s why everything is old and then there is this need to renovate immediately because of that. If property owners constantly tried to fix problems when tenants address them then there wouldn’t be a need to renovate because everything has been kept up to date.

Closer City attention on code violations that could exceedingly improve rental properties. I think renters would tolerate property improvements if they knew that their rent was not going to be immediately increased or that they would not be displaced, in other words document the intentions.
9/28/2021 12:44 PM
The city should not allow landlords to evict tenants while renovating units. 9/28/2021 11:49 AM Please do not be so tough on independent property owners we are not the enemy. We feel bad for tenants but our hands are tied too. Money is tight and improvements very expensive. It is almost impossible to get things done with tenants in the property. Let property owners feel that the City of LB is our friend, not foe. 9/28/2021 5:54 PM
Owners should be held for relocation 9/28/2021 5:46 PM
Maintenance on a regular bases, don’t wait until a major repair is needed 9/28/2021 12:44 PM 19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
Yes. Require that Dept. of Building and Safety review the plans for the proposed substantial remodel to determine if it requires more than 30 days to complete and submit corrections to landlords before permits are issued. Require that landlords insert performance clauses in contracts to ensure that the remodel will be completed in the required timeframe so that tenants/landlords benefit. Contractors are known to run more than one job at the same time which unnecessarily delays completion of yours. Performance clauses paying a bonus for early completion or a substantial penalty for each day completion is late solves this problem. Fine landlords who purposely submit unnecessary changes to contractors that delay the project past promised completion which would cause tenant eviction. All materials and fixtures can be vetted, approved and ordered prior to start of construction. I have run a company in this industry. 9/28/2021 10:57 AM
Tenant should be able to stay in unit while being renovated 9/27/2021 3:44 PM They can offer tenants a chance to stay 9/27/2021 1:25 PM Require an approval process for the remodel to determine if displacement is actually required, require landlords to pay for temporary lodging or relocation of tenants, and restrict the amount and frequency of rent increases. 9/27/2021 1:17 PM
Make it easier to evict nuisance and disruptive tenants. 9/28/2021 10:36 AM Offer funding for this to upkeep aging places as well as ensure appliances / apartment needs are present and up to code.

Not allowing tenants living somewhere already to pay for improvements nor have expenses increased. 9/28/2021 2:14 AM
Some times these remodels can be done without displacement. My landlord has evicted numerous tenants on the guise of remodel but really just to put in new flooring and triple the price of rental unit. I have been a tenant in same property for 34 years and have same carpet, linoleum and appliances as 34 years ago. I know I pay less rent than my neighbors due to tenancy for all this time, but I am stressed every day that I may get eviction notice. 9/27/2021 9:29 PM
Renovate as units become available. 9/27/2021 10:13 AM
adopt a continuance maintenance approach, use the property inspection program and enforce the health/safety/building codes on an on-going basis.
9/27/2021 10:09 AM
Give tenants the option of temporary misplacement. 9/27/2021 10:09 AM If an actual remodel is needed for safety the reasons the owner should relocate the tenant temporarily until work is completed then allow the tenant back into their original home WITH THE SAME RENT PRICE as before. 9/27/2021 11:38 AM
Come with up additional temporary housing, maybe City-owned housing units, that are used and paid for by tenants that have been displaced due to remodels
9/27/2021 11:21 AM
Inspection from the city. The unit of our building don’t even need to be remodeled. The new owners used that trick to simply double the rent. Also the remodeling of an unit in our building took around a week. The owner could have just given the option to vacate the premises to remodel and come back after it. 9/27/2021 10:59 AM
PARKING 9/27/2021 7:39 AM
Yes, depending on the EXTENT of REHABILITATION OR RESTRUCTURING of the premises. Just as the CITY requires APPROVED prerequisites to the GRANTING & ISSUANCE of a PERMIT for RECONSTRUCTION to ALL LANDLORDS, and PERIODIC CITY INSPECTIONS
to conform to the LANDLORDS' approved plans, LB LANDLORDS must sign UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that such PLANS will NOT displace but merely INCONVENIENCE such intended TENANTS at the LANDLORD's EXPENSE with a 30-60 day WRITTEN ADVANCE NOTICE. There MUST be PROOF OF LEGAL SESRVICE and ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF RECEIPT by such select TENANT(S). Further, a full and completely executed EXPLANATORY ATTACHMENT must be affixed indicating the specific anticipated DATES and TIMES of TENANT DISPLACEMENT which must unequivocally STATE that the RESIDENT(S) will be restored to their lawful tenancy upon COMPLETION of the REHABILITATED APARTMENT(S); and that there will be NO INCREASED or RAISED RENT for AT LEAST SIX-MONTHS to ONE-YEAR's time, depending on the length of tenancy, age of tenancy, financial burden, and other material personal considerations to be given prior to FIRST OFFERING those TENANT(S) the option to PAY and ACCEPT such INCREASED RENT, which will NOT EXCEED comparable market rent value. 9/26/2021 2:08 PM
Please explore how often there is displacement due to substantial remodel before you try to solve for this problem. 9/27/2021 9: 57 AM Several Requirement: Building PERMITS required for remodel "excuse" to be used, only signficant danger for long periods of time, to tenants, should require them to move.

VOUCHERS from landlords providing equivalent place to live during process for the SAME rent amount and "right of return" at same rent amount when work is done. NO rent increase ( 1 year) clause after work completed and no rent increase for new tenants after work done. City stops demolition and replacement of older building housing unless the rents are the same as housing replaced. Focus on rehab of older buildings or previously commercial buildings, rather than demolition and higher cost housing to replace older buildings. 9/27/2021 9:54 AM
Help landlords keep moving Long Beach forward and encourage permitted improvements. The city could set up a fund to help tenants with financial hardship. Housing supplier should only be responsible for one months rent as a payment to assist tenant.
9/27/2021 9:12 AM
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 I am a long time landlord very aware of the fact that rents have helped me create an asset for my family. I am most concerned about ensuring that tenants are fairly treated, which is why I support requirements for significant relocation assistance to tenants if there's a genuine need to make substantial improvements and a requirement that landlords who've rented out substandard properties not be allowed to use "substantial remodel" as an excuse to force out tenants. 9/25/2021 6:41 PM
I am still not aware of a major problem that involves 60 day notices in LB. So far, all that we have heard, (verbal) are stories about evictions with no data to substantiate it and if we are to believe that there were 800+ "evictions/non renewal of leases from March 2020 to March 2021 that is less than 1% of the tenant population, so we shouldn't be forming a RAP or passing a citywide ordinance. What we should be doing is penalizing those that are violating the law and hard.

However, before all that the City should be sending out communications to tenants and landlords on what their rights are and what can/can't be done.
9/23/2021 5:17 PM
9/23/2021 4:23 PM
Option 1 is what I believe is best I have seen my neighbors being evicted from there apartments because of substantial remodeling they were not told that rent would go up when they returned they could no longer afford the apartment and had to leave they had no other choice they could were basically evicted we can’t have the rents increase higher because of this many of these people have lives here for years I believe creating a program where they help the apartments being fixed but still protect the tenants would work tenants and myself are afraid to speak about work needed in the apartments because we are afraid of becoming victims of substantial remodeling. 9/25/2021 2:52 PM
Eliminate substantial remodel as a just cause for eviction and create a renovation administration program to set up a fair process for repairs.
9/25/2021 1:47 PM
You can't make substantial improvements on an occupied unit and you can't afford to invest $25,000-$50,000 per unit and re-rent at the same rate. This will halt any major renovation project if owner's are required to maintain below market rents following major improvements. 9/24/2021 2:46 PM
The property owners should relocate and finance the move..and families continue to pay the same amount of rent they were already paying...Don't need any money in hand as I told them..just find me a place and pay deposit...and first month's rent..But they charged me for the 2 months I lived there and I only received my 1500. deposit which went toward the new 9/23/2021 10:08 AM
No. Legislating depressed rental revenue for owners will mean many will not be able to afford to do the needed supportive/habitability renovations.
9/23/2021 9:44 AM
place $500.00 deposit and $3200.00 month rent.Between the harassment...stress...auto problem ...and move ..I couldn't think anymore..I was just tired...so tired....

City should go with OPTION 1 9/23/2021 1:16 PM
Allow housing providers and tenants to develop their own solutions. Small housing providers have a heart and mean well for their tenants. If council feels legislation must be crafted, do so to address only the REITs and other major investors for whom the tenants are just numbers. Exclude housing providers with fewer than 12 units. 9/23/2021 11:00 AM
Clarify what substantial improvements are. You cannot leave tenants in a property where the owner is replacing electrical systems, opening walls to change old galvanized plumbing to cooper, changing out old clay sewer systems, putting in new windows and remodeling each unit with new kitchens, bathrooms, flooring. All this must be done with permits from the City of Long Beach. Permits need to be pulled and paid for outlining the extensive improvements prior to tenants vacating. This is very important for the City to allow owners to improve/refurbish/remodel these old buildings on the owners money and it improves the City and the housing stock. It is impossible to have the tenants remain in the property with this type of remodeling. Clarify what substantial remodel is and confirm with the permit process. 9/23/2021 10:48 AM
Consider offering grants for tenants and low interest loans and property tax reductions for property owners affected by the need to substantially improve an aging property. It would be short-sighted to implement ordinances that disincentivize private investment capital from coming to our City to improve our aging housing stock.

Have planned remodels (e.g., a year or more notice) and verify the need of this is a reason for evicting someone. Avoid these types of evictions by providing alternative accommodations 9/22/2021 5:02 PM
Giving a detailed plan of the scope of the project to the city, including the potential impacts on the tenants and why tenants need to be temporarily relocated. Renters should be noticed of the project at least 3 months in advance and compensated for temporary relocation.
9/23/2021 9:31 AM
They should negotiate a convenient time for tenants to be out of the unit - for example when a family might go on summer vacation to relatives - and focus on repairs that are actually necessary, like replacing leaky pipes or addressing wiring issues, and not worry about replacing cabinets in units with long-term tenants who don't have an issue with the existing ones. I've been in my apartment for 30 years, and pipes and wiring have been replaced within the last 15 years, so there's no urgency for the new owners to replace them again. My 50-year old cabinets are sturdier, and more practically designed than the cheap ones they put in the rehabbed units that don't have enough storage space. While they were putting new windows in other units they were rehabbing, they put new windows in occupied units as well - replacing 2- year old security windows with lesser quality manual lock windows that look exactly the same from the outside. 9/22/2021 11:10 PM
There is no reason why substantial remodel should be a just cause for eviction. A landlord should be required to submit a plan with clear descriptions of the true scope of renovation work, and the potential impact of the project and why temporary relocation for tenants is required for any major renovation project. Substantial remodel has been abused as a reason to evict long term tenants and families…
9/22/2021 6:23 PM
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 Get out of the way. 9/15/2021 3:40 PM
The day I moved in there was a need for substantial remodel which the landlord was aware of and refused to fix and now you think its fair for me to be evicted if he claims he will fix it after I have been asking for 4 years? Recommendations: - Fix problems before renting unit out and if it is not then "just cause" should not be applicable. -Knowing that buildings are so old, the city should require inspections of units when tenants move out so property owners know what renovations to make. AND require an inspection before putting property on the market. I have serious issues going on in my home that are significantly impacting my health and I am hesitant to report it for fear of being evicted, when there is a severe shortage in housing availability. I've held up my end of the lease and I would not consider my eviction "just cause" when I pay rent month after month and am living in a hazardous environment. 9/22/2021 10:03 AM
I think it important to allow property owners to renovated our older housing stock without financing handicapping them.

Construction and material stocks are high. If you want owners to properly maintain and upgrade their housing, then you can't handicap them with tenants being able to move back at the same rent. That would make no financial sense and owners would never renovate properties. I suggest a higher tenant relocation fee for those owners who plan to do a substantial remodel and have to displace the existing tenants. 9/22/2021 8:55 AM
N/a 9/21/2021 10:46 PM
9/22/2021 11:49 AM
happens. The more the city tries to control what property owners can and can't do the more rent prices will go up and the less upgrades to apartments there will be. You are taking away any kind of incentive that property owners have to put money back into their investments.

Between rent control, just cause evictions, lack of supply, you need substantial improvements to create better quality units and to create an availability of vacancies. Right now, vacancies are in short order and rents are going higher and higher. Without a supply that is meeting the demand of this city, it will continue to happen. I think the city should explore options in lease limits. Apartments are not meant to be lived in for 12, 15, 20 years. You can maintain them but after that much time, it needs work. Since we have rent control, I think a 10 year lease limit would create more available units. After 10 years, the owner has the right to terminate the lease to upgrade the unit and return the security deposit in full to the tenant. You would create more turnover of units and the tenant would be able to expect to live somewhere for 10 years. 9/22/2021 11:15 AM
Subsidize the rent of low income households as long as the adults are all working. 9/21/2021 4:42 PM I wish I did, my property will be 100 years old in 2022. 9/21/2021 4:40 PM I do not think making rental property owners cover moving costs or relocation fees is justified if they want to remodel their own apartment building/units. I would understand perhaps giving the tenants a longer period of time in which they have to move instead of just 60 days but if you give them 3-6 months to move out then you should not have to cover any sort of moving costs or relocation fees. In addition, if the city makes it so that tenants who were displaced for the remodel get to move back in at their same rent price then I guarantee property owners won't remodel units until they are vacant. You are going to create even more slumlords if that Maybe the City can subsidize the tenants move/incentives or provide housing while owners exercise their right to improve their property for the betterment of all, including the City. 9/21/2021 4:33 PM
The PRIMARY ISSUE is that developers consider collateral damage "cost of doing business". People like the lady I care for could die if they make an extra $20, and they would not care.

So, this substantial remodel loophole is being used to aggressively and violently remove folks that need housing to survive. Since they stand to gain the most from attacking the most vulnerable/lowest rental, it systematically promotes exploitation.
9/22/2021 2:01 PM
Offer incentives to lower renovation costs (rebate programs)? 9/22/2021 1:37 PM #
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Escalating costs for just about everything. On older buildings it is necessary to consider your first estimate on a repair to be the base line for additional surprises. I usually multiply my estimates times “3” to get a probable cost. Replacement parts for older buildings can also be very difficult to find and sometimes impossible, requiring replacement on an entire fixture.

Also, the sizes/dimensions for wood and moldings are different in older building and can often require custom work costs. 9/29/2021 11:20 AM
Q7 Property Owners: What are the biggest challenges you face in maintaining and making repairs to your units?
Answered: 27 Skipped: 55

RESPONSES DATE
Cooperation from tenants and quality workmanship and cost of labor 9/30/2021 5:10 PM Money to do repairs. Getting a good workman in a timely manner as most a very busy as owners are "hanging" on waiting for their services. Many are delayed and remodeling is thrown off. Repair and remodeling costs exceed the allowed increases. (Remodeling might need to be done but we need to collect increases based on improvements. 9/28/2021 5:58 PM
N/a 9/28/2021 11:49 AM
Uncooperative tenants. 9/28/2021 10:37 AM
Proper budgeting; and on-going maintenance. 9/27/2021 10:10 AM Making necessary repairs and keeping my tenants safe while also making a profit from my properties. 9/27/2021 9:58 AM Finding reliable workmen and women to do repairs. This is why I have my tenants do the repairs or coordinate with repair persons, in lieu of rent at times. I do repairs or replace appliances at once, with them coordinating the changes. I involve them in making decisions and being involved in upgrades. I only asked that they advise me if problems with paying full rents during pandemic. I assisted them to apply for Renter's Assistance funding. 9/27/2021 9:57 AM
Permit process is slow and backlogged. High costs and tenants who don’t comply 9/27/2021 9:13 AM N/A - I am a tenant. 9/26/2021 2:09 PM
Cost of repairs and improvements. Slow process on permits. 9/25/2021 6:41 PM Government interference and ridiculous delays in obtaining permits. 9/24/2021 2:48 PM

1. Cost 2. Time 9/23/2021 5:17 PM
Cost of repairs and city legislation and regulation. 9/23/2021 11:01 AM The cost of these improvements. Costs for lumber, cooper, , fixtures, etc. and labor have skyrocketed. Tenants not taking care of the new improvements.
9/23/2021 10:52 AM
1) Collecting rents, 2) Uncooperative residents and 3) coordinating repairs. 9/23/2021 10:09 AM Increasingly high costs to do significant renovation, e.g.; roof replacement, plumbing replacement, wiring replacement 9/23/2021 9:45 AM N/A 9/23/2021 9:31 AM
None currently, perhaps cost or timing in the future 9/22/2021 5:02 PM No incentive for upgrading units when we can't increase rents more than 5% + CPI. Not being able to terminate tenancy in order to remodel units with paying hefty costs/fees.
9/22/2021 11:55 AM
9/22/2021 11:21 AM
remodels are necessary. It is not worth the expense to do those things if you are unable to reset the rent to market value.

Tenants. Tenants often are the ones who cause the damage to units. You also have to work around their schedule. In addition, material and construction costs are at all time highs. 9/22/2021 8:55 AM
Apartments are not meant to be lived for 12,15,20 years. Lots of wear and tear builds up, things that go beyond regular maintenance. Plus, as value of property goes up over time, long term tenants tend to pay under market rent.

As enough time passes, real upgrades and
High costs & finding good & available contractors. 9/21/2021 4:34 PM Getting good people at a reasonable price. 9/15/2021 3:40 PM N/a 9/21/2021 10:46 PM
Rent control and eviction moratoria incentivize tenants not to move and not to pay rent. This makes it difficult to afford routine maintenance (causing deferred maintenance) or if the unit never turns over, the quality of the housing stock is negatively impacted requiring substantial renovations of vacant apartments when possession of the apartments is restored to owners.
9/21/2021 4:46 PM
I haven’t raised rent through out pandemics and if I need to pay for relocation of the tenants to make the repairs I might have to limit repairs that should be done because of the cost. 9/21/2021 4:43 PM
#
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 Require landlords to temporarily relocate tenants to other equal housing regardless in the event of any remodel and reinstate them back into their unit at the same previous rent. This assures tenants of being able to hang on to affordable units, eliminates the need for City review of plans prior to remodel approval to police landlords, and cuts bureaucratic red tape for landlords. Only total gutting of a building should allow evictions. 9/30/2021 12:07 PM
OPTION 1 9/30/2021 8:51 AM
Q8 If the City were to do one thing to help balance the needs of tenants and property owners during a substantial remodel of an existing unit, what would that be? Answered: 61 Skipped: 21

RESPONSES DATE
see answer to 6 10/1/2021 3:42 PM
Give the tenant an opportunity to purchase 9/30/2021 5:11 PM Protect the tenants from substantial remodel evictions. 9/30/2021 12:36 PM Be up front with tenants and attempt to come to an interim agreement with them that can be documented and that is fair for both parties regarding a work around for displacement and potential rental increases following renovation. After all, it can't be all bad to continue to collect rent while renovating. 9/28/2021 12:47 PM
Free rent and utilities 9/29/2021 11:00 PM
Not evict tenants. 9/29/2021 8:43 PM
Be more involved in the process. Tenants shouldn't be tricked out their place of residence. 9/29/2021 4:59 PM -PROPER COMPENSATION TO LEAVE -ABILITY TO RETURN AT THE SAME RENTAL RATE -FOR OWNERS W/

MULTIPLE PROPERTIES THEY SHOULD REHOUSE TENANTS IN ANY VACANT UNIT -OWNERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SHOW PROOF OF WHAT IS NEEDED AND THEN SHOW THEY FOLLOWED THROUGH. -OWNERS

SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SHOW PROOF OF THEIR NEED AND INTENTION, AND GET PERMISSION FROM CITY

BEFORE FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH EVICTION
9/29/2021 4:29 PM
Find a program, just like option 1 offers, to manage landlord availability to maintain units without evicting tenants. 9/29/2021 4:08 PM Have enough affordable rental housing available so that tenets can find other housing. 9/29/2021 12:40 PM Setting expectations – I don’t expect my building to be habitable forever without significant improvements/upgrades and costs and tenants should not expect their apartment will be forever the same. 9/29/2021 11:33 AM
Maybe find an alternative solution before immediately jumping to renovating. I think a good idea to make sure property owners keep up with fixing what goes wrong in a particular property would be charging a small fee that the tenants pay but ensures that owners have to fix whatever goes wrong given that the tenant is paying. 9/29/2021 10:50 AM
A tax credit during the remodel. 9/28/2021 6:02 PM
Set a ceiling on rental properties. Easier for the tenant to relocate and pay the same rent 9/28/2021 5:47 PM Make sure tenants are not evicted 9/28/2021 2:32 PM
Allow tenants to stay in hotels paid for by the owners during remodel and have a written law that tenants will be allowed the property after remodel. Also if the city offered to step in to advocate for the tenants the would be helpful. 9/28/2021 11:51 AM
19 Please see my
answer with specific recommendations to this request in the previous question 9/28/2021 10:59 AM Proper notice with reasonable time for alternative housing. 9/28/2021 10:38 AM Provide aid to prevent cost affecting tenants as well as require specific calculation of any relocation cost and provide 100% cost cover or deduction from payments.
9/28/2021 2:16 AM
Property owners are raking it in. My former landlord was making over $100,000 PER MONTH in income for her properties. City needs to do whatever it can to ascertain that these "substantial" remodels are indeed just that. Tenants need to be protected.
9/27/2021 9:32 PM
It should work out for the tenant and owner 9/27/2021 3:47 PM Make the property owner pay the relocation and temporary housing costs 9/27/2021 1:18 PM Actually keep track of WHAT the Substational Remodel permits are for. If only a cosmetic remodel, eviction should not be allowed AT ALL. Defining Substational Remodel to begin with and not allowing loopholes that created this mess. 9/27/2021 11:39 AM
Provide temporary housing for the tenant 9/27/2021 11:22 AM 27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 have a case navigator for the tenant throughout the process 9/27/2021 10:10 AM The balance is doing what is fair. There is a difference between an old building poorly maintained that really needs repairs and remodeling and a building well maintained that doesn’t need remodeling but owned by greedy owners who want to insanely increase the price of the rent. The city should inspect a property before a landlord evicts his tenants to make sure the substantial remodeling is justified and not abusive. 9/27/2021 11:04 AM
To mandate that the property owner not increase the rent beyond the point that the current resident won't be able to afford to live there anymore.
9/27/2021 10:25 AM
Don’t allow owners to evict tenants. Some remodeling can be done with the tenants still occupying the unit. 9/27/2021 10:11 AM Give the Public the INFORMATION needed .. Because I was so afraid...and without information people PARISH.. 9/23/2021 4:25 PM Housing vouchers that PROVIDE a place for them to live during danger periods of renovations, if any risk. They would pay same as rent during this period. Right to return at same rent would be part of this agreement for renovation period and their housing return would be faster than months long, in the majority of cases. 9/27/2021 10:00 AM
Allowing property owners to remodel as they see fit, make a process for removing tenants if they are unsafe during a substantial remodel. Define substantial for the record, study the problem as it pertains to this issue happening right now. 9/27/2021 9:59 AM
Set up a fund that will assist tenants who qualify for rental assistance 9/27/2021 9:13 AM Parking safety 9/27/2021 7:40 AM
9/26/2021 2:39 PMPlease refer to my previous Response #6. I believe that by applying those equitable prerequisites whereby the CITY oversees and preapproves the LANDLORD's intent PRIOR to ANY notification to the TENANT, and that the LANDLORD provides CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS VERBIAGE and TIMELY ADVANCE NOTICE to be SERVED on and RECEIVED by such TENANT will prevent BAD FAITH consequences which would prevail disadvantageously against the TENANT, in particular. It is the willful, unconscionable, and sometimes inhumane displacement with little or no warning which causes disastrous and even life-changing harmful consequences which the LANDLORD alone has sole control and foreknowledge.

What should be realized is that the actions of UNCARINGLY BAD or PREDATORY LANDLORDS often results in HOMELESSNESS through no fault of even a LAWABIDING tenant. The untold costs can be catastrophic as one’s PHYSICAL HEALTH, WELFARE, and EMOTIONAL WELLBEING is strongly aligned to the STABILITY of one’s HOME,

FAMILIAR LIVING & TRAVEL ENVIRONMENTS, PROXIMITY TO FAMILY, FRIENDS, MEDICAL CARE, SHOPPING, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, and the like, can wreak havoc for the remainder of one’s life— especially where SENIORS, DISABLED, FINANCIALLY- and/or MENTALLY-CHALLENGED persons with untold ranges of INFIRMITIES are concerned.

Worse, we are ALL living in TROUBLED TIMES with an UNCEASING PANDEMIC resulting in even GREATER COLLATERAL DAMAGE to too many of the disenfranchised and seemingly discarded HUMAN members of our 21st Century society. While I do not have a pet or care animal, for many persons those are other considerations which come into play as such individuals are dependent on the companionship, love, and responsive interaction with such animals. When relocating to my present residence, my NATURAL PLANTS were ESSENTIAL to my intended wellbeing as I had nurtured, groomed, and lovingly designed and created a beautiful and exceptionally unique MINIATURE DESERT ROCK GARDEN of LIVE PLANTS which have mostly survived to this day. Without an OUTDOOR BALCONY to maintain my horticultural collection, which was soothing to my inner spirit and a balm to subdue the external cruelties and alarmingly unwelcomed abuses which miseries I was compelled to suffer to maintain an affordable roof over my head in the twilight of my life, I could not have survived that LONG BEACH CORPORATE LANDLORD and his MANAGEMENT’s sadistic exploitations, fraud, corruption, and abusive humanities which have not ceased with other elderly and unprotected souls.

Require fair compensation and relocation assistance for tenants. 9/25/2021 6:42 PM Removing substantial remodeling and applying options one to protect the tenants from being victims of eviction having rent control because they have a increased the rent by hundreds because of the substantial remodeling people could no longer afford to go back the apartments that they were renting also having the landlord fix apartments issues when they are small instead of waiting for the issue to get bigger and costing more money that will come out of the tenants pockets by increasing the rent just because the landlord did take the responsibility when he should of . 9/25/2021 2:59 PM
Require landlords to submit a plan with clear descriptions of the renovation, its impact on tenants, and why relocation is or would be required. Require landlords to provide tenants with either temporary, alternate or comparable housing, or temporary relocation assistance.
9/25/2021 1:50 PM
subsidize the rents for tenants returning to a substantially remodeled unit at market rates. Otherwise, no owner can afford to make this kind of investment if rents are frozen at below market rates. 9/24/2021 2:51 PM
possibly giving the tenants more prior notification. more than 60 days 9/23/2021 5:18 PM OPTION 1 9/23/2021 1:19 PM
The City needs to clarify in detail what substantial remodel is! The City must CONFIRM with the pulling of permits.

Substantial remodel to me is upgrading the major systems and upgrading the old 1920's through 1950's original units.

The tenants that live in Long Beach will benefit in the long run by having improved housing stock to live in within the City.

Not old dilapidated buildings and units.
9/23/2021 11:05 AM
Exclude small housing providers from legislation. The problem that council seeks to address is caused by the big players. 9/23/2 021 11:03 AM Provide grants to tenants and grants, low interest loans or tax incentives for property owners. 9/23/2021 10:10 AM Stay out of it! This is a very low-percentage occurrence. 9/23/2021 9:48 AM To give tenants adequate compensation for temporary relocation and to ensure property owners keep the rent the same for tenants to return.
9/23/2021 9:33 AM
48 49
50 51
52 Protect tenants in place and offer hotel rooms while units are being renov ated 53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 9/22/2021 1:38 PM
Help subsidize the temporary relocation of tenants, for example providing grants equivalent to 2 months in a furnished short-term rental place like a Homewood Suites or similar, allowing tenants to just continue to pay their regular rent to their landlord, and landlords to be only out of pocket for the actual rehab expenses. 9/22/2021 11:14 PM
There is no reason why substantial remodel should be a just cause for eviction. A landlord should be required to submit a plan with clear descriptions of the true scope of renovation work, and the potential impact of the project and why temporary relocation for tenants is required for any major renovation project. Substantial remodel has been abused as a reason to evict long term tenants and families…
9/22/2021 6:24 PM
Weigh toward the needs of tenants. As a property owner, I have more rights and privileges than tenants. 9/22/2021 5:03 PM Allow the tenant to refuse eviction for reasonable grounds. The substantial remodels are not for health reasons, they are voluntary. If there exists a public health risk due to the eviction then it should not be allowed. This is important during covid.
9/22/2021 2:03 PM
9/22/2021 11:56 AM
Since there is a housing shortage, property owners should be required to place tenants in new home (for those who own multiple properties they should give tenants an opportunity to move into a vacant unit at the same rental rate), They should be required to financially compensate tenants who have to leave, pay for moving costs, and pay for rental difference of new place (ex. I currently pay $1100 for a 1bedroom which is about 50% of my income, if I was forced to leave, a 1bedroom is now $1400-1650, that $300-550 more a month I cannot afford and I am the sole income earning for my family.)
9/22/2021 10:15 AM
Require a higher relocation fee paid to tenants. This would allow them to find new housing and the cost would be offset by the moving allowance, while also allowing property owners to renovate their properties. 9/22/2021 8:56 AM
Just do not allow it unless there is an actual safety issue. It is not fair that I’ve already had to move once, and will likely receive another eviction due to remodeling if this rule changes. That would be two evictions due to remodeling in less than 5 years. This is not fair to me. If an owner insists on doing remodeling, then they should pay for me to get a hotel for a couple weeks while they do their remodeling. Or wait until I move on my own terms to do remodeling. 9/21/2021 10:49 PM
Get out of the way. 9/15/2021 3:41 PM
Provide more affordable housing so that natural turnover occurs and tenants feel at ease moving to a different apartment when repairs are needed. Turnover gives opportunities for property owners to maintain their units. 9/21/2021 4:48 PM
Allow property owners to request the tenants to move to complete the needed repairs or the property will become more in disarray. More work longer needed vacancies to make repairs. 9/21/2021 4:47 PM
Be equitable to both tenants AND owners. 9/21/2021 4:34 PM I would say you could protect tenants from new property buyers who are using the current rules to kick out tenants when they want to flip a building. I think you can help the property owners, by allowing owners who have owned their own buildings a year or 2 to be able to do what they want when they want. I think lease limits would give both tenants and owners clear communication that someone cannot reside in apartment for 10 year plus. 9/22/2021 11:27 AM
Give the tenant more than 60 days to move out. Perhaps 90 days or even 100 days. Remodels don't need to happen asap but tenants should not require more than 90-100 days to find another place to live.

A
TTACHMENT C:

Survey Responses - Open Ended Questions
(Spanish with English Translation)
# RESPONSES DATE
1 No aplica 9/30/2021 9:36 PM
2 Pues el no poder tener otro lugar para cuando ellos arreglen nos muevan a otro lado 9/23/2021 9:18 PM # TRANSLATED RESPONSES DATE
1 Does not apply. 9/30/2021 9:36 PM
2 Well, having somewhere to go when they arrange to evict us. 9/23/2021 9:18 PM Espanol Long Beach - Substantial Remodel Survey
Q6 Para los propietarios: ¿Cuáles son los mayores retos a los que se enfrenta para mantener y reparar sus unidades?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 3
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Dar prioridad a que regresen a su vivienda y se respete la cantidad que se estaba pagando (no aumentar exageradamente el alquiler)
9/30/2021 9:46 PM
2 strabajar de la mano del propietario para que no aga injusticias y saber si de verdad el propietario tiene problemas para resolverlo O solo wuiere sacar probecho de la ley actual hacer el cambio juntos claro favoreciendo al inquilino 9/28/2021 6:40 PM
3 Pues hacer viviendas para poder vivir en mejores condiciones ho comprar casas de recursos bajos 9/23/2021 9:20 PM 4O P C I O N 1 9/23/2021 1:33 PM
# TRANSLATED RESPONSES DATE
1 Give priority to return to your home and respect the amount that was being paid (do not increase the rent excessively.) 9/30/2021 9:46 PM 2 Work hand in hand with the landlord so that he does not cause injustices and find out if the landlord really has problems to solve OR if he just wants to get out of the current law. Make changes together clearly favoring the tenant. 9/28/2021 6:40 PM
3 Well, build houses to live in better conditions or buy low-income houses. 9/23/2021 9:20 PM 4 Option 1 9/23/2021 1:33 PM
Espanol Long Beach - Substantial Remodel Survey
Q7 Para los inquilinos y propietarios: ¿Tiene alguna recomendación que el ayuntamiento deba explorar para ayudar a los propietarios a realizar mejoras sustanciales en las viviendas en alquiler sin desplazar permanentemente a los residentes?
Answered: 4 Skipped: 1
# RESPONSES DATE
1 primero no desalojar inquilinos y ayudar para tener un techo mientros esta lo remodelacion y por su puesto tener en cuenta que no nos suban la renta por remodelacion
9/28/2021 6:43 PM
2 La ciudad tiene q aprobar algo en los aptos q estén bien echos 9/23/2021 9:21 PM 3O P C I O N 1 9/23/2021 1:33 PM
4 No hay ninguna razón por la cual una remodelación sustancial deba ser una causa justa de desalojo. Se debe exigir al propietario que presente un plan con descripciones claras del alcance real del trabajo de renovación y el impacto potencial del proyecto y por qué se requiere la reubicación temporal de los inquilinos para cualquier proyecto de renovación importante. Se ha abusado de una remodelación sustancial como motivo para desalojar a inquilinos y familias a largo plazo.
9/22/2021 6:19 PM
# TRANSLATED RESPONSES DATE
1 Do not evict tenants, help us keep a roof over our heads while it is being remodeled, and of course take into account to not raise our rent for remodelin
g.
9/28/2021 6:43 PM
2 The City must approve something that makes sure the remodeling work is well done. 9/23/2021 9:21 PM 3 Option 1 9/23/2021 1:33 PM
4 There is no reason why a substantial remodel should be just cause for eviction. The landlord should be required to submit a plan with clear descriptions of the actual scope of the renovation work and the potential impact of the project and why temporary relocation of tenants is required for any major renovation project. A substantial remodel has been abused as a reason to evict tenants and lon
g-term families.
9/22/2021 6:19 PM
Espanol Long Beach - Substantial Remodel Survey
Q8 Si la ciudad tuviera que hacer una cosa para ayudar a equilibrar las necesidades de los inquilinos y de los propietarios durante una remodelación sustancial de una unidad existente, ¿qué sería?
Answered: 4 Skipped: 1
# RESPONSES DATE
1 He recibido carta de desalojo y demanda por retencion aun despues de avisarle al propiertario que estabamos en ina pandemia y teniamos una moratoria, esto nos a provocado extres problemas familiares el mas grande dolor es ver a tus hijos tristes porque dicen mama yo no quiero vivir en la calle , les pido no permitan que los propietarios se aprovechen de la ley atual para llenar sus bolsillos de dinero y dejarnos sin nuestro salario nuestros hijos necesitan ir ala universidad y ser personas profecionales y puexan Portar a nuestra hermosa ciudad, que se ve mal con tanto desamparado pero ellos no tienen la culpa la culpa es de la sociedad que los apuesto en esa situacion por los altos costos de renta. 9/28/2021 6:36 PM
2 Nos quieren sacar para arreglar los daños q realmente desde el año 2018 ya estaba este problema muy serio mojo ollos 9/23/2021 9:16 PM 3 En el 2018 mi arrendador fumigó porque teníamos chinches en el edificio y nos envió fuera del edificio por 3 días, algunos de nosotros estuvimos fuera por 7 días porque nuestros apartamentos estaban más infectados con chinches que los otros, y el arrendador no proporciono vivienda temporal para cualquiera de los inquilinos, teníamos que buscar por nuestra cuenta con amigos y familiares, y algunos tenían 2 o 3 hijos, recientemente el arrendador arreglara algunas cosas en mi departamento y me dijo que si arreglaba algo , mi alquiler aumentaría, o tal vez tendría que estar fuera por dos días, pero él no promete que podré regresar al departamento, y si se da cuenta de que es demasiado costoso. entonces me desalojara
9/22/2021 6:18 PM
# TRANSLATED RESPONSES DATE
1 I have received an eviction letter and demand for retention even after notifying the owner that we were in a pandemic and we had a moratorium. This has caused us other family problems. The biggest pain is seeing your children sad because they say, “mom I don't want to live on the street.” I ask you not to allow the owners to take advantage of the current law to fill their pockets with money and leave us without our salary. Our children need to go to university and become professional people, so they can support to our beautiful city, which looks bad with so much homelessness, but they are not to blame, it is the fault of society that put them in that situation due to the high costs of rent. 9/28/2021 6:36 PM
2 They want to evict us to fix the damages that really have been there since 2018, there was already this very serious problem.
9/23/2021 9:16 PM
3 In 2018 my landlord kicked us out of the building for three days to fumigate for bed bugs. Some of us spent 7 days without our homes because some apartments were worse than others. The landlord did not provide us with temporary housing, so we had to search for a place live with friends or family. Some of us even with 2 or 3 children. Recently, my landlord had to fix some things in my apartment and told me that if I fixed something my rent would either go up or I’d have to be away for a couple days while it gets fixed. But there are no promises that I will be able to return to the a
partment. If the rent goes up any more, then I’ll be evicted. 9/22/2021 6:18 PM
Espanol Long Beach - Substantial Remodel Survey
Q9 Si ha experimentado un desalojo debido a una remodelación sustancial de su unidad, ¿cuál fue su experiencia? Describa las circunstancias y las consecuencias en unas pocas frases.

Answered: 3 Skipped: 2

SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL

TENANT DISPLACEMENT SOLUTIONS
1 of 2 09/07/2021
Tenant and Housing Advocates and
Property Owner Stakeholder Meetings
Summary of Key Takeaways
Tenant Representatives and Housing Advocates – Meeting held Aug. 25, 2021 • Would like to remove incentives that prompt some property owners to use “substantial remodel” as a means for eviction.
• Concerned that tenants won’t say anything about units in poor repair, so they don’t get evicted.
• Solutions should focus on people rather than buildings (people first). • Current relocation payment is not enough for families; the relocation should consider moving costs, the number of people in the current unit, temporary housing, first month and last month rent requirement.
• Can’t rely on landlords and “hope” they follow rules; would like City to serve as a “referee” between tenants and landlords.
• Concerned that tenants are not connected to understanding of their rights and rely on advocacy groups to advocate for them.
• Prefer adoption of a Tenant Habitability Program.
• Would like the City to oversee substantial renovation remodels and require property owners to outline and submit a plan to the City prior to start of construction that outlines: impacts of construction, construction schedule, relocation justification. • Need definition of what a substantial remodel is and would like City to establish habitability standards (who enforces, etc). Would also like “necessary repairs” to be defined (what is included? What is duration?).
• If relocated, tenants should be able to stay in same community so that tenants aren’t “pushed out” of their neighborhoods. Desire safe healthy spaces where tenants can stay where they are. Whether tenants are temporarily or permanently relocated; find ways to keep them in same community.

Property Owners and Managers – Meeting held Aug. 26, 2021 • Would like to see quantitative data to understand more about the specifics of the Just Cause Ordinance (how many are non-compliant or how many unnecessary evictions have occurred 2 of 2 09/07/2021
as a result in the current wording of the ordinance) to contextualize premise around the problem better. Would like to have more information on who is at risk and specific examples of where this has been an i ssue. Would like this information before providing recommendations or feedback on the solutions the City is proposing related to changing the existing ordinance.
• If data is proven (from landlord perspective) penalize landlords that are not complying versus all property owners. Existing laws in place regulate this issue already. • If the issues are being created by a few property
owners that are not complying with the City’s Just-
Cause Ordinance, then those property owners
should be addressed on a case -by-case basis
rather than creating a change to the ordinance
that affects properties citywide.
• Would like term “substantial remodel” to be more
clearly defined.
• AB 1482 (California Tenant Protection Act of 2019)
already in place to ensure people are not being
displaced for things such as carpet replacement.
• Suggest it would be helpful to track additional
information such as how many substantial
remodels have occurred with evictions, availability
of current rental housing stock and those
properties in need of an update for council to
review as they are making future
recommendations.
• Property owners have experience d strain due to
moratoriums placed upon them from the
pandemic; significant amount of money from the
COVID-19 stimulus package has not been allocated
for property owners, and landlords have had to had accept deferred rent and fees. • Concerned financial impact of the options City is currently considering will fall on landlords without any financial incentives for the property owners (potentially causing an unintended disincentive to remodel aging rental units).

To request this information in an alternative format or to request a reasonable accommodation, please contact the Development Services Department at longbeach.gov/lbds and 562.570.3807. A minimum of three business days is requested to ensure availability; attempts will be made to accommodate requests with shorter notice.

What does AB 1482 do?
Statewide law that went into effect on
January 1, 2020 and expires on January
1, 2030.
 Requires a landlord to have a “just
cause” to
terminate a tenancy.
 Limits annual rent increases to no
more t
han 5% + local CPI (CPI =
inflation rate), or 10% whichever is
lower.
 A tenant may not waive their rights
to these protections and any
agreement to do so by the tenant is
void as contrary to public policy.
 If a unit is al ready covered by San
Francisco’s local eviction and/or
rent increase regulations, the unit
remains subject to those local
regulations and the statewide law
does not remove or replace those
tenant protections.

LtBRE !lltt ��i'W3t�8�)
lOHO lt4CH u�ou,n IJiUOWtuo lOMC IU04 fOUHT1 ""°" Community. Powo,. Justice.

A 7 MYl Cambodian
Community
M ..

LONG flEACH COALtTION
JOltQOCIO J081 olHDA >C-'tlH't

COMMUNITY
-CFA
CFA Long Beach Chapter
_,,�LEGAL AID
� FOUNDATION
.�"'LOS ANGEUS
Justice • Equity • Hopo
Long Beach Housing Justice Coalition
September 14, 2021
Patrick Ure, Bureau Manager
Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau
Long Beach Development Services
Sent via Electronic Mail
Re: Substantial Remodel Evictions & Renovation Administration Program Dear Mr. Ure,
The Housing Justice Coalition (HJC) is a collaborative group comprised of non-profit organizations, community groups and individuals with a mission to build community power by supporting tenant-led movements, passing policies that protect tenants, advancing equitable development that serves the community, and increasing community ownership of land. We appreciate being included in the City-hosted stakeholder meetings regarding removing substantial remodel as a just cause reason for eviction from Long Beach Municipal Code and replacing it with a structure for tenants and landlords to work together to ensure safe and affordable housing in Long Beach. After the City-hosted meeting on August 25, HJC gathered to consolidate requests for the program itself, for future presentations to the community and City Council, and for the upcoming combined stakeholder meeting on September 22. This letter provides additional input and requests regarding the City's plan for removing substantial remodel evictions and creating a renovation administration program.

I. HJC Supports Potential Solution 1: Removing Substantial Remodel Evictions and Creating a Renovation Administration Program
As mentioned in the August 25 meeting by city staff and advocates, over 61 % of Long Beach households rent their homes and over 82% of housing in Long Beach is over 40 years old.

These statistics show the vital need for a program to prevent the loss of affordable housing and establish a system for safe and healthy units. These needs are also recognized in the City's draft Housing Element as essential to meeting Long Beach's housing goals and obligations. In the August 25 meeting, city staff provided three options for stakeholders to consider regarding substantial remodel evictions. It is HJC's position that the first option is the only option that ensures safe and affordable housing, eliminating the substantial remodel eviction and providing a system for repairs on the city's aging housing stock.

The substantial remodel eviction as a just cause reason in the state and Long Beach tenant protection laws allow for landlords to evict tenants based solely on remodeling a unit. Once the tenants are removed, the once affordable unit can be brought to market rate rent, thus losing critical affordable housing in the city. In the August 24, 2021, memorandum from the city manager to the Mayor and City Council, city staff stated, "Substantial remodel evictions are a

serious issue that can detrimentally impact the lives of renters in the City and should be addressed."

1. Investment in Affordable Housing
During the August 25 meeting, city staff reported that the initial costs to create a Renovation Administration Program (RAP) was about $2 million. However, the program would charge fees on rental units moving forward essentially creating a revenue-neutral program. Investing in the RAP now would save possibly hundreds of affordable housing units from being brought to market rate rents. As the City is currently looking to increase affordable housing and investing in no-net-loss and affordable housing preservation policies, the RAP program would support these goals. It would maintain the current affordable housing stock while providing a system for tenants and landlords to work together to ensure that the housing is safe. Keeping these current housing units affordable helps the City reach its regional housing need allocation, thus preventing the potential loss in millions in grants from the state and federal government.

2. The Alternate Potential Solutions 2 & 3 Proposed Do Not Meet the Goal of Protecting Safe and Affordable Housing
The city presented two alternate potential solutions regarding substantial remodel evictions during the presentation on August 25. As confirmed by the city attorney in attendance, neither of these options eliminate substantial remodel evictions from Long Beach. The result of these proposals is placing a higher price (although not much higher) on substantial remodel evictions, which still allow for landlords to evict tenants solely for the purpose to remodel a unit. Neither option accomplishes the goal of maintaining safe and affordable housing in the city. They simply let a property owner pay their way out of maintaining safe and healthy housing for current residents. Therefore, HJC does not support the adoption of either option 2 or 3. Eliminating substantial remodel evictions is the only way to ensure preservation of affordable housing.

II. Model RAP after the City of Los Anqeles's Tenant Habitability Program HJC supports a city program that would remove substantial remodel evictions; require landlords to submit a plan with clear descriptions of scope of renovation work, the potential impact of the project and why temporary relocation for tenants is required for any major renovation project; create a city division to assist with preparation of, evaluation, and approval of those plans; require landlords to provide tenants with either temporary, alternate and comparable housing or temporary relocation assistance; and allow lack of approved plan as an affirmative defense in any eviction lawsuit.

The City of Los Angeles provides a great model for reaching all of these goals: the Tenant Habitability Program (THP). The THP is clear for both landlords and tenants to understand the process. HJC supports a RAP modeled after the Los Angeles THP. While some details of the THP are not applicable because Long Beach does not have a rent stabilization ordinance, the structure of the program accomplishes the goals listed above.

Ill. Eliminate Potential Bias in Potential Solution Presentations During the presentation at the August 25 meeting, the City did not provide a balanced approach in presenting the three potential solutions proposed. The only potential solution that showed consequences was option 1, which was the only option that would meet the City's goal of eliminating substantial remodel evictions from the ordinance. This presentation potentially creates a bias towards the alternate options 2 & 3, which did not have any negative consequences listed.

As mentioned above, there are multiple consequences associated with options 2 & 3: (1) they do not eliminate substantial remodel evictions, which the City has noted itself can detrimentally impact the lives of renters, and would not be in the best interest of over 61 percent of the city population, who are renters; and (2) losing affordable units to substantial remodel evictions could potentially cost the City millions in grants by eliminating affordable housing units and thus not meeting the City's state and federal requirements for affordable housing.

HJC requests a more balanced approach to presenting the three options by providing information on potential cons for the alternate options 2 & 3 when presenting to the Mayor, City Council and the public.

IV. Create Space in Final Stakeholder Meeting to Discuss RAP Policies Finally, HJC requests space in the final stakeholder meeting to discuss RAP policies and procedures in potential solution option 1. During the first stakeholder meeting, the three options were presented to the attendees and much of the meeting was digesting the options as a whole, rather than having the ability to provide input for policies within the options.

We look forward to the meeting on September 22, 2021. Thank you again for inviting us to these meetings. If you have questions, you can speak with anyone from our coalition. We would be happy to schedule a time to discuss this further. Melody Osuna from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles can be reached at (213) 640-3935 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Housing Justice Coalition
CC:

Abraham Zavala, Long Beach Residents Empowered (LiBRE)
Andrew Mandujano, Long Beach Tenants Union
Victor Sanchez, Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community Elsa Tung, Long Beach Forward
Myron Wollin, Long Beach Gray Panthers
Susana Sngiem, United Cambodian Community
Jan Victor Andasan, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice Gary Hytrek, California Faculty Association Long Beach Chapter Melody Osuna, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) Wayne Marchyshyn, Veterans For Peace Chapter 110
Kayte Deioma, Independent Tenant Activist and Tenant
Christopher Koontz, Long Beach Development Services
Alem Hagos, Long Beach Development Services
Meggan Sorensen, Long Beach Development Services
Rich Anthony, Deputy City Attorney
Wendy Nowak, Placeworks
Alexsundra Captan, Placeworks
Councilmember Cindy Allen, CD 2
Councilmember Suely Saro, CD 6
From: Kayte Deioma <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 20211:14 PM
To: Patrick Ure <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; jessica-centrocha <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; e [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Christopher Koontz <[email protected]>; Wendy Nowak <[email protected]>; 'Alexsundra Captan' <[email protected]>; Alem Hagos <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Substantial Remodel Displacement Solutions -EXTERNAL-
Hi Patrick and Team,
I reviewed the notes from the tenant and landlord meetings. I don't know how well the landlords' comments were represented, but I feel that the summary of the Tenant Representatives and Housing Advocates meeting left out major concerns we discussed - like the rapid loss of affordable units due to substantial remodel and lack of rental stock at the rental rates of the units being "upgraded". It also framed some things in a way that missed the point or leaves out significant context. • The first statement - "Would like to remove incentives that prompt some property owners to use "substantial remodel" as a means of eviction" should continue ... "in order to double the rent and flip the building for a huge profit, removing affordable housing units from the market, increasing neighborhood density and causing parking shortages due to higher occupancy per apartment to afford higher rents." The issue is also removing the incentive for real estate speculators to overpay for buildings based on their plans to do this, driving up prices so that people who want to own rental property as a long-term investment rather than flipping it, can't buy into the market.
• The statement - "Current relocation payment is not enough for families ... etc." implies there should still be some dollar amount set, when our discussion was primarily that there should not be. There is no restriction to a landlord offering a tenant a financial incentive to leave voluntarily, so there is no need to set a dollar amount that would allow a landlord to force a tenant out permanently instead of providing temporary re-housing during remodel. The tenant always has the option of accepting a payment offered to permanently relocate rather than a temporary relocation option if the financial incentive makes economic sense to them. That was the actual discussion.
• The statement "Prefer the adoption of a Tenant Habitability Program" is accurate, but fails to provide the context provided by the Assistant City Attorney that a Tenant Habitability Program or Renovation Administration Program is the best legal option for removing substantial remodel as a just cause for eviction, and is the only option that protects tenants and maintains affordable housing while facilitating landlords' ability to make substantial renovations.

To address a few issues in the summary of the Property Owners and Managers meeting:
• I'd like to see quantitative data too, but the City hasn't collected data on how many of the units where remodel permits were pulled were occupied prior to remodel, and property owners have not been required to report when they issue notices to terminate tenancy for remodel, so I don't know where you'd be able to find any data to compile. • Substantial remodel should be more clearly defined, but even with a stricter definition should not be considered a "just cause" for eviction, just temporary relocation and return. • When looking at current rental housing stock as a factor for whether you should be able to permanently relocate a tenant, you can only look at rental stock at the same rent you're replacing, not hundreds of dollars more. There's the rub. • There is still a lot of rent relief money for landlords unclaimed. If the landlords are having trouble accessing it, that needs to be addressed separately with the City. It sucks that they cut it to 80%, but that's still a significant amount.

I look forward to continuing the discussion in the meeting next week.

Regards,
Kayte Deioma
Tenant Activist
Apartment Association

PACIFIC WEST CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES
ASSOCIATION Of RE'ALTORS•
....

Califor�a
Apartment
Association
SPOA TheChamber SMALL PROPERTY

OWNERS ALLIANCE
September 21, 2021
Mr. Patrick Ure
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Manager, Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau
Department of Development Services
City of Long Beach
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl.

Long Beach, CA 90802
Cc: Honorable Mayor Robert Garcia and Members of the City Council Subject: Substantial Remodel Lease Terminations
Dear Mr. Ure:

On behalf of a coalition comprised of the region's businesses, property owners, investors, managers and suppliers of rental homes, and REAL TORS®, we are following-up to our August 26, 2021 meeting with Long Beach City staff and PlaceWorks, Inc. relative to agenda item no. 35 (21-0608) considered by the City Council on July 6, 2021.

PRIOR UNANIMOUS COUNCIL ACTION SHOULD BE HEEDED
The Long Beach Development Services Department (LBDS) has created a webpage, presentation material, meeting notes, memo(s), etc. on this matter that fail to fully incorporate, adequately capture, and reasonably follow the direction provided by the City Council on July 6, 2021, and as recorded in the accompanying meeting minutes:

A motion was made by Councilwoman Allen, seconded by Councilwoman Saro, to approve recommendation, as amended, for the ordinance to [1] prohibit substantial remodel evictions based on building permits issued on or after July 6, 2021; [2] the temporary prohibition to be in effect until December 31, 2021, it may be extended by the City Council to accommodate the ongoing feasibility program, or it may be terminated prior to December 31, 2021, if the City Council does not move forward with any such program; [3] the feasibility program to study the scope and impact of the eviction problem related to renovations, and to explore options outside of legislative options; [4] develop a plan to address those who are at risk of eviction due to a permit issued prior to July 6, 2021; [5] reach out to additional organizations than those listed in the staff letter; and [6] to consider civil penalties or other sanctions for bad actors who are issuing invalid termination notices.

This coalition submitted a written request on August 20, 2021 to LBDS for further information on the "scope and impact of the eviction problem related to renovations ... [which] likely aligns with work already being conducted by City staff as directed by the Council to study." The data sought includes how many complaints LBDS has received on this issue over the past two years; how many such complaints are currently or were made on properties that have (or have not) obtained permits for substantial modification work; the general nature of such complaints; and how many of the complaints were generated by individuals living at the property in question.

LBDS' (Mr. Ure's) response was: "The Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau has not received any complaints from any individuals regarding substantial remodels." This would appear to indicate that "a [Staff] plan to address those who are at risk of eviction due a permit issued prior to July 6, 2021 ... and a report regarding interim measures to assist those facing eviction" would be rendered futile since LBDS has no record of alleged tenant displacement.

Part of the Council directive was "to explore options outside of legislative options ... and to consider civil penalties or other sanctions for bad actors who are issuing invalid termination notices." Such research by LBDS would have yielded insight to the current superseding state laws in place and other proposed measures that have dealt specifically with eviction moratoria.

CURRENT STATE LAW PROVISIONS AND PROTECTIONS
Since the start of the pandemic, the California State Legislature has passed various eviction moratoria to keep residents housed. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 ("AB 1482"), effective January 1, 2020, was temporarily suspended and consequently superseded by the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 ("AB 3088"), the Eviction Moratorium Extension and State Rental Assistance Program ("SB 91 "), and most recently the State Rent Moratorium Extension and the COVID Rental Housing Recovery Act ("AB 832").

AB 3088 temporarily required all residential landlords in California to comply with the just cause eviction procedures of AB 1482 in order to find a tenant guilty of unlawful detainer on or after March 1, 2020 and before July 1, 2021. Under AB 832, these same just cause eviction rules were extended through September 30, 2021. This is the case (for condos and single-family homes), even when the property would otherwise be exempt under AB 1482.

Under these new laws (i.e., AB 3088, SB 91, and AB 832), a landlord cannot evict on the basis of "substantial rehabilitation", which is one of the "no fault" reasons under AB 1482 (unless for the purpose of maintaining habitability). Of course, as a practical matter, neither can the landlord evict on the basis of nonpayment of rent. So, while such state laws are and have been in effect there are only ten "at-fault" reasons and three "no-fault" reasons.

Furthermore, the Judicial Council of California approved on April 6, 2020 rules, including effectively suspending all unlawful detainer actions until ninety days after California's COVID-19 state of emergency ends. This suspends the issuance of a summons and entry of defaults in unlawful detainer actions, meaning new unlawful detainer cases cannot be filed in most circumstances, unless there is a health and safety reason.
2 PROBLEMATIC PUSH FOR RENT CONTROL PROGRAM
According to LBDS staff, a tenant habitability program (THP) "is only part of a rent control program, there is still a significant cost to administering such a program, likely averaging $2 million annually. The City would need to cover these costs for the initial two-year start-up period .. .future costs would be passed on to property owners and likely trickle down to tenants [and] needed property repairs may be avoided by owners."
As part of a City memo dated May 11, 2021, LBDS staff described that "since January 2021, the [Building and Safety] Bureau has experienced a 50 percent vacancy rate, up from 27 percent vacancy overall in 2020 ... permit turnaround times, customer communication, and overall development review process have not met the City's goals nor the needs or expectations of our customers." Given LBDS staff's own assessment of its "lack of administrative infrastructure", a THP does not appear to be viable.

Moreover, in its March 2019 report on tenant assistance policies, LBDS staff states "the results of this survey and further research by City staff show local just-cause ordinances to be an infrequently adopted policy approach to enhance housing stability ... ", underscoring how such rent control programs ultimately contribute to a drop in the quality, quantity, safety, and habitability of the existing rental housing stock over lime.

PRIORITIZING EXISTING, UNUSED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
According to the State of California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH), so far the state has provided $526 million of the $2.2 billion that renters have applied for and only a portion of the $5.2 billion in federal funds from the U.S. Department of Treasury's Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program set aside for rent relief that is eligible for distribution.

As you are aware, the Long Beach Emergency Rental Assistance Program (LB-ERAP), part of the Long Beach Recovery Act, is designed to assist landlords and income-eligible tenants (renters) who have experienced financial loss or hardship due to COVID-19 through rental assistance. According to City staff's August 24, 2021 memo, the LB-ERAP has leveraged over $50 million in state and federal funds and "approved more than $3.6 million in payments and an additional $4.8 million in payments are ready for final approval." This means more than $40 million is still available for eligible Long Beach residents who need rental assistance.

In accordance with City Council action on June 15, 2021, the City Manager was requested to establish a policy for any tenant facing an imminent eviction to be provided with special priority assessment under the LB-ERAP. Additionally, the City also participates in the countywide Stay Housed L.A. County program that provides legal assistance and support for tenants facing eviction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. City data and analysis on the extent to which these resources are being utilized would help inform strategies to ensure all available LB-ERAP funding is deployed. 3 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
In March 2020 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ORD-20-0007 to enact "more protective" measures than state law affecting substantial remodel of residential real property and the issuance of termination of tenancy notices, and since that time the City has acknowledged that it has not received any complaints of violations of the ordinance.

Beginning in August 2020, state law (AB 3088, SB 91 and AB 832) extended just cause evictions to all properties and prevented termination of tenancy based on the intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the residential real property unless to comply with California Health and Safety Code.

Through spring 2022, property owners are required to take steps in compliance with state law to demonstrate that they have made a good faith effort to seek rental assistance for a tenant or that they worked with a tenant who is seeking relief before seeking the termination of residential tenancy.

Before the City considers new bureaucracy and unwieldy programs, LBDS staff should first look to disburse the $40 million in available LB-ERAP funding to those tenants attesting that they could not pay rent due to COVID and subsequently explore how ORD-20-0007 might be effectively implemented going forward.

Respectfully,
Elaine Hutchison, Interim President
Apartment Association Southern Cities (AACSC)
Fred Sutton, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs California Apartment Association (CAA)
Jeremy Harris, President and CEO
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (The Chamber)
Phil Hawkins, Chief Executive Officer
Pacific West Association of REAL TORS® (PWR)
Keith Kennedy, President
Small Property Owners Association (SPOA)
4 From: John Edmond <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:43 PM
To: Kayte Deioma <[email protected]>; Patrick Ure <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; jessica-centrocha <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; e [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Christopher Koontz <[email protected]>; Meggan Sorensen <[email protected]>; Alem Hagos <[email protected]>; Richard Anthony <[email protected]>; Tom Modica <[email protected]>; Linda Tatum <[email protected]>; Robert Garcia <[email protected]>; Mary Zendejas <[email protected]>; Cindy Allen <[email protected]>; Suzie Price <[email protected]>; Daryl Supernaw <[email protected]>; Stacy Mungo <[email protected]>; Suely Saro <[email protected]>; Roberto Uranga <[email protected]>; Al Austin <[email protected]>; Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Mayor <[email protected]>; Council District 1 <[email protected]>; Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Council District 3 <[email protected]>; Council District 4 <[email protected]>; Council District 5 <[email protected]>; Council District 6 <[email protected]>; Council District 7 <[email protected]>; Council District 8 <[email protected]>; Council District 9 <[email protected]>; Diana Tang <[email protected]>; Ray Morquecho <[email protected]>; Connor Lock <[email protected]>; Jack Cunningham <[email protected]>; Barbara Moore <[email protected]>; Summer Smith <[email protected]>; Chork Nim <[email protected]>; Celina Luna <[email protected]>; Jonathan Kraus <[email protected]> Cc: Christopher Koontz <[email protected]>; Wendy Nowak <[email protected]>; 'Alexsundra Captan' <[email protected]>; Alem Hagos <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: in search of a common understanding of the problem -EXTERNAL-
Hi Housing Advocates, Owners and City Staff,
Hi Kayte, we have mutual friends and I welcome grabbing some coffee to discuss this more with you.

After watching the Property Owners and Managers Stakeholder meeting, I wanted to attempt to reframe the problem we're addressing in a way that makes sense to everyone so we're trying to solve the same set of problems, because it seems we're communicating at cross-purposes.

CONTEXT
The issue pre-dates that pandemic and the eviction moratoriums and has nothing to do with the specific limitations of the last 2 years. We have been talking to City Council (and County and State reps) about this issue ever since AB 1482 went into effect, and before. At its basis, here are the issues and context.

1. Long Beach has an affordable housing shortage. Rent under $1000/month for a 1-bedroom apartment on the market is virtually unheard of. Average is $1900.

Long beach has a housing crisis. There is not enough housing being built and the city needs to look inward for solutions to make it easier to build more housing at all levels of income. There is not enough housing for all income groups. This is creating downward pressure on affordable housing. Supply is not keeping up with demand. Is $1000 / month for a one bedroom a marker of affordability? In that case, the entire state of California and the entire West Coast is above the affordability marker.

2. Older properties with long-term tenants have lower rents, and may also be in most need of repair (sometimes not).

We have an aging property base with aging property owners. As new property owners buy old assets, they want to make improvements and might need to cancel leases to make that happen. There is no evidence of an overwhelming speculative market that would displace large groups of tenants than what would be in a normal market. Most property owners do everything they can to keep tenants that pay rent.

3. Every low rent tenant displaced for substantial remodel removes an affordable unit from the market, and sends that person or family into a marketplace they may not be able to afford, putting low income families and individuals at risk of homelessness.

We see no evidence to support the claim that low rent tenants are being displaced for substantial remodels.

4. Older buildings with low rents are being targeted by investment companies who know they can kick everyone out for substantial remodel and double the rents.

We see no evidence of this happening in long beach at an any scale. We are open to exploring measures to applying to publicly traded companies (Blackstone Group Inc. BX NYSE) and pension funds that are purchasing buildings and evicting families on a wide-scale basis. That being said, there should be no law against individuals, small companies or large corporations buying any amount of property. We hope the City will work towards helping families buy a home in their neighborhood and close to their preferred schools.

5. Data: From December 2019 through March 2020, over 100 families in a dozen apartment complexes received 60-day notices to terminate tenancy for substantial remodel (I have addresses, real data, real people, 48 units in my complex alone). The ones who could afford to move, did. Dozens, who couldn't afford to move, have been temporarily protected by the eviction moratoriums, and are still fighting to be able to stay in their homes, schools and neighborhoods. Ask the Council members who have spent hours listening to tenants address this issue at Council meetings if there have been "no complaints." Please share your data with us so that we can have a better understanding of the problem. If there was property owner who did send 60-day notices to terminate tenancy for substantial remodel during the time they were prevented from doing so we would welcome all the legal remedies available to you and any tenant. If it was done at a time that it was legal, then the tenants should have received tenant relocation money. We are open to understanding the full extent of this issue but see no evidence that it is a routine problem before the pandemic or expect it to occur when things normalize. Today we have a healthy 4% vacancy rate in Long Beach.

6. Although there are a few bad actors (owners and managers) who don't do necessary repairs or owners who claim a remodel is substantial when it's not, they are NOT the ones being addressed here. This is about using substantial remodeling to eliminate affordable housing with no viable replacement housing available.

Several years ago, Tenant groups said property owners where not doing enough to make repairs, upgrades and make properties more habitable. Now you are asking for the city to make it very difficult to make improvements on the property.

7. I don't have documentation of how many apartment buildings have been sold in Long Beach in the last 2 years that would be eligible to evict everyone for substantial remodel if there's no protection in place when the moratorium expires, but one of you in real estate might be able to look that up to estimate how many more buildings are at imminent risk. A new owner is not a guarantee that the building would be substantially remodeled and the rent doubled if permitted, but there is a strong likelihood.

If a property owner cannot receive a return on their investment, they will not make improvements.

8. The URGENCY is that when the temporary moratoriums expire, more real people are at risk of immediately receiving 60-day notices for all the projects that have been held off due to the temporary moratoriums.

We see no evidence of this at all. We did not see it before the pandemic, during and see no evidence of it happening in the future.

THE PROBLEMS TO SOLVE
In my view, the problems we are trying to solve are: how can we

1. Keep people in their homes (or provide equivalent housing (size, location, quality) at the same rent)
This is a statement rather than identifying a problem. No tenant will be evicted from their rented apartment if they pay rent and/or if they applied for rental assistance.

2. Prevent the loss of affordable units in Long Beach
We would advocate for creating more affordable housing units by making it easier to build more housing.

3. Allow owners to provide necessary upgrades to old housing stock without going broke or displacing tenants.

Property owners are already making improvements without displacing tenants. There are times when the remodel is substantial, and the property owner can cancel the lease but has to give appropriate notice and pay relocation funds. This property right is necessary in certain cases.

4. Discourage over-paying for apartment buildings by corporations seeking to double the rents and incentivize investment by non-profit affordable housing developers and local landlords who care about the community.

We would be interested in seeing what the distinction would be from property owners and publicly traded companies. We have not seen locally this happening but understand that it could be a concern.

SOLUTIONS WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED
While protecting tenants who are most vulnerable is the priority, and I think a THP/RAP program would best do that, there are other things that might be discussed to balance out what landlords might be giving up, such as:

1. Potential grants for repairs for small owners who can't afford the repairs without raising rent We welcome this happening, and it would be helpful. Small property owners have had a hard time not receiving rents and have whipped out retirement and savings. It will take many years to recoup their losses, and this might help improve property and keep small property owners owning the local properties.

2. Potential "split the difference" property tax breaks for new owners who maintain existing rents in affordable buildings so they would pay more than the previous owner, but less than the new rate based on purchase price (County would have to do that) We would have to understand this more.

3. Finding funds to qualify more properties for tax credit or Section 8 Many small property owners do and would like to accept Section 8. It can be difficult filling out the paperwork and making the improvements needed to qualify. We welcome this discussion as well.

I appreciate the majority of landlords in Long Beach who try to be fair to tenants and provide reliable housing. Thank you for acknowledging most property owners are fair to tenants. Most tenants are great as well. Mike Murchison said that it's unnecessary to create a law that protects only the 1 or 2% of tenants affected, but I would argue that the good property owners who aren't trying to exploit the substantial remodel exemption to raise the rent on low rent units to market rate have nothing to be concerned about under a new ordinance. I can't speak for Mike Murchison, however I would say that if true that over 100 families where given notice when they should not have there are legal remedies for the tenants. If it was done legally there should be renter assistance and proper notice. Most property owners work with their tenants this issue does not require sweeping legislation that will negatively impact property owners and tenants. So there should be no barrier to putting a new program in place that would require landlords to give tenants the option of temporarily relocating and coming back under the same rent terms. It's only the handful of "bad actors" who should be concerned that their plans will be thwarted.

A substantial investment should allow an owner to recover their investment over time.

Giving the tenants the option to temporary relocate and come back on same rent does not give owners a fair incentive for a substantial remodel. Owners can't charge rents greater than the market, or the law will allow. (AB1482)
Just my 2 cents (and a few dollars more)
From: Kayte Deioma <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:33 PM
To: Patrick Ure <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; jessica-centrocha <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; e [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Christopher Koontz <[email protected]>; Wendy Nowak <[email protected]>; 'Alexsundra Captan' <[email protected]>; Alem Hagos <[email protected]>
Subject: in search of a common understanding of the problem -EXTERNAL-
Hi Housing Advocates, Owners and City Staff,
After watching the Property Owners and Managers Stakeholder meeting, I wanted to attempt to reframe the problem we're addressing in a way that makes sense to everyone so we're trying to solve the same set of problems, because it seems we're communicating at cross-purposes.

CONTEXT
The issue pre-dates that pandemic and the eviction moratoriums and has nothing to do with the specific limitations of the last 2 years. We have been talking to City Council (and County and State reps) about this issue ever since AB 1482 went into effect, and before. At its basis, here are the issues and context.

1. Long Beach has an affordable housing shortage. Rent under $1000/month for a 1-bedroom apartment on the market is virtually unheard of. Average is $1900.

2. Older properties with long-term tenants have lower rents, and may also be in most need of repair (sometimes not).

3. Every low rent tenant displaced for substantial remodel removes an affordable unit from the market, and sends that person or family into a marketplace they may not be able to afford, putting low income families and individuals at risk of homelessness.

4. Older buildings with low rents are being targeted by investment companies who know they can kick everyone out for substantial remodel and double the rents.

5. Data: From December 2019 through March 2020, over 100 families in a dozen apartment complexes received 60-day notices to terminate tenancy for substantial remodel (I have addresses, real data, real people, 48 units in my complex alone). The ones who could afford to move, did. Dozens, who couldn't afford to move, have been temporarily protected by the eviction moratoriums, and are still fighting to be able to stay in their homes, schools and neighborhoods. Ask the Council members who have spent hours listening to tenants address this issue at Council meetings if there have been "no complaints."

6. Although there are a few bad actors (owners and managers) who don't do necessary repairs or owners who claim a remodel is substantial when it's not, they are NOT the ones being addressed here. This is about using substantial remodeling to eliminate affordable housing with no viable replacement housing available.

7. I don't have documentation of how many apartment buildings have been sold in Long Beach in the last 2 years that would be eligible to evict everyone for substantial remodel if there's no protection in place when the moratorium expires, but one of you in real estate might be able to look that up to estimate how many more buildings are at imminent risk. A new owner is not a guarantee that the building would be substantially remodeled and the rent doubled if permitted, but there is a strong likelihood.

8. The URGENCY is that when the temporary moratoriums expire, more real people are at risk of immediately receiving 60-day notices for all the projects that have been held off due to the temporary moratoriums.

THE PROBLEMS TO SOLVE
In my view, the problems we are trying to solve are: how can we

1. Keep people in their homes (or provide equivalent housing (size, location, quality) at the same rent)

2. Prevent the loss of affordable units in Long Beach

3. Allow owners to provide necessary upgrades to old housing stock without going broke or displacing tenants.

4. Discourage over-paying for apartment buildings by corporations seeking to double the rents, and incentivize investment by non-profit affordable housing developers and local landlords who care about the community.

SOLUTIONS WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED
While protecting tenants who are most vulnerable is the priority, and I think a THP/RAP program would best do that, there are other things that might be discussed to balance out what landlords might be giving up, such as:

1. Potential grants for repairs for small owners who can't afford the repairs without raising rent

2. Potential "split the difference" property tax breaks for new owners who maintain existing rents in affordable buildings so they would pay more than the previous owner, but less than the new rate based on purchase price (County would have to do that)

3. Finding funds to qualify more properties for tax credit or Section 8 I appreciate the majority of landlords in Long Beach who try to be fair to tenants and provide reliable housing. Mike Murchison said that it's unnecessary to create a law that protects only the 1 or 2% of tenants affected, but I would argue that the good property owners who aren't trying to exploit the substantial remodel exemption to raise the rent on low rent units to market rate have nothing to be concerned about under a new ordinance. So there should be no barrier to putting a new program in place that would require landlords to give tenants the option of temporarily relocating and coming back under the same rent terms. It's only the handful of "bad actors" who should be concerned that their plans will be thwarted.

Just my 2 cents (and a few dollars more)
Kayte
Kayte Deioma
(562) 209-3001
From: Kayte Deioma <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:02 PM
To: 'John Edmond' <[email protected]>; Patrick Ure <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; jessica-centrocha <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; e [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Christopher Koontz <[email protected]>; Meggan Sorensen <[email protected]>; Alem Hagos <[email protected]>; Richard Anthony <[email protected]>; Tom Modica <[email protected]>; Linda Tatum <[email protected]>; Robert Garcia <[email protected]>; Mary Zendejas <[email protected]>; Cindy Allen <[email protected]>; Suzie Price <[email protected]>; Daryl Supernaw <[email protected]>; Stacy Mungo <[email protected]>; Suely Saro <[email protected]>; Roberto Uranga <[email protected]>; Al Austin <[email protected]>; Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Mayor <[email protected]>; Council District 1 <[email protected]>; Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Council District 3 <[email protected]>; Council District 4 <[email protected]>; Council District 5 <[email protected]>; Council District 6 <[email protected]>; Council District 7 <[email protected]>; Council District 8 <[email protected]>; Council District 9 <[email protected]>; Diana Tang <[email protected]>; Ray Morquecho <[email protected]>; Connor Lock <[email protected]>; Jack Cunningham <[email protected]>; Barbara Moore <[email protected]>; Summer Smith <[email protected]>; Chork Nim <[email protected]>; Celina Luna <[email protected]>; Jonathan Kraus <[email protected]> Cc: Christopher Koontz <[email protected]>; Wendy Nowak <[email protected]>; 'Alexsundra Captan' <[email protected]>; Alem Hagos <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: in search of a common understanding of the problem -EXTERNAL-
Hi John and team,
Please stop saying there's no evidence just because you weren't at the meetings when 30 to 40 different tenants have showed up at City Council meetings multiple times to share our stories of being evicted for substantial remodel. It takes a lot of fortitude to speak up at a council meeting, so there are a lot more people who quietly sent emails or just sucked it up and moved.

The complex I live in has two buildings originally totaling 48 units. My landlady of 30 years sold the building in August of 2019 to a capital investment company out of Santa Monica whose website's clearly states their mission is to maximize profits for investors, not to provide housing. On January 6, 2020, we all received 60-day notices for substantial remodel from the new property management company. A quick search revealed that this property management company and its clients have a history of paying top dollar for lower rent buildings in nice neighborhoods, evicting all the tenants for remodel, doubling the rents and flipping the building within 5 years. Yelp reviews and research by real estate agent friends agreed.

The initial 60-day notice was withdrawn when the City enacted the ordinance requiring that permits be attached, but we received a 2nd 60 day notice on 9/23/2020 during the moratorium, which was withdrawn when we challenged it based on the moratorium, and a 3rd notice 12/1/2020, which was again withdrawn when challenged based on the moratorium. There is no doubt that my neighbors and I are at risk of receiving another 60-day notice to terminate tenancy if it is legal for them to do so.

In this research and working with tenant rights groups and being contacted through Nextdoor, I have met or spoken to tenants of several other buildings managed by the same company, some of which have received even greater pressure and more abuse from the management company because the owner of the management company also owns the building and doesn't have to answer to other owners. A couple of those buildings are now totally converted and everyone has moved out, but at least 3 still have original tenants fighting to stay in their homes. This property management company does not act any better to new tenants paying double the rent than original tenants. They fail to do necessary repairs in a timely manner and ignored security concerns - like a broken front door lock and garage break in - until new tenants went over their head to the owner. So in addition to predatory gentrification, the property management company is a "bad actor" as far as not providing good property management.

I mentioned to Daryl Supernaw two buildings in the 4th District that used to provide affordable student housing that have been taken over by this company and are no longer affordable. He said he had tried to convince the owners not to sell the building and even prioritized paving that street as an incentive for them not to sell, but he said even though they weren't looking to sell in the first place, the offer was too good to refuse. I would call that targeting.

I am not naming names in this public forum and putting myself at further risk, but there is another property management company that specifically targets the lowest rent properties in low income neighborhoods and has a long history of being abusive to tenants and failing to do repairs in an effort to get tenants out and increase rents. They represent buildings all over Southern California, not just Long Beach. Three properties they manage on Daisy, Orange and 64th Street are all under eviction notice and at least one has had eviction processes move forward despite the moratorium, although they haven't received a court date, and likely would not prevail under current law. They are mostly occupied by immigrant families with children, so they are easy targets, but they are learning their rights and fighting back. Some of these tenants do pay less than $1000/month for their poorly maintained apartments because they've been there a long time, and my point was that there is nowhere for them to find a replacement apartment at that rate.

In total, I have 19 building addresses of 2 to 27 units each (I just counted) that have been confirmed with the City permit office, including the two buildings in my complex, representing well over 100 units that are in the middle of this substantial remodel issue. The remaining original tenants in those buildings are all in immediate danger of losing our homes when the temporary moratorium ends if something else doesn't take its place.

So please stop telling me there's no evidence. We are the evidence.

Kayte
Kayte Deioma
(562) 209-3001

CITY OF LONG BEACH

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
333 West Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-5237 April 2, 2019

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the 2018 Report on Tenant Assistance Policies; -19
Direct the City Attorney to prepare a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance implementing Recommendation One, utilizing the Baseline Relocation Assistance Components and Applicability Requirement Option Two; and, Direct the City Manager to take the necessary steps to implement Recommendations Two through Five, as presented. (Citywide)

DISCUSSION
On January 16, 2018, the City Council requested the City Manager to present research and findings on potential policies to support tenants, protections for senior renters, rental assistance programs, and support for renters to move into homeownership. Policy considerations were to include: (1) a "Seniors First" policy to ensure that vulnerable seniors receive priority in rental assistance and relocation assistance; (2) options for new and/or expanded rental assistance and relocation programs; (3) tenant support policies in other cities; (4) input from local housing and property owner organizations, including a "meeting of the minds" between the groups; (5) resources and enforcement tools to pursue negligent landlords (persistent code violators); and, (6) options for maintaining restrictive covenants in place (affordable housing preservation). The City Council also asked for a report on citywide rental rates.

In response, staff initiated a significant research and stakeholder engagement effort, the results of which are contained in the attached Report on Tenant Assistance Policies dated March 2019 (Report), which was transmitted to the City Council on March 18, 2019 (Attachment A).

The Report contains basic information on California law that governs tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, as well as existing Long Beach tenant assistance policies including the Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program (PRHIP), condominium conversion requirements, code enforcement tenant relocation assistance, maintenance of low-income housing in the Coastal Zone, and the LBCIC Local Housing Preference Policy.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 2, 2019

A survey of 115 various jurisdictions in California and several other states in the country is included in the Report. A total of 63 jurisdictions offered tenant assistance policies that include some form of tenant assistance above what is required by California State law. The most common policy, aside from a multifamily housing inspection program, is some form of tenant relocation assistance, which was adopted by 20 out of the 115 jurisdictions. There were 52 jurisdictions that had not adopted any additional tenant assistance policies. A chart .summarizing the various types of tenant assistance among the cities surveyed is below.

Summary of Tenant Assistance Policies Among 115 Cities Surveyed-

TENANT ASSISTANCE POLICIES
Number of Cities in Study with Adopted Policy (Out of 115) No Additional Tenant Protections
Proactive Unit Inspection Program
Tenant Relocation Assistance
Just Cause for Termination ofTenanc.y
Anti-Retaliation Policy
Tenant-Based Senior Rental Assistance
Senior-Only Relocation Assistance
Enhanced Notice Provisions
Source of Income Anti-Discrimination
Right to Counsel, Legal Assistance, or Mediation
Right of Rrst Refusal I 1
2 2
3 5
5 10
20 18
28 *Survey consisted of 106 cities in CA: 100 largest and 6 smaller jurisdictions: 8 cities and 1 state outside of CA. 52 For comparison purposes, staff also prepared an overview of the relocation assistance policies adopted by the ten largest cities in California (Attachment B). These cities can be broadly grouped into three categories: those who have not adopted local relocation programs (Anaheim, Bakersfield, Sacramento, and San Diego); those who have codified state requirements for relocation assistance, typically in the case of a Notice to Vacate as a result of a code enforcement action (Fresno and Long Beach); and, those cities that have expanded relocation assistance requirements, typically tied to a rent stabilization program (Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose).

The Report also analyzed housing stock and market data in the City and observed an upward trend in the sales of existing apartment buildings and the number of building rehabilitations.

The Report also indicated an increase in mean rents citywide, and a slight reduction in the citywide vacancy rate.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 2, 2019

Included in the Report is information on the additional funding for prosecution of code enforcement cases approved by the City Council as part of the FY 19 budget adoption process, and an update to research on increased pathways to homeownership for lower income households, which were requested by the City Council on February 6, 2018. A more detailed report on homebuyer assistance programs will be provided to the City Council at a later date.

To assist with the stakeholder engagement process, the City contracted with PlaceWorks, Inc., a local planning firm. The following groups participated in the stakeholder engagement process:
• Apartment Association, California Southern Cities
• Better Housing for Long Beach
• California Apartment Association
• Centro CHA, Inc.
• Housing Long Beach
• Legal Aid Foundation
• Long Beach City College
• Long Beach Community Action Partnership
• Long Beach Forward
• Long Beach Gray Panthers
• Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization
• Long Beach Residents Empowered (LiBRE)
• Minority Property Owners Association
• Small Property Owners Alliance of Southern California • United Cambodian Community
Two three-hour focus group meetings were initially held, one for tenant advocates on August 14, 2018, and another for property owner advocates on August 29, 2018. Based on input provided at these two meetings, some policy priorities and areas of common ground were established. Both groups indicated a desire to keep and protect good tenants.

The third and fourth focus group meetings, held on September 26, 2018 and October 9, 2018, respectively, are referred to as "Meetings of the Minds," as they brought representatives from both owner and tenant interests together. During the third meeting, participants were asked to focus on housing issues specific to Long Beach, seek a balance between tenant assistance and property owner investments, and consider unintended consequences of potential policies.

Participants from both advocacy groups explored ideas to help keep quality tenants in Long Beach, and the conversation began to focus toward developing a tenant relocation assistance policy. The fourth meeting focused on the details of what a policy would include. Although there was some agreement that a relocation policy would be helpful, there were differences of opinion on the scope of the policy in terms of types of rental properties subject to the policy, eligibility of a tenant for relocation assistance, and the amount of required relocation assistance.

A detailed narrative on the stakeholder meetings and comments from the stakeholder groups are included in the Report.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 2, 2019

Everyone Home Long Beach
On May 21, 2018, the City launched the Everyone Home Long Beach (EHLB) Initiative to address housing and homelessness in Long Beach and convened the EHLB Taskforce (Taskforce) comprised of a diverse group of Long Beach leaders appointed by Mayor Robert Garcia, and chaired by California State University, Long Beach President Jane Conoley.

Designed to build on the City's comprehensive homeless services and affordable housing efforts already underway, EHLB created innovative approaches to provide new pathways into housing and prevent residents from falling into homelessness.

The Taskforce held five meetings between the months of June and November 2018, and prepared the EHLB Recommendations (Attachment E), which includes 41 policy recommendations that were presented to, and received by, the City Council on December 11, 2018. Included among those policy recommendations is Recommendation 3a to support and implement tenant assistance policies that include:
• A Tenant Relocation Assistance Policy that provides relocation assistance to households impacted by rising rents and displacement.
• Rapid rehousing security deposit assistance for displaced very low-income seniors. • Setting aside Housing Choice Vouchers for displaced extremely low- and very low­ income seniors.
• Establishing a communication framework with HUD, affordable apartment owners with expiring covenants or rental assistance contracts, and residents to improve and increase housing preservation opportunities.
• Support to increase the State's noticing requirements for a no-fault termination of tenancy to a minimum of 90 days.

Tenant Relocation Assistance Policy Recommendations
Based on the research and data contained within the Report as well as input from stakeholder groups and the EHLB Recommendations, staff recommends that the City Council adopt five tenant assistance policies. The baseline policy recommendation is to require owners of multi­ family rental apartment buildings to pay relocation assistance to qualified displaced households. Four additional policy recommendations do not impose additional requirements on property owners, but provide tenant assistance through City-funded programs or initiatives.

Staff sought to craft policies that assist tenants without being overly complex or onerous on property owners. Below are the baseline components of a potential Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance followed by options for the amount of the relocation benefits, the type of rental properties that would be affected, and the type of household that would be eligible for assistance (Applicability Requirements). This information is also provided in the attached Relocation Options Matrix for ease of comparison (Attachment C).

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 2, 2019

Baseline Relocation Assistance Components
Component 1. Trigger for Relocation Assistance:

Relocation assistance is triggered upon A or B below:

A. Notice of rent increase of 10 percent or more in any 12-month period.

B. Notice to vacate issued to a tenant who has not:

1. Failed to pay rent

2. Violated terms of the lease or rental agreement

3. Materially damaged property

4. Interfered with other tenants

5. Committed violence or assault

6. Used premises for unlawful activity

7. Engaged in unlawful use or dealing of drugs

8. Conducted animal fighting

9. Engaged in unlawful use of weapons or ammunition
Component 2. Conditions of Relocation Assistance:
• Rent must be paid during noticing period or relocation benefits are not required. • Households removed under provisions 1 through 9, or evicted, are not eligible for relocation benefits.
• Tenants vacating voluntarily do not receive relocation benefits. • Tenants receiving a rent increase of 1 O percent or more must notify property owner within 7 days of their intent to stay or leave with relocation benefits. • Rental security deposits must be returned per California law. • Tenants must be given reasonable accommodation to cure causes for termination per California law.

Other requirements/enforcement provisions of Relocation Assistance Ordinance:
• Owners must include relocation information in lease and rental agreements. • Owners-must report relocation payments to the City.
• Owners must notify the City when an entire building is being vacated. • Relocation benefits will be paid to the household, not to each individual occupant. • Affordable rent-restricted properties are exempt.
• Enforcement will include a "Private Right of Action," and breach of local law as an "Affirmative Defense to an Unlawful Detainer."

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 2, 2019

In addition to the Baseline Relocation Assistance Components described above, the following three Applicability Requirement Options provide further detail on implementation of relocation assistance and include consideration of the amount of the relocation benefits, the type of rental properties that would be affected, and the type of household that would be eligible for assistance. The options are provided for consideration, should the City Council choose to modify staff's recommendations, and the varying criteria could be combined in several different ways to create a proposed Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance.

Applicability Requirement Options:

Option One
In addition to the Baseline Relocation Assistance Components, the relocation amount would be $4,500 for all unit types, based on provisions of LBMC 21.60, plus an additional $2,000 for senior and disabled households and an additional $1,000 for moving expenses. This option would apply to all rental properties with two or more rental units (duplex and above). All applicable households would be eligible for relocation assistance regardless of income.

Option Two (Recommended)
In addition to the Baseline Relocation Assistance Components, the relocation amount would be equal to two months' rent based on the current Housing Authority Rent Payment Standards (Attachment D) for a similar unit size in the same ZIP code. This option would apply to all units in multi-family rental properties with four or more units. Only lower- and moderate-income households earning 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and below would be eligible for relocation assistance (moderate-income and below).

Option Three
In addition to the Baseline Relocation Assistance Components, the relocation amount would be $4,500 for all properties and households. This option would apply to all multi-family rental properties with ten units or more. Only lower-income households earning up to 80 percent of the AMI would be eligible for relocation assistance (low-income and below).

Following are the five policy recommendations for the City Council's consideration:

Recommendation One
Prepare a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance that requires owners of multi-family rental apartment buildings to pay relocation assistance to qualified displaced households. This recommendation includes the Baseline Relocation Assistance Components described above combined with Option Two Applicability Requirements.

Recommendation Two
Create a "Seniors First" security deposit assistance program for displaced very low-income senior residents (The City will use HOME funds to provide security deposit assistance to qualified senior households aged 62 and above).

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 2, 2019

Recommendation Three
Create a set-aside of up to 25 Emergency Housing Choice Vouchers for displaced extremely low- and very-low income senior residents.

Recommendation Four
Establish a communication framework with the HUD Public Housing Office and area Section 202 (affordable elderly housing) and Section 811 (housing for persons with disabilities) providers to discuss rehabilitation and covenant preservation opportunities.

Recommendation Five
Include a recommendation in the City's State Legislative Agenda to support an increase to the State's noticing requirement for a no-fault termination of tenancy to a minimum of 90 days.

This matter was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Richard F. Anthony and by Budget Analysis Officer Julissa Jose-Murray on March 25, 2019.

TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
City Council action is requested on April 2, 2019.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost to develop the Report was approximately $130,000, of which $90,000 was for staff costs and $40,000 for consultant services and other costs associated with stakeholder meetings and production of the Report. Funding was provided by the Housing Development Fund (SR 135) in the Development Services Department (DV). The Report is a document that provides options for preventing and mitigating impacts of tenant displacement through various programs to be developed and considered by the City Council under separate actions. The fiscal impact of programs that result from this Report will be determined when future actions are recommended to the City Council. There is no local job impact associated with this recommendation.

Under the currently proposed model, this program would require little administration from City staff, and would be administered by landlords with their tenants in accordance with requirements outlined in the Long Beach Municipal Code.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 2, 2019

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Approve recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,
duiaev j Jci,/um
LINDA F. TATUM, AICP

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
LFT:PU:AH:ac:kb
•
APPROVED:

TRICK H. WEST

ITY MANAGER
R:\CITY COUNCIL\2019 COUNCIL LETTERS\DS - TENANT ASSISTANCE POLICY V12 (FINAL AS OF 3.22.2019).DOCX Attachments: Attachment A - TFF dated March 18, 2019 and Report on Tenant Assistance Policies Attachment B - Relocation Assistance Policies -Ten Largest California Cities Attachment C - Relocation Options Matrix
Attachment D - Housing Authority Rent Payment Standards Attachment E - Everyone Home Long Beach Recommendations Date:

To:

From:

For:

Subject:

City of long Beach Memorandum
Working Together to Serve
March 18, 2019
fatrick H. West, City ManagerJ.rllL-
Linda F. Tatum, FAICP, Director of Development Services� Mayor and Members of the City Council
Report on Tenant Assistance Policies
At its January 16, 2018 meeting, the City Council requested the City Manager to present research and findings on potential policies to support tenants, protections for senior renters, rental assistance programs, and support for renters to move into homeownership. Policy considerations were to include: (1) a "Seniors First" policy to ensure that vulnerable seniors receive priority in rental assistance and relocation assistance; (2) options for new and/or expanded rental assistance and relocation programs; (3) tenant support policies in other cities; (4) input from local housing and property owner organizations, including a "meeting of the minds" between the groups; (5) resources and enforcement tools to pursue negligent landlords (persistent code violators); and, (6) options for maintaining restrictive covenants in place (affordable housing preservation). The City Council also asked for a report on citywide rental rates.

In response, staff initiated a significant research and stakeholder engagement effort, the results of which are contained in the attached Report on Tenant Assistance Policies dated March 2019 (Report) (Attachment A). The Report is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the City Council on April 2, 2019, and its content is summarized below.

The Report contains basic information on California law that governs tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, as well as existing Long Beach tenant assistance policies including the Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program (PRHIP), condominium conversion requirements, code enforcement tenant relocation assistance, maintenance of low-income housing in the Coastal Zone, and the LBCIC Local Housing Preference Policy.

A survey of 115 various jurisdictions in California and several other states in the country is included in the Report. Of those who responded to the survey, 52 did not have any form of tenant protection policy above what is required by California state law, while the rest of the jurisdictions have tenant protection policies in various degrees. Of the 63 jurisdictions with tenant protection policies, the most common policy, aside from a multifamily unit inspection program, is some form of tenant relocation assistance, which was adopted by 20 out of the 115 jurisdictions.

For comparison purposes, staff also prepared an overview of the relocation assistance policies adopted by the ten largest cities in California (Attachment B). These cities can be broadly grouped into three categories: those who have not adopted local relocation programs (Anaheim, Bakersfield, Sacramento, and San Diego); those who have codified state

ATTACHMENT A
Tenant Assistance Report
March 18, 2019

requirements for relocation assistance, typically in the case of a Notice to Vacate as a result of a code enforcement action (Fresno and Long Beach); and, those cities that have expanded relocation assistance requirements, typically tied to a rent stabilization program (Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose).

The Report also analyzed housing stock and market data in the City and observed an upward trend in the sales of existing apartment buildings and the number of building rehabilitations, although this activity is occurring in a relatively small percentage of the overall multifamily housing stock. The report also indicated an increase in mean rents citywide, and a slight reduction in the citywide vacancy rate.

Included in the Report is information on additional code enforcement funding approved by the City Council as part of the FY 19 budget adoption process, and an update to research on increased pathways to homeownership for lower income households, which were requested by the City Council on February 6, 2018. A more detailed report on homebuyer programs will be provided to the City Council at a later date.

The Report presents the feedback from the four stakeholder engagement meetings staff conducted with tenant and property owner stakeholders. Two three-hour focus group meetings were initially held, one for tenant advocates on August 14, 2018, and another for property owner advocates on August 29, 2018. The third and fourth focus group meetings, held on September 26, 2018 and October 9, 2018 respectively, included both stakeholder groups.

As previously mentioned, City staff will bring an agenda item to the April 2, 2019 City Council meeting to discuss the Report. Additionally, based on all the research and outreach conducted, for the April 2nd meeting staff will outline several recommendations for the City Council to consider, including tenant relocation assistance, and several other recommendations that do not impose additional requirements on property owners but provide tenant assistance through City-funded programs or policy initiatives. The recommended tenant relocation assistance policy will include multiple options for consideration so as to provide information and a range of possibilities to craft a potential tenant relocation assistance policy.

If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Patrick Ure, Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau Manager, at [email protected] or (562) 570-6026.

LFT:PU:MJ:

R:\TO-FRQM-FOR MEM0S\2019I19-0313 DRAFT TENANT ASSISTANCE REPORT TFF _V3.00CX

ATTACHMENTS
A. REPORT ON TENANT ASSISTANCE POLICIES

8. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICIES OF THE 10 LARGEST CALIFORNIA CITIES CC: CHARLES PARKIN, CITY ATTORNEY
LAURA L. DOUD, CITY AUDITOR

TOM MODICA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

KEVIN JACKSON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER

REBECCA GARNER, ADMINISTRATIVE DEPUTY TO THE CITY MANAGER

PATRICK URE, HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES BUREAU MANAGER MONIQUE DE LA GARZA, CITY CLERK (REF. FILE #18-0096)
REPORT

ON TENANT

ASSISTANCE

POLICIES
march 2019

ATTACHMENT A
TABLE OF CONTENTS |i
(This page intentionally left blank.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS |i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... I I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF PROCESS & ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS .......................................................................1 II. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................3 EXISTING TENANT PROTECTION POLICIES ...........................................................................................3 EXISTING RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ..................................................................................... 13 SENIOR RENTER HOUSEHOLD ISSUES AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ................................................. 17 HOUSING PRESERVATION PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 20 HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................... 22 SURVEY OF EXISTING TENANT AND SENIOR PROTECTION POLICIES ................................................... 23 HOUSING STOCK & MARKET BACKGROUND DATA .......................................................................... 39 CITYWIDE RENTAL RATES ................................................................................................................ 43 III. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS ............................................................... 45 TENANT ADVOCATES FOCUS GROUP MEETING – AUGUST 14, 2018 ................................................ 46 OWNER ADVOCATES FOCUS GROUP MEETING – AUGUST 29, 2018 ................................................ 47 MEETING OF THE MINDS #1 – BOTH ADVOCACY GROUPS – SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 .......................... 48 MEETING OF THE MINDS #2 – BOTH ADVOCACY GROUPS – OCTOBER 9, 2018 ............................... 51 IV. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS........................................................................................ 55 V. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 1 APPENDIX A – SURVEY & RESULTS .............................................................................................2 APPENDIX B – HOUSING AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2019 PAYMENT STANDARDS ...............4 APPENDIX C – HCV INCENTIVES REPORT, JUNE 30, 2017 .........................................................5 APPENDIX D – LONG BEACH CENTER FOR HEALTHY AGING GAP ANALYSIS ........................6 APPENDIX E – RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICIES .................................................................7 APPENDIX F – REPORT ON CITYWIDE RENTAL RATES ........................................................... 16 APPENDIX G – STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS ..................................................................... 17 APPENDIX H – STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ........................................................................... 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS |ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Page 1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 16, 2018, the City Council directed staff to conduct research and present findings on the following items related to residential rental housing:
• Policies that support tenants
• Protections for senior renters
• Expanded rental assistance and relocation programs
• Support for renters to move into homeownership
• A seniors-first program with priority in rental assistance programs • Policies that support tenants adopted in other cities • Preservation of affordability covenants
• Added resources for code enforcement
• Stakeholder engagement
• Report on citywide rental rates
Summary of Process & Analysis
In response to these requests, Staff took the f ollowing steps to develop informed policy recommendations to address these issues.
• Compiled background information on Federal, State, and local laws regulating tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities;
• Compiled background information on existing Lo ng Beach policies and programs that assist renter households, including assistance for seniors; • Surveyed 115 cities nationwide and compiled a summary of key tenant assistance policies;
• Assembled information on the City’s housing preservation efforts; • Compiled data on the local rental market, including a breakdown of building type, recent trends in rental housing ownership, and building permit trends; • Conducted four stakeholder focus group meetings with tenant and apartment owner advocacy organizations, inc luding two “Meeting of the Minds” events intended to provide combined stakeholder input on potential new policy recommendations; and,
• Prepared a Report on Tenant Assistance Policies (Report).

Summary of Stakeholder Participation Process
City Council directed staff to conduct a “Meeting of the Minds” with property owner and tenant stakeholder groups. Staff conducted a series of four stakeholder focus group meetings, intended to build consensus between property owner and tenant groups around potential tenant protection and assistance policies as well as gather input relating to opportunities and concerns around tenant assistance policies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Page 2
Stakeholders presented a diverse range of concerns and perspectives on certain housing issues. Staff and the consultant t eam from PlaceWorks recorded and synthesized the input received during these four meetings and incorporated them into the Report.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 3
II. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
On January 16, 2018, the City Council directed the City Manager, through the Department of Development Services and the Housing Authority, to conduct research and present findings on the following items related to residential rental housing:
• Policies that support tenants
• Protections for senior renters
• Expanded rental assistance and relocation programs
• Support for renters to move into homeownership
• A seniors-first program with priority in rental assistance programs • Policies that support tenants adopted in other cities • Preservation of affordability covenants
• Added resources for code enforcement
• Stakeholder engagement
• Report on citywide rental rates
This report contains the results of staff’s research and includes an overview of existing California laws and programs affecting renter households; existing City of Long Beach ordinances and programs , some of which exceed State law; the results of research on programs offered in other cities; information on multi -family property ownership characteristics, building permits, and market conditions; a description of the extensive outreach and stakeholder engagement process; and draft recommendations for a citywide policy relating to tenant relocation assistance.

Existing Tenant Protection Policies
California law govern s tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities in the State . In addition, the City o f Long Beach has implemented specific policies that provided additional requirements. The following section will provide an overview of the existing laws applicable within the city , a summary of results from Staff’s survey of tenant protection policies ado pted by 115 local agencies throughout California and other progressive states in the country . This section provides an overview of existing State of California tenant protection laws.1
Relocation Assistance
California law requires that lower -income residen ts be provided with relocation assistance if the reason for relocation falls under the following categories. 1 Department of Consumer Affairs. “California Tenants: A Guide to Residential Tenants’ and Landlords’ Rights and Responsibilities.” Revised July 2012 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 4
• If they are displaced from their unit due to code enforcement action that results in a Notice to Vacate. In this case, the property owner is requ ired to pay relocation benefits.
• If the unit they are occupying is being acquired by a public agency for a public use, the federal Uniform Act of 1970 requires that they be given 90 -days written notice and are eligible for relocation payments for replacem ent dwellings in a comparable location at a price affordable to the household. In this case, the public agency is required to provide relocation benefits.

Rental Agreements and Leases
There are basically two types of rental agreements: a periodic rental agreement or a lease. Both establish the tenant’s right to live in a rental unit.

A periodic rental agreement establishes the tenancy period or time between the rent payments, and is generally referred to as a month-to-month rental agreement. This type of agreement creates a month-to-month tenancy.

A lease creates a longer tenancy, typically for a year or more. It provides the security of longer agreement/tenancy, and usually stipulates maximum rent increases and other occupancy terms. A lease provide s more security, but it binds the tenant to remain in the unit for the entire length of the lease period.

Rent Increases
If a tenant has a lease for more than 30 days, the rent cannot be increased by the landlord during the term of the lease, unless the a greement allows for rent increases. If the tenant has a periodic rental agreement, the landlord can increase the rent, but is required to give proper notice in writing notifying the tenant of how much the increased rent is and when the increase goes into effect. California law guarantees at least 30 days’ advance written notice of a rent increase for a month -to-month (or shorter) periodic rental agreement.

Under the law, a landlord must give tenants at least 30 days’ notice if the rent increase is 10 percent (or less) of the rent charged at any time during the 12 months before the rent increase takes effect. Landlords must give at least 60 days’ notice if the rent increase is greater than 10 percent. These percentages are calculated based on the lowest rent charged during the preceding 12 months, and the total of the new increase and all other increases during the period.

According to California Civil Code 827(b) and (c), longer notice periods apply if required, for example, by statute, regulation, or contract, with 30 days’ additional notice required if the rent increase is greater than 10 percent. T enants receiving housing assistance vouchers such as the Housing Choice Voucher are typically required to be given 60 days’ written notice of a rent increase. Ho wever, Civil Code 827(c) exempts the landlord from this requirement if the increase is caused by a change in the tenant’s income or family composition as determined by a recertification required by statute or regulation.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 5
Termination of Tenancy – Without Cause
California law allows a landlord to terminate a periodic rental agreement (month-to- month tenancy) by properly giving the tenant a 30 -day or 60 -day notice, even if the tenant has no violations of the agreement or if the tenant has not done any activit ies that would allow the landlord to use a three -day eviction notice. Service of a 30 - or 60- day notice is considered a termination of tenancy as allowed by law. A tenant may also terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 30 -day written notice to the landlord , and no reason is required.

A landlord must give the tenants a 60 -day advance written notice that the tenancy will end if all tenants have lived in the rental unit for a year or more, or a 30 -day notice if any tenant has lived in the rental unit less tha n one year . For tenants who have a lease agreement, a landlord must give the tenants a 60 -day advance written notice before the date of the lease expiration that the lease will not be renewed if all tenants have lived in the rental unit for a year or more, or a 30 -day notice if any tenant has lived in the unit less than one year. For renters using a Housing Choice Voucher, a 90 -day notice is required for termination of tenancy without cause.

Termination of Tenancy – With Cause
If a tenant fails to abide by the terms of the rental agreement, a landlord can give a tenant a three -day notice to vacate the unit. The Code of Civil Procedure states that a landlord can use a written three -day notice to vacate if a tenant has done any of the following:
• Failed to pay the rent.
• Violated any provision of the lease or rental agreement. • Materially damaged the rental property.
• Used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
• Substantially interfered with other tenants.
• Committed domestic violence or sexual assault against, or stalked another tenant or subtenant on the premises.
• Engaged in drug dealing, unlawfully used, cultivated, imported, or manufactured illegal drugs.
• Using the building or property to conduct dogfighting or cockfighting. • Unlawful conduct involving weapons or ammunition.

State law requires that this notice to vacate be condition al if the tenant’s violation is curable, such as repairing property damage or failing to pay rent. If the landlord gives the tenant a three -day notice because of a failure to pa y the rent, the notice must accurately state the amount of rent that is due, as well as detailed instructions on how the rent due may be paid. The landlord may not require that unpaid rent be paid in cash.

Eviction (Unlawful Detainer)
An Eviction (Unlawful Detainer) refers to a civil case brought by a landlord/owner who is suing a tenant to obtain a court order giving the landlord/owner the right to regain RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 6
possession of the property from the tenant. In an eviction case, the landlord must serve a notice to vacate or a notice to pay rent or quit on the tenant before the complaint is filed. An unlawful detainer action may only be filed if the tenant refuses to comply with the notice to vacate and does not either pay the rent or quit the premises2.

Coastal Zone Requirements
The Mello Act, enacted in 1982, is a state law intended to protect and increase the supply of affordable housing in California’s Coastal Zone. The law imposes the following primary duties on California cities and counties:

1. Under GC Section 65590 (b) the city or county may not approve a project that removes or converts existing housing units occupied by low or moderate income households unless provision is made for their one-for-one replacement with new affordable units. The replacement units must be in the Coastal Zone, within the same jurisdiction as the proposed project. If location inside the Coastal Zone is infeasible, then the replacement units may be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone’s inland boundary. Exceptions apply if t he new use is coastal dependent or coastal related, or the existing use consists of ten or fewer residential units, all of which must be either single -family homes or duplex units.

The exceptions may only be granted if the city or county finds that providi ng the replacement units is infeasible.

2. Under GC Section 65590 (c), a city or county may not approve a project that will replace existing residential units with non -residential uses unless it finds that a residential use is no longer feasible at the projec t site or the new use is coastal dependent. This rule applies to both market -rate and affordable units. If the city or county approves the project, then any existing affordable units must be replaced pursuant to the rules set forth in Section 65590 (b).

3. Under GC Section 65590 (d), a city or county may not approve a new housing development unless it provides the affordable units it can feasibly provide. If provision of affordable units on -site is infeasible but provision off -site is feasible, then the units must be provided either elsewhere in the Coastal Zone or within three miles of its inland boundary. If both on - and off-site provision are infeasible then no affordable units are required at all.

The Mello Act’s final provision, GC Section 65590(k), provides cities and counties with the opportunity to opt out of the default standards itemized above and develop their own ordinances that address the provision of affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. Under this section, the City of Long Beach has adopted Cha pter 21.61 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to address this. Staff is currently working to update the In -Lieu Fee schedule contained in LBMC 21.61 to reflect the financial gap associated with the provision of below market rate housing within the Coastal Zone in Long Beach. 2 Excerpted from the California Department of Consumer Affairs, 2012. “California Tenants: A Guide to Residential Tenants and Landlords’ Rights and Responsibilities”
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 7
Anti-Retaliation
Existing State statutes and case law currently provide broad legal protections for tenants from the retaliatory actions of their landlords. These laws (often referred to as “Anti - Retaliation Statutes”) make it illegal fo r a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for exercising the tenant’s legally protected rights with respect to their landlord/tenant relationship. Under State Civil Code Sec. 1942.5, relief for a tenant in the case of landlord retaliation can be both mon etary and injunctive (e.g., a court order preventing an eviction). Penalties for a landlord engaging in retaliatory conduct can include actual damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages if the landlord is found to have acted with fraud, oppression or malice.3
Some of a tenant’s legally protected rights include the right to:
• Complain to a landlord about unsafe or illegal living conditions. • Complain to a government agency, such as a City building or health inspector, about unsafe or illegal living conditions.
• Assemble and present the tenant’s views collectively -for example, by joining or organizing a tenant union.
• Withhold rent for an uninhabitable or unsafe dwelling unit.

Under the legal principle of “retaliatory eviction,” a landlord is not allowed to terminate a tenancy if the landlord’s motivation or intent for the termination stems from reprisal against the tenant for exercising his or her legal statutory rights. State law presumes that a landlord has a retaliatory motive if the landlord attempts to terminate a residential tenancy or takes other retaliatory action within six ( 6) months after the tenant has exercised any of the following tenant rights:
• Using the repair and deduct remedy, or telling the landlord that the tenant will use the repair and deduct remedy.
• Complaining about the condition of the rental unit to the landlord, or to an appropriate public agency after giving the landlord notice. • Filing a lawsuit or beginning arbitration based on the condition of the rental unit. • Causing an appropria te public agency to inspect the rental unit or to issue a citation to the landlord.

Existing Long Beach Tenant Assistance Policies
The City of Long Beach has implemented several tenant assistance programs . These programs, in some cases, exceed California state law requirements that are designed to assist and protect renter households in the city. This section provides information on these policies and programs as well as their current implementation status. 3 Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 8
Tenant Relocation Program (LBMC 21.60)
The Tenant Relocation Program (LBMC 21.60) is intended to mitigate problems caused by displacement of very low - and low -income households, and to provide relocation assistance to very low- or low -income households displaced due to demolition or condominium conversi on4. This program supplements the requirements in California Health and Safety Code section 17975, which states that tenants displaced by order of an agency due to serious building code violations5, are entitled to relocation assistance from their landlord , as well as the federal Uniform Act of 1970, which requires relocation assistance payments for cases in which displacement occurs because of property acquisition or demolition by a federal agency or federally assisted program6.

This Tenant Relocation Pro gram requires that very low- and low -income renter households may not be displaced from housing for these reasons unless first given prior written notice of intended displacement on a form provided or approved by the Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau, at least eighteen (18) months prior to the intended date of displacement. Relocation benefits required by this Chapter shall be paid by the owner or designated agent directly to the tenant household after the issuance of a 180- day notice.

Notice shall include, but are not limited to , an advisement as to the availability of relocation benefits. Owners shall not evict tenant households to avoid their responsibility to pay relocation benefits. Qualified tenant households receiving thirty (30) or sixty (6 0) day notices to terminate or quit the premises after approval of the condominium’s tentative tract map shall be presumed eligible and entitled to collect relocation assistance.

Under the Tenant Relocation Program, very -low and low -income households displ aced due to demolition or condominium conversion as provided in LBMC 21.60 are entitled to $3,941 in relo cation costs , escalated by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) annually. The base amount as of January 1, 2018 is $4,500. Additionally, very low - and low -income households with a disabled member are entitled to be reimbursed for structural modifications to their previous home, up to a value of $2,500 . H ouseholds with a qualifying senior citizen or disabled member as defined in LBMC 21.60 are entitled to an additional payment of $2,000.

Tenant Relocation and Code Enforcement (Order to Vacate) (LBMC 18.25) If a residential unit in the City is found to have severe code violations that threaten the life and safety of occupants, tenants may be required to vacate t he structure to allow for extensive repairs of demolition. If relocation is necessary to abate a substandard building or condition, the Building Official shall issue and serve an “order to vacate” in accordance with Sections 18.20.140 through 18.20.170.
4 Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 21.60
5 Health & Safety Code 17975
6 61 USC § 4601-4655
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 9
As part of the City’s code enforcement activity, the City inspector will conduct an inspection and document any violations and/or substandard conditions and advise the owner of the violation and of the action to be undertaken to remedy the violation. The City inspector will also decide whether repairs or other actions to abate substandard buildings can be reasonably accomplished without relocation of the tenant or household.

Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program (LBMC 18.30) Since 1966, the City’s H ealth and Human Services Department has operated a proactive inspection program for properties consisting of four or more residential units. This program was designed to ensure that the City’s rental housing complies with standards for health, safety, and welfare of the public in compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2013, this proactive inspection program was transferred to the Code Enforcement Bureau in the Department of Development Services as part of t he City’s Government Reform efforts to centralize similar services.

In June 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding chapter 18.30 relating to a Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program (PRHIP). This ordinance codified the existing PRHIP program within the LBMC. In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City is authorized to conduct periodic proactive inspections of residential rental properties to assure compliance with all applicable building, housing, and sanitation codes and ordinances.

In calendar year 2017, the City’s Code Enforcement Bureau conducted 12,584 proactive inspections under PRHIP, opened 1,035 new cases, and closed 1,108 cases of code violations.

With regards to the Council’s reques t for added resources for Code Enforcement and programs addressing blight in communities, $150,000 in funding for the City Prosecutor’s office was approved by the City Council as additional resources to prosecute Code Enforcement and Proactive Rental Housi ng Inspection Program (PRHIP) cases.

Furthermore, the City Council’s adopted FY19 budget included instructions for the City Manager to work with Development Services to implement a comprehensive tracking system for code enforcement violations with special attention to Proactive Rental Housing Inspections, to better understand the effectiveness of the program.

Condominium Conversion (LBMC 20.32)
The C A Subdivision Map Act contains protections for residential tenants , including required noticing periods for intent to convert, termination of tenancy, and exclusive right to purchase the unit upon conversion.

The City’s Condominium Conversion process allows a single lot (real property), whether residential, industrial, or a commercial building under single ownership with two or more units, to be divided to allow individual ownership of each unit along with common ownership of shared space such as driveways, front and side yards, and the walls of the RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 10
building. All condominium conversion projects must satisfy the requirements of the City’s Housing Services Bureau before the Planning Bureau will accept an application for condo conversion. Chapter 20.32 of the LBMC requires that the current property owner is responsible for giving each current tenant and each prospe ctive tenant all applicable notices, documents, and rights as required by the LBMC, which clarify ambiguities present in the State law as well as outline additional protections against eviction and noticing. These local requirements are as follows:
• Each tenant shall be given at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to filing a tentative condominium map for the rental property.
• Each tenant shall be given written notice of the public hearing on the tentative map at least ten (10) days prior to the publ ic, which must contain at minimum, an estimate as to the length of time before the conversion, if approved, would result in the termination of the tenancy ; an explanation of the tenant's rights and benefits if the conversion is approved; and the grounds up on which the Planning Commission can deny the request for conversion.
• Each tenant shall be given a copy of the written staff report, at least three (3) days prior to the hearing date.
• At least ten (10) days written notification of a tentative map for the proposed condominium conversion, and a statement that no evictions will occur because of conversion for at least 180 days.
• Written notification at least ten (10) days prior to final map approval of the conversion by the City Council, including any relocation benefits for low- and very- low income households in accordance with LBMC 21.60. The sub -divider shall specify when the tenants will be eligible for these benefits, and the tenants may not be evicted for at least 180 days after the date as specified. • For projects of five units or more, tenants shall receive written notice within ten days of the final subdivision public report.
• No tenant removals shall occur because of conversion for at least 180 days from approval of a tentative map, and the end of th e 90 -day period of the exclusive option to purchase the unit. If a property owner does not offer the units for sale to the tenants within two (2) years of approval of the final map, the minimum 180 days’ notice prior to the eviction, including a 90 -day exclusive option to purchase, shall be provided to each tenant prior to eviction when the owner decides to offer the units for sale.
• Very-low or low -income households shall not be displaced from housing unless first given prior written notice of the intended conversion, on a form provided or approved by the City, at least 18 months prior to the intended date of displacement.

Additionally, each tenant shall be given the first right of refusal for the purchase of an occupied unit, or other available rental un its in the building upon the same terms and RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 11
conditions that the units will be initially offered to the public, or on terms more favorable to the tenant.

An update to the Condominium Conversion ordinance was identified as part of the 2014- 2021 Housing Element Work Plan and was additionally adopted as a formal policy by the Council in May 2017 (Housing Policy 2.3). Staff conducted initial investigation into condominium conversions in the city, best practices in condominium conversion policy, and outreach to stakeholder groups such as Housing Long Beach and the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities. This research revealed concerns with the potential loss of rental housing stock to condominium conversion citywide, and staff worked with a consultant to identify policy options for regulating the rate of condominium conversions. Housing staff are working with the City Attorney’s Office to draft an amendment to LBMC 20.32 relating to condominium conversions.

Maintenance of Low-Income Housing in the Coastal Zone (LBMC 21.61) The City of Long Beach enacted LBMC 21.61 in accordance with the Mello Act of 1982 to maintain the present number of very -low, low - and moderate -income housing units within the coastal zone and to require that any applicant for a coast al development permit, as a condition of permit issuance, be responsible for replacing existing very -low, low- and moderate-income housing on a one -to-one basis. In addition, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to the satisfaction of this res ponsibility. The provision does not apply if the residential structure has been condemned and require s the expenditure of 50% or more of the improvement value, not including land value, to meet applicable building codes. It also does not apply if the remov al is for the purposes of building two or fewer new residential units, or converting two or fewer rental units to condominium type units.

The noticing requirements for demolition or condominium conversion provided in LBMC

21.60 apply to instances of repla cement housing for very low -, low -, and moderate - income housing in the Coastal Zone, except for when the residential structure has been condemned and requires more than 50% of the improvement value to meet code, or when the removal is for the purpose of bu ilding two or fewer residential units or converting two or fewer rental units to condominium-type units.

An update to the Coastal Zone In -Lieu Fee was included in the 2014 -2021 Housing Element Work Plan and was additionally adopted as a formal policy by C ity Council in May 2017 (Housing Policy 2.3). A nexus study to identify the cost of replacement housing in the Coastal Zone as conducted in 2017, and outreach to stakeholder groups was conducted to identify potential additional amendments to modernize the ordinance.

Staff is working with the City Attorney’s Office to draft an amendment to the in -lieu fee schedule contained in LBMC 21.61, relating to maintenance of low -income housing the Coastal Zone.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 12
LBCIC Local Housing Preference Policy
In March 2010, the Long Beach Community Investment Company (LBCIC) adopted the Local Housing Preference Policy. To the extent permissible under applicable state and federal law, people who live and/or work in the City of Long Beach are given priority over other persons to rent or purchase affordable housing units assisted or supported by the City of Long Beach or the LBCIC. This Policy applies to all developers, owners, and their agents providing affordable housing assisted or supported by the City/LBCIC in whole or part.

Priority is given to eligible households in the following order:

1. Eligible households that have been involuntarily displaced in Long Beach.

2. Eligible households that reside in Long Beach.

3. Eligible households that work or are active participants in an educati onal or job training program in Long Beach.

To qualify as an involuntarily displaced household, an applicant must have been involuntarily displaced at any time and not found permanent replacement housing. The applicant must demonstrate that they have been displaced by disaster or government action, or are currently experiencing homelessness.

To meet the residency qualification, an applicant’s principal place of residence must be in Long Beach as of the date of application to live in a City/LBCIC -assisted project. The applicant must demonstrate evidence of residency, such as a driver’s license, voter registration, utility bill, or other reasonable proof of residency.

To meet the education or employment requirement, an applicant must be employed within Long Beach, be notified that they are hired to work in Long Beach, or are actively enrolled in an educational or job training program as of the date of the application. The applicant must demonstrate evidence such as pay stubs, W -2 forms, tax returns, employer certification, job offer letter, verification from an educational or job training facility of active enrollment, or other reasonable proof of employment or educational status.

In addition to the eligibility requirements for residency, the owner/developer must also submit a marketing and selection plan that will fulfill the Local Housing Preference Policy.

The marketing plan must include the initial sales price or rents as well as the preference and priority system, shall initially target advertising and marketing efforts within a 1-mile radius of the project site ; and after 30 days , within the entirety of Long Beach. The selection plan must include unit descriptions, income criteria, preference and priority system, application requirements, and selection criteria.

Applicants must be maintained on a priority list, listed in order of preference; the owner/developer is required to fill any vacant units by selecting income -eligible applicants in compliance with the local preference and priority ranking system, first from the priority list, and then from a lottery of equally eligible candidates.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 13
Finally, the owner/developer must submit a compliance report to certify that applicant selection was consistent with the local preference and priority ranking system. T hese records must be maintained for two years after the date of occupancy, and the LBCIC reserves the right to monitor an owner/developer’s compliance status.

Fair Housing & Tenant-Landlord Counseling
The City of Long Beach contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) to administer the City’s comprehensive Fair Housing Program, including:
- Fair Housing Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Resolution - Education and Outreach Activities and Presence
- Landlord and Tenant Counseling, Mediations, and Referrals - Activities for Implementation of the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and Consolidated Plan Goals and Objectives.

Since its inception in 1964, FHF has provided these landlord and tenant services to the City of Long Beach. Through a contract with the De partment of Development Services, FHF provides a wide range of tenant and landlord services citywide, including education and outreach; workshops and seminars on tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities; and counseling and mediation. FHF also provid es general landlord and tenant issues. Renters may contact FHF for issues including eviction notices, lease terms, Housing Choice Vouchers, alleged discrimination, unequal treatment, and rent increases.

Landlords may also utilize FHF’s services for issues including problem tenants, rules and regulations, and guidance on notice requirements such as rent increases.

Existing Rental Assistance Programs
Rental assista nce programs in Long Beach are administered through the Housing Authority of the City of Long B each (HACLB). These programs are designed to provide rental subsidies to property owners on behalf of very low-income residents. Qualified households pay 30% of their income toward rent, and the Housing Authority pays the difference. Currently, HACLB, in p artnership with more than 2,500 property owners, assists approximately 6,400 households that lease units in the City of Long Beach through the following programs:

Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV)
The HCV program, formerly known as the Section 8 vouch er program, was initiated by HUD through the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. This tenant -based rental assistance program offers very low -income tenants a housing assistance subsidy so that the household can rent a privately-owned residence. The 2019 Housing Authority Fair Market Rent payment standards are attached in Appendix B.

To be eligible for assistance, an applicant must be either a very low -income family (defined as less than 50% of area median income) or a low -income family in any of following categories:

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 14
• A low-income family that is continuously assisted under the 1937 Housing Act. • A low-income family physically displaced by rental rehabilitation activity under 24 CFR part 511.
• A low-income non-purchasing family residing in a HOPE 1 or HOPE 2 project. • A low -income non -purchasing family residing in a project subject to home ownership program under 24 CFR 248.17.
• A low -income family displaced as a result of the prepayment of a mortgage or voluntary termination of mortgage insurance contract under 24 CFR 248.165. • A low-income family residing in a HUD -owned multifamily rental housing project when the project is sold, foreclosed or demolished by HUD.

In order to receive assistance, a family member must be a U.S. citizen or eligible immigrant. A family is eligible for assistance as long as one member is a citizen or eligible immigrant. Families with at least one eligible member are referred to as “mixed families” and are given notice that their assistance will be pro-rated.

Ranking preferen ces are used to prioritize eligible applicants on the waiting lists. The following applicant categories receive a ranking preference:
• Residency Preference – Families who live or work in Long Beach or have been hired to work in Long Beach.
• Veteran Prefere nce – Members of the U.S. armed forces, and veterans or their surviving spouses.
• Elderly Households – A family whose head or sole member is at least 62 years old. • Disabled Households – A family whose head or sole member is a person with a disability or handicap as defined in the Social Security Act. • Families – Two or more persons residing together or intending to reside together whose incomes are available to meet the family’s needs. • Other singles – One-person households in which the individual member i s not elderly, disabled, or displaced by government action. These households cannot be selected for assistance before any elderly family, disabled family, or displaced single.

The Housing Authority uses a point system to organize the waiting list and orde r ranking preferences. Categories receive preference in the following order: Residency, then Veteran, then Elderly/Disabled/Family, and finally Other singles.

The Housing Authority currently has an allocation of 6,693 Housing Choice Vouchers, and efforts to encourage owner acceptance of these vouchers is ongoing. The average utilization of a Housing Choice Voucher in 2017 was 87%.

Waiting List
Prospective residents may apply to an online waiting list to be awarded rental assistance through the Housing Authority. As of May 2018, the waiting list for housing vouchers was closed, with approximately 32,000 households on the waiting list for HCV, HOPWA, and RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 15
Project-Based Vouchers. For an eligible household, the typical wait time is between one (1) and five (5) years.

Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with AIDS (HOPWA) Since the early 1990s, HUD has funded HOPWA to assist households where one or more members of the household are HIV positive or have AIDS. Currently, the HACLB receives funds to operate two HOPWA housing programs:

1. The HOPWA Tenant -Based Rental Assistance Program is modeled after the HCV program and follows the same rules and regulations.

2. The HOPWA Short-Term Assistance Program (STAP), provides periodic grant(s) on an “as needed” basis to help low -income residents catch up with rent and utility payments, and pay moving expenses. The STAP grants offer two types of financial assistance: Short -Term Rent, Mortgage and Utilities assistance and Permanent Housing Placement assistance.

The eligibility requirements for the STAP grants under HOPWA are as follows:

1. AIDS, Symptomatic HIV or diagnosed HIV+ with an unrelated disability.

2. Income of no more than $3,538 per month for a single individual (Family Units amounts may vary).

3. An applicant must be living in or moving to Los Angeles County.

4. An applicant must have a source of income that does not exceed 80% of the gross median income in Los Angeles County as defined annually by HUD.

5. Households consisting of single individuals or two adults may not spen d less than 40% of gross income; family households of three or more may not spend less than 30% of gross income for rent/mortgage and utilities.

6. Additional eligibility criteria may apply depending on financial assistance request.

In 2017, the Housing Authority was awarded $1.25 million in grant funds for the HOPWA program. There are currently 114 households in Long Beach receiving rental assistance, supportive services, and case management. The Housing Authority is currently using 60% of the allocated vouchers in this program.

Veteran’s Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH)
The 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $75 million in funding for the HUD - VASH voucher program, as authorized under section 8(o)(19) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The HUD -VASH program combines HCV rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs at its medical centers and in the community. Generally, the HUD-VASH program is administered i n accordance with regular HCV requirements. However, the Act allows HUD to waive or specify alternative requirements to effectively deliver and administer HUD-VASH voucher assistance to veterans in need.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 16
In 2017, the Housing Authority administered 705 VASH vouchers with an overall lease-up rate of 70%, with 537 units leased up under the program.

Shelter Plus Care (SPC) and Homeless Assistance Program The Shelter Plus Care Program provides rental assistance for hard -to-serve people experiencing homelessne ss with disabilities, in connection with supportive services funded from sources outside of the program. SPC is a program designed to provide housing and supportive services on a long -term basis for homeless persons with disabilities and their families, who are living in places not intended for human habitation or in emergency shelters. The HACLB offers rental assistance payments through three components:

1. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance,

2. Sponsor-Based Rental Assistance,

3. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program for Single-Room Occupancy Dwellings.

Challenges
In recent years, the Housing Authority has encountered challenges in maintaining high lease-up rates for rental assistance programs. This is largely due to market conditions including low vacancy rates, high rents, and an overall lack of rental housing supply.

On April 4, 2017, the City Council requested the City Manager, Health and Human Services Department, and Development Services Department to develop an incentive package to encourage landlord ac ceptance of subsidized tenants through the HCV program. The Health and Human Services Department and Development Services Department reviewed the available options for the requested incentive program and provided the following information and opportunities for an incentive program in a memorandum to City Co uncil dated June 30, 2017. The identified opportunities address the following requests:
• Align and streamline the current City -mandated inspections with th e HUD- mandated HCV inspections.

Development Ser vices will provide a list of all buildings scheduled for PRHIP inspections in the upcoming 30 days to the Housing Authority. When the Housing Authority is scheduled to conduct an inspection in one of the PRHIP scheduled buildings, the departments will coor dinate inspections to reduce burden on the landlord and the tenant.
• Waive various permits and inspection costs for ap artment owners who accept HCVs.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 17
Staff analyzed the potential impacts of waiving PRHIP fees for apartment owners who accept HCVs. Given th e relatively small benefit to the property owner when compared to the overall negative impact on the efficacy of the PRHIP program due to revenue losses, staff did not recommend adoption of a fee waiver. • Create a damage mitigation fund that provides fina ncial assistance to landlords to mitigate damage caused by tenants during their occupancy under the HCV program ; and p rovide landlords vacancy permits to hold units while the landlord is going through the HCV program approval process.

The HACLB will util ize County of Los Angeles Measure H funds for holding fees, a damage mitigation fund of up to $2,000 over the security deposit for damages caused by tenants in the first year of occupancy; and move -in assistance for security and utility deposits; and appli ances for tenants to expedite a tenant taking possession of the unit. The Housing Authority has requested Measure H funding for 275 homeless families.

Additionally, the Housing Authority will provide a program matching the incentives outlined above for t he first 75 new rental units provided to existing voucher holders who are not considered homeless by federal definition, but are unattached to a unit and have exceeded 150 days of seeking housing with their voucher.

The full report and recommendations are included in Appendix B.

Senior Renter Household Issues and Assistance Programs
This section outlines existing issues facing senior households in Long Beach as well as programs and policies intended to assist this segment of the population. Senior assistance programs are generally administered by the Department of Health and Human Services , while development of deed -restricted senior affordable housing is administered by the Department of Development Services, Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau.

Among these programs, age eligibility can vary for seniors depending on the regulatory agency. For example, people age 62 and over qualify as “elderly” for the Housing Choice Voucher and Low -Income Housing Tax Credit Programs. However, under the HUD Housing for Older Persons A ct, senior housing facilities or communities intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 and over may qualify as “senior housing” and are exempt from age discrimination laws.

Existing Senior Housing Stock
There is a total of 3, 155 rental housing units restricted specifically for senior citizens in Long Beach. Of these units, 2,917 are deed-restricted for lower-income seniors, with the RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 18
rest being rented at market rate. These 2,917 deed-restricted units make up 45% of the 6,477 income-restricted affordable housing units citywide.

Senior Housing Production
Since 2013, a total of 453 housing units restrict ed to senior residents have either been completed or are under construction in the city. This represents 52% of the total of 868 total deed -restricted affordable units that have been completed or are under construction in the same time frame. These projects are shown in the following table.

It is important to note that lower -income senior residents are also eligible to apply for deed-restricted affordable housing that is not specifically restricted to senior populations.

Project Year Completed Senior
Units
Senior Arts Colony 2013 120
Ramona Park Apartments 2014 60
1044 Maine Ave. Apartments 2014 11
21st and Long Beach Apartments 2015 40
Immanuel Place Apartments 2016 24
Beacon Pointe Apartments Under
Construction
120
TOTAL 453
Senior Demographics
Over 62,000 people over the age of 62 live in the City of Long Beach, comprising about 13% of the citywide population 7. The population of senior citizens varies across the city, with the largest concentration living in ZIP Code 90805, followed by 90808, 90803, and 90815. Of people in Long Beach 65 and older, 14.0% live below the poverty level. This number is higher than the Californ ia average of 10.3% and slightly higher than the Los Angeles County rate of 13.4% of seniors living in poverty. Additionally, the number of seniors living alone in Long Beach presents another challenge for healthy aging. In Long Beach, 28.7% of people 65 a nd older live alone, which is higher than both the California rate of 23.3% and the Los Angeles County rate of 22.5%8.

Rental Assistance and Security Deposit Assistance
The Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach administers several tenant -based rental assistance programs that assist senior renters. The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program currently has an Elderly preference for applicants over 62, who receive 7 U.S. Census Bureau. 2016 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 8 www.livewelllongbeach.org
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 19
additional eligibility points and are prioritized on the waiting list. Additionally, seniors are eligible for project -based vouchers at many existing senior communities, including CityView, American Gold Star Manor, and 21 st and Long Beach, which contain over 600 housing units for low -income older adults. Additionally, Beacon Pointe, currently under construction, will contain 120 units assisted with project -based vouchers for low-income older adults.

Tax Credit Financing Limitations
Tax Credits are a major funding source for affordable housing projects in California, and the allocation of these Tax Credits (both competitive 9% credits and 4% tax credits) is governed by the California State Treasurer’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). For competitive 9% Tax Credit projects, the TCAC regulations favor large family and special needs project s (projects for disabled residents and/or those experiencing homelessness), which are allocated the most Tax Credits each year. In contrast, senior projects are allocated the fewest Tax Credits per year. Given this allocation methodology imposed by TCAC, it is typically more difficult for senior projects to be awarded 9% Tax Credits than large family or special needs projects.

Long Beach Healthy Aging Center Analysis
In 2017, the City of Long Beach partnered with FUSE Corps to host an executive -level fellow to design a coordinated and data -driven system for delivering and financing services to seniors. The FUSE fellow also aimed to develop a system for measuring and communicating the economic and social value of services provided to seniors to help the city leverage potential public funding and private -sector partnerships, with the overarching goal of improving the quality of life for the city’s older adult residents by linking them to a coordinated health and social service continuum of care.

During the Aging Reimagined 2.0 Conference on May 1, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services presented an analysis conducted by the FUSE Fellow entitled “Establishing Care Systems for an Age -Friendly Community.” This study identified major gaps in the services that the City of Long Beach currently offers its older adult residents, and identified opportunities for improving citywide livability for older adults.

The study found that 25% of Long Beach residents are 50 years of age or older and are at risk of being displaced by high rents . These residents are at risk of homelessness or are forced leave the city. Furthermore, despite efforts by the Housing Authority to encourage private rental owners to accept acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers for seniors, a December 2016 study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that of thirty-one (31) buildings listed as accepting HCVs, four (4) no longer were accepting the vouchers; and of the remaining twenty-seven (27), only three (3) vacant apartments were available. The full report and findings can be found in Appendix C.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently established a new office on aging, the Long Beach Healthy Aging Center, which will oversee the numerous senior assistance programs citywide.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 20
Housing Preservation Programs
California Housing Element law requires cities to identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing multi -family rental units that are currently restricted to low-income housing use. The following data mus t be included for the Housing Element of a city’s General Plan to be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD):
• An inventory of rent -restricted low-income housing projects in the City and their potential for conversion;
• An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing the units at -risk and a comparison of these costs;
• An analysis of the organizational and financial resources available for preserving and/or replacing the at-risk units; and
• Programs for preserving the at-risk units.

These items can be found in the City’s adopted 2013 to 2021 Housing Element (Housing Element).

Long Beach has a total of 6,477 restricted housing units in properties throughout the city. This housing stock includes all multi -family rental units assisted under federal, state, and local programs, including the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), state and local bond programs, projects funded with local Redevelopment and Home Investments Partnerships Program (HOME ) funds, and density bonus housing units. Typically, these projects are rent and income -restricted through long -term affordability covenants lasting 30 to 55 years. Also, many of the projects have HUD Section project-based 8 contracts.

From time to time, income-restricted properties are at-risk of conversion to non-income- restricted market-rate housing due to expiring affordability controls or expiring Project - Based Section 8 rental assistance contracts . The Housing Element lists 21 projects totaling 1,600 units that may be considered at-risk. These projects are primarily at risk of becoming market-rate due to the potential expiration of existing covenants or Project- Based rental assistance contracts. Project-Based Section 8 contracts started to expire i n 1997, and are typically renewed for a five-, ten-, or twenty-year term.

Housing staff regularly monitors these at-risk projects, and are kept informed of expiring affordability through State -mandated noticing requirements. In the last ten years, the City has assisted with the preservation of 2, 008 at-risk units in eleven projects (Table 1.) The projects were preserved through refinance or extension of Project -Based HCV contracts. The City provided technical assistance and assisted during project refinancing.

Funding was provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of Beachwood Apartments , which is the only project which required City funding. Staff will continue to implement its housing preservation strategies, which have bee n successful in recent years in preserving the stock of affordable housing in the City.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 21
TABLE 1. AT-RISK HOUSING PRESERVATION
AT-RISK HOUSING PRESERVATION 2007-2018

PROJECT HOUSING TYPE YEAR UNITS
Plymouth West Senior 2007 195
New Hope Home Senior 2010 140
Baptist Gardens/ Providence Gardens Senior 2011 200
Covenant Manor Senior 2013 100
Seamist Tower Senior 2015 75
American Gold Star Manor Senior 2015 348
Brethren Manor/ City View Senior 2015 296
Springdale West Senior 2015 410
St. Mary Tower Senior 2015 148
Beachwood Apartments Senior 2017 46
Federation Tower Senior 2018 50
TOTAL UNITS 2,008
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 22
Homeownership Programs
The City does not currently offer any homebuyer assistance programs due to a lack of affordable housing funding. However, the Department of Development Services (DS) has a long and successful history of providing a variety of first -time homebuyer programs.

The City and The Long Beach Community Investment Company (LBCIC) also have a nearly 20-year relationship with Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County (NHS), and other similar agencies that provide a variety of services, training, and programs to first -time homebuyers. Since the early 2 000s, the City and LBCIC have loaned nearly $50 million to over 1,200 first-time homebuyers.

Although there are no currently available City-funded firs t-time homebuyer programs, the department provides information about other available programs on the DS website, including a new $25,000 grant program offered by Wells Fargo through NHS.

Staff is encouraged by the City Council’s interest in homebuyer programs, and hopeful for future opportunities to fund such programs. With respect to the Council’s requests of January 16, and February 6, 2018, both relating t o homebuyer assistance programs, staff has accomplished the following:
• Met with representatives from NHS three times, including two tours of their Center for Sustainable Communities in Compton;
• Met with representatives from Affordable Housing Clearinghouse; • Met with representatives from Home Preservation & Prevention, Inc. (HPP Cares); • Met with representatives from Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC);
• Met with representatives from Home Point Financial Corporation; • Met with Economic Development (ED) Department staff;
• Scheduled additional meetings with ED staff to discuss their efforts to advance economic inclusion, and how we can include future homebuyer programs as part of this important initiative;
• Obtained an extensive analysis on the cost to provided homebuyer assistance in the current market (prepared by Keyser Marston Associates); • Summarized the City’s History of providing homebuyer programs; • Began research on the rise of non-bank lenders; and
• Began research on community land trusts.

A mor e detailed summary of the findings of this research will be provided to the City Council upon its completion.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 23
Survey of Existing Tenant and Senior Protection Policies To gather information on the statewide policy landscape as well as identify best practices in tenant and senior protection policies, Development Services staff conducted a survey of the 100 most -populous California cities, investigated tenant protection policies adopted by select smaller, progressive California cities ( many of wh ich are in No rthern California), and conducted research on cities across the United States to identify any additional unique or innovative policy approaches adopted or being explored.

Staff first identified the following commonly-adopted policy approaches through an initial background review of relevant literature and added policy approaches specifically requested for research by the Council:
• Proactive Unit Inspection: A local code enforcement program that requires proactive inspections of rental units, or that imple ments another strategy for identifying and addressing neighborhood blight and landlord negligence. • Tenant Relocation Assistance: Ordinances that require landlords to pay relocation assistance payments to tenants who are displaced from their units. • Just Ca use for Termination: A policy that protects tenants from being removed from a unit through no fault of their own. Typically, cities with just -cause policies allow landlords or owners to remove a tenant only for a specific set of reasons, often including f ailing to pay rent, breaking a term of rental agreement, and doing substantial damage to the unit, etc.
• Anti-Retaliation: A policy making it illegal for a landlord to seek to evict a tenant or terminate their tenancy because that tenant has exercised cer tain legal rights protected under the law.
• Senior-Only Rental Assistance: Policies or programs that provide a supplemental rental subsidy to senior residents. This study did not include the Housing Choice Voucher program in this category.
• Senior-only Re location Benefits: Any local statute that requires additional relocation assistance to be paid by a landlord upon the termination of a senior resident’s tenancy.

Selected California and National Cities’ Tenant Protection Policies From February through June 2018, staff developed and administered a survey via phone and e -mail to housing and/or planning agencies in the 100 most -populous cities in California. The survey asked whether the agency in question had adopted policies for tenant protections or assistance that exceeded requirements of State law. Staff received responses from 97 out of these 100 cities.

To gather further information on other unique or innovative tenant protection policies not adopted by any of the 100 most-populous cities in California, staff later expanded the study population to include six (6) smaller California cities with enhanced tenant protections and one (1) California county, as well as (9) selected U.S. agencies outside of California (8 cities and one State), for a total of 115 agencies surveyed and/or studied. A RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 24
summary of the policies adopted by these agencies is shown in Figure 1. A full text of the survey, as well as full results of the cities surveyed, can be found in APPENDIX A – SURVEY & RESULTS.

FIGURE 1. TENANT PROTECTION POLICIES IN STUDY
Summary of Results
Of the 115 agencies surveyed or studied, sixty -three (63 ) reported that they have adopted tenant protection polic ies exceeding state regulations, while fifty-two (52) reported that they had not adopted local tenant protection policies that exceed state requirements.

Many of the cities with policies exceeding State law have concurrently adopted several of the separate policies asked about by the survey. For examp le, San Jose’s Tenant Protection Ordinance includes provisions for tenant relocation assistance, just -cause for eviction, and anti -retaliation. Staff found that more than half of the medium - to large- sized California cities surveyed do not have locally ado pted policies that exceed state tenant protections. However, tenant protection policies have been adopted in several major cities, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; perhaps owing to the high proportion of renters and chronic housin g challenges renters face in these markets.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 25
Relocation Assistance Policies
California state law requires that landlords to provide lower -income residents with relocation assistance if they are displaced due to a code enforcement Notice to Vacate If lower-income residents are displaced because their unit is acquired by a public agency for a public use, the agency must pay relocation benefits according to the Uniform Act of 19709.

Twenty (20) of the cities surveyed have adopted policies that require an enhancement to these state-mandated relocation benefits to mitigate the costs of displacement due to a no-fault termination of tenancy. Approaches to requiring relocation benefits vary between cities, though most are tailored to require assistance for low - and very -low income residents. An exception is the city of Pasadena, which requires relocation assistance to be provided to households up to 140% of AMI who are displaced by a no - fault termination of tenancy. Other cities limit the number of households elig ible to receive relocation assistance. For example, the City of Richmond only requires relocation assistance for households who live in multi-family units built before 1995, and the City of Newport Beach requires relocation assistance only for households w ho are displaced from a mobile home park. In Long Beach, relocation benefits are required for low - income households displaced due to demolition or condominium conversion. • Berkeley
• El Monte
• Fresno
• Glendale
• Hawthorne
• Long Beach
• Los Angeles
• Newport Beach
• Oakland
• Pasadena
• Redding
• Richmond
• Riverside
• San Francisco
• San Jose
• San Leandro
• San Marcos
• Santa Monica
• Ventura
• West Hollywood
Furthermore, the 10 most populous cities in California were analyzed as a subset to see which cities offered relocation assistan ce programs. F our of the 10 largest cities, including San Diego, did not have an adopted tenant relocation assistance policy. Two cities, including Long Beach, have a limited tenant relocation assistance policy, primarily to address displacement due to cod e enforcement or demolition. The remaining four cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland ) have expanded tenant protection policies coupled with rent stabilization ordinances.

Based on the results of this survey and investigation into thes e policies, an enhanced relocation assistance policy can mitigate the negative impacts of no -cause terminations of tenancy on both low- and moderate-income renter households. While both the federal Uniform Act and the LBMC require relocation payments to be provided by landlords in specific cases, a citywide relocation assistance policy may be beneficial to many low - and 9 49 CFR Part 24.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 26
moderate-income tenants displaced from their homes for no fault of their own. Further detail on all the Cities’ relocation assistance polic ies, as well as a table with details regarding the policies of the 10 largest California Cities can be found in APPENDIX E – RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICIES.

Just Cause Termination of Tenancy
Eighteen (18) of the cities surveyed have adopted local ordinances requiring landlords to provide a “just cause” reason to terminate a tenancy. These ordinances commonly provide a list “just causes” for a landlord to terminate a tenancy. These include both tenant and landlord actions, such as the following:
• Nonpayment of rent
• Material or habitual violation of the lease
• Damage to the apartment
• Refusal to agree to a similar or new rental agreement • Disorderly behavior/disturbing the peace
• Refusing access to the apartment when requested in accordance with law • Unapproved subtenants
• Criminal activity
• Substantial rehabilitation of the apartment
• Removal of apartments from the rental market under the Ellis Act • Owner or owner relative move-in
• City code enforcement actions requiring a notice to vacate • Converting an unpermitted unit for a permitted use
Of the surveyed cities, the following have a policy that requires evidence of a just cause for the termination of a tenancy. These policies are frequently found alongside rent stabilization ordinances.
• Alhambra
• Berkeley
• Carson
• Fremont
• Glendale
• Hayward
• Los Angeles
• Oakland
• Rialto
• Richmond
• San Diego
• San Francisco
• San Jose
• San Leandro
• Santa Monica
• Thousand Oaks
• Ventura
• West Hollywood
The results of this survey and further research by City staff show local just-cause ordinances to be an infrequently-adopted policy approach to enhance housing stability by eliminating the lawful use of no-cause notices to vacate. Just-causes for termination of tenancy varied slightly between cities and were most commonly includ ed in rent control ordinances.

Anti-Retaliation Policies
As previously mentioned, the term “retaliatory eviction” as used under California law refers to a legal prohibition against a landlord who seeks to retaliate against a tenant

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 27
because the tenant has exercised certain legal rights protected under the law. Such evictions are barred if the landlord is seeking to end the tenancy based on the tenant’s exercise of certain specified rights, such as the right to complain to a governmental agency regarding the habitability of the tenant’s residential dwelling unit.

Ten (10) cities surveyed have enacted local anti -retaliation policies. A full list is provided below.
• Beverly Hills
• Carson
• Concord
• Glendale
• Moreno Valley
• Oakland
• Pasadena
• Santa Monica
• Ventura
• West Hollywood
Proactive Unit Inspection Program
This survey aimed to identify local proactive unit inspection programs intended to combat landlord negligence and cases of substandard housing.

Of the cities surveyed, the twenty -five (25) listed below repo rted having a proactive unit inspection program in place. Program implementation varied among cities, particularly regarding the frequency of proactive inspections. Buena Park administers proactive inspections on a rotating basis; Hayward and Lancaster in spect on annual basis; Palmdale has 1, 3, & 5 year inspections; and San Mateo’s Multi Residential Inspection Program is administered by the Fire Department and conducts annual exterior inspections and biannual interior inspections.
• Anaheim
• Buena Park
• Chula Vista
• Concord
• El Cajon
• Fresno
• Glendale
• Hayward
• Lancaster
• Los Angeles
• Long Beach
• Oakland
• Palmdale
• Rialto
• Richmond
• Roseville
• Sacramento
• San Bernardino
• San Diego
• San Francisco
• San Marcos
• San Mateo
• Santa Ana
• Stockton
• Ventura
Compared to these cities, Long Beach’s Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program (PRHIP) provides for similar frequency of inspections and is paired with a robust community outreach program to both landlords and tenants to provide information about rights and responsibilities.

Senior Rental Assistance Policies
Very few cities surveyed have senior rental assistance policies that exceed assistance offered through state and federal programs. Nearly all cities responded that seniors were assisted through deed -restricted affordable senior housing as well as through the RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 28
Housing Choice Voucher program. Similarly, nearly all cities reported that they had assisted in the financing of income -restricted senior housing developments. Only two cities (Escondido and Santa Monica) reported providing a direct rental subsidy to senior residents. Both projects were pilot projects with limited funding. A summary of these two programs is provided below.

TABLE 2. SENIOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE POLICIES
Escondido The City of Escondido provides a rental subsidy for Very Low-Income seniors who are already on the waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers. This program is funded on a limited basis.

Santa Monica10 Preserving Our Diversity (POD) Pilot Program:

In July 2017, the City of Santa Moni ca approved the POD Pilot Program to maintain economic diversity and quality of life by providing financial assistance to senior low -income long -term renters. The pilot was initially funded with $200,000 in General Fund monies, and in its first year assisted 22 qualified households with an average subsidy of $482 per month.

Senior Relocation Assistance
Of the surveyed cities, only two cities, Santa Monica and Ventura, reported requiring relocation benefits for senior renters as a specific designated clas s. In Santa Monica, households that include a senior (age 62 and over), disabled, or minor are eligible for between $1,400 and $3,950 in additional relocation assistance. In Ventura, relocation benefits are required as part of a plan for mobile home park c losures and are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Other California Policies and Initiatives
In addition to the tenant protections adopted by the 100 most populous cities in California, several smaller cities, as well as counties, have adopted or are cu rrently considering expanded tenant protection policies beyond those included in staff’s initial survey. These policies are outlined below.

Los Angeles County – Tenant Protections Working Group
In September, 2017, the LA County Chief Executive Office rel eased a Tenant Protections Policy Development Framework that includes 1) a review of existing sources of information and an analysis of private rental housing stock and commercial properties for lease; 2) an inventory of stakeholders with involvement in the rental property market; 3) State and federal laws and regulations that pertain to the County’s ability to regulate 10 Information provided by Human Services of the Community Development Department of Santa Monica
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 29
the private rental market; and 4) a review of best practices implemented by other jurisdictions designed to protect tenants.

The Framework provided an overview and information on the following common practices and elements across jurisdictions with renter-level programs, and noted that:
• Rent level protections have been put in place to ensure that proper maintenance of units is performed, tha t amenities are maintained, and that there is a rent decrease process if amenities are taken away, and that there is a rent increase process if a landlord preformed rehabilitation or upgrades to a unit, such that a landlord can show there is no longer a fa ir return on their investment. These practices are maintained in cities with rent control including Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and the City and County of San Francisco.
• Jurisdictions couple rent level protections with eviction protections such as just cause ordinances. Eviction protections without rent level protections still allow landlords to simply increase the rent to a level that is unaffordable to the tenant, thereby circumventing the eviction process. Every jurisdiction in the State with rent level protections also has eviction protections.
• Many jurisdictions have supplemented their rent level protection programs with harassment protections.

Since January 2018, the County Tenant Protections Working Group was formed to make recommendations for tenant protections in unincorporated LA County. On July 25, 2018, the Draft Report to the Board containing recommendations for Tenant Protections was discussed by the Working Group. The recommendations include:
• Adopting rent stabilization for applicable ren tal units in unincorporated Los Angeles County, excepting owner -occupied units that share kitchen or bathroom facilities with the tenants. This recommended policy includes:
o A limit of one rent increase for covered rental units per 12 -month period, with a maximum of the CPI or 8% and minimum of 3% or CPI plus 2%, whichever is lower;
o Rent-banking, meaning that a landlord can “bank” any amount not increased up to the maximum allowable rent for future year rent increases. These would expire upon termination of the tenancy; o A process for landlord petitions for rent increase above maximum rent and pass -through of capital improvement costs not to exceed 10% in a year;
o A process for tenant petitions for a rent decrease in the event of a reduction of housing services;
o Mediation;
o 30-day notice of effective date of rent increases;
o Rent Registration —all covered rental units be registered with a County oversight body;
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 30
o Reconvene Working Group for further discussion should Costa-Hawkins be repealed.
• Regulating evictions—adopting Just Cause eviction requirements regardless of the adoption of a rent stabilization policy, including expanded “no fault” reasons for terminating a tenancy, additional eviction limitations for families with school-aged children, enhanced not icing requirements; required relocation assistance payments for no-fault evictions; and first right of return. • Other policies include implementing a complaint -based inspection program, and an anti-harassment and anti-discrimination ordinance.

On Septembe r 11, 2018, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a temporary ordinance that limits rent increases in unincorporated areas to 3% annually and limits evictions without just cause. The interim rent stabilization ordinance will last for six mon ths while the County considers a permanent alternative. At minimum, the ordinance requested by the County should include the following:
• A maximum rent increase amount of 3% annually for rental properties in the unincorporated areas of the County, except f or those properties that are statutorily exempt from rent control;
• Have a term of six months from the date of adoption with options to extend the interim ordinance as necessary;
• Provide due process to ensure that property owners are entitled to a fair an d reasonable return on their property;
• Establish as base rent, rent levels as they exist on September 11, 2018, for purposes of determining a fair and reasonable return;
• Include a provision requiring just cause for tenant evictions; • Define “small proper ty owner” to mean a person or entity with common ownership of 50 rental units or fewer within the County; and • Permit small property owners to pass through to their tenants the direct cost of the Measure W parcel tax, as applicable, should such parcel tax be approved by the voters, which means the cost of the parcel tax would not be counted as part of rent for purposes of determining a small property owner’s compliance with the interim rent increase limitation ordinance.

Smaller California Cities with ADDITIONAL Tenant Protections Several cities in California have also adopted renter protection policies that were not included in staff’s initial survey and which exceed state and federal renter protection requirements. An overview can be found in Table 3. Additional California Tenant Protection Policies (on following page).

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 31
TABLE 3. ADDITIONAL CALIFORNIA TENANT PROTECTION POLICIES City Policy Overview
Berkeley In addition to their rent stabilization ordinance, the City of Berkeley adopted a tenant protection and harassment ordinance in 2017, which prohibits illegal evictions using fraudule nt or misleading representations, intimidating conduct, and coercive conduct. The ordinance requires landlords to provide notice to tenants disclosing the existence of the ordinance’s protections on a form prepared by the City, and failure to include this notice is a defense to an unlawful detainer (eviction) suit.11
Beverly Hills The City of Beverly Hills has adopted two rent stabilization ordinances, under which fall all tenants of apartment and duplex units in the City of Beverly Hills. Chapter 5 rent s tabilization applies only to dwelling units for which the base amount of agreed -upon rent is less than $600 per month, while Chapter 6 rent stabilization applies to the remainder of multi -family and duplex rental housing units built after 1978 in Beverly H ills. Included in these ordinances are policies requiring just causes for termination of tenancy; mandatory relocation fees for all tenants, regardless of income; as well as outlawing retaliation for the exercise of rights conferred to tenants by the ordinance.12
West Hollywood The City of West Hollywood’s Rent Stabilization ordinance was adopted shortly after the city’s incorporation in 1984. Since then, the Rent Stabilization and Housing Division has administered West Hollywood’s housing programs, includi ng the rent stabilization ordinance, the inclusionary housing program, and the affordable housing trust fund.

West Hollywood has also adopted ordinances prohibiting tenant harassment as well as requiring landlords to pay relocation fees to tenants displac ed through a no -fault termination of tenancy.

Los Gatos The Town of Los Gatos contracts with Project Sentinel, a HUD - Approved Housing Counseling Agency, to provide rental dispute resolution services as required by the Town’s Rental Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Ordinance . These services include conciliation, mediation, and arbitration services for tenants and 11https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/Tenant_Protection_Ordinance.a spx
12 Beverly Hills, California, Municipal Code Title 4, Chapters 5 & 6

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 32
landlords when conflicts arise regarding rent, housing services, or proposed evictions. 13
Gardena In 1987, the City of Gardena passed an ordina nce that requires the owner of residential rental units to provide information on rent mediation and hearing procedures for each residential unit and to all new tenants thereafter. The ordinance was designed to shield tenants from unreasonable rent increas es while permitting property owners to receive sufficient rent to maintain rental units, as well as receive a reasonable return on their investment.

The ordinance also requires that a tenant receive a notice of a rent increase at least 30 days prior to the effective date if the increase is less than 10%, and 60 days if it is more than 10%. Mobile home park tenants must be given 90 days’ notice. All rent increases must include notices to the tenant of their right to mediation/hearing.14 Redwood City Redwood City adopted two ordinances in March 2018 requiring landlords to offer minimum lease terms and in certain
circumstances, help pay for the relocation of displaced low -income tenants. Landlords are required to offer a minimum one -year lease, though tenants can negotiate shorter terms; if the landlord and tenant agree to continue their relationship, the landlord must offer another one-year lease.15
Additionally, Redwood City adopted a Relocation Assistance Ordinance that would require landlords to pay tenant s being vacated from properties of 5 or more units and earning less than 80% of AMI to be paid 3 to 4 months’ worth of rent, a security deposit refund, administrative fee, and a six -month subscription to a rental agency service.

Other Policy Approaches to Renter Protections
The research conducted by staff focused on the renter protection policies specifically requested by the City Council on January 16, 2018. Staff initially focused on California cities to identify practices with a common legal basis. However, further research revealed additional policy strategies that have been adopted by jurisdictions outside of California.

These strategies fall into a few major categories and brief descriptions of these policies are shown in Table 4. Tenant Protection Policies Outside of California. 13 http://www.losgatosca.gov/347/Rental-Dispute-Resolution-Program 14 http://www.cityofgardena.org/rent-mediation/
15 https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/city-oks-renter-protections/article_74c6df5e-3242- 11e8-85a7-efd8892f83e3.html

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 33
TABLE 4. TENANT PROTECTION POLICIES OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA Jurisdiction Policy
Portland, OR Portland requires that renters who are served a no -cause eviction or a rent increase of 10% or higher over a 12 -month period, or receive a substantial chang e in their lease terms, or who do not receive the option to renew their lease, be paid relocation assistance by their landlord.

Tenants must receive written notice for any of these events at least 90 days prior to the effective date, except for units bei ng sold with conditions upon federal mortgage financing, wherever a 60-day notice is required. 16 17
Seattle, WA Seattle’s Just Cause Eviction ordinance requires landlords to have good cause to terminate a month -to-month tenancy. It specifies the only reasons for which a tenant in Seattle may be required to move, and requires owners to state the reason, in writing, for ending a tenancy when giving a termination notice.18
Additionally, the City of Seattle prevents landlords from raising rents on units which h ave severe code violations . This law requires tenants to take several steps to delay the rent increase and all the steps must be completed before the rent increase would come into effect.19
Tacoma, WA In April 2018, the City of Tacoma adopted an ordinance that extends the notification requirement from 20 to 90 days in the City of Tacoma when tenancy is being terminated due to
demolition, substantial rehabilitation, or change of use of a residential dwelling.

This temporary ordinance is intended to provide interim protections as the City of Tacoma develops further
recommendations to address housing and tenant protections. The ordinance will sunset on September 30, 2018. 20
New York City, NY New York City adopted an ordinance in 2017 that made it the first U.S. city with a right to counsel for tenants facing eviction. The 16 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/74544
17 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/679132 18http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpdd016420.p df
19 http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/codes/prohibitedacts/default.htm 20 http://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=149201

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 34
legislation establishes a program within the city’s Office of Civil Justice to provide free legal assistance for all tenants who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line. Tenants earning more than that would also be eligible for “brief legal assistance” under the terms of the bill.21
New York City also adopted an ordinance in 2017 preventing landlords from carrying out repairs and renovations without first obtaining a certification of no harassment . The program established by the ordinance focuses on recently-rezoned or soon- to-be-rezoned neighborhoods. Under the law, building owners seeking to demolish or make alterations to their buildings within the identified areas must prove th at they have not harassed tenants in the last five years before they can get permits from the City.22
Boston, MA In 2016, the City of Boston created the Office of Housing Stability to help prevent displacement and promote housing preservation and stabilization. This office provides information on available affordable housing, operates tenant rights and responsibilities programs, provides dispute resolution, landlord counseling, landlord guarantee pilot program, and conducts research on housing instability and its impacts.23
Pittsburgh, PA In 2015, the City of Pittsburgh enacted an ordinance that prevents landlords from discriminating based on a renter’s source of income. This ordinance is intended to protect households who are seeking rental housing with a Housing Choice Voucher or other tenant -based subsidy, and acknowledges that source -of- income discrimination can often be a smokescreen for illegal discrimination based on race, disability, or family status.

Additionally, Pittsburgh adopted a Rental Regi stration program with mandatory inspections and registration fees.24
Minneapolis, MN In March 2017, the City of Minneapolis approved an amendment to the city’s civil rights ordinance to include protections for renters who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher
21 http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1687978&GUID=29A4594B -9E8A-4C5E- A797-96BDC4F64F80
22 https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/30/16720158/tenant-harassment-landlord-city-council-bill 23 https://www.boston.gov/departments/neighborhood-development/office-housing-stability 24 https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/17/pittsburgh-enacts-protections-for-low-income- tenants/

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 35
program. The amendments to the ordinance prohibit landlords from denying public assistance participants the opportunity to apply for available housing, or refusing to rent to potential tenants because of the requirements of a public assistance prog ram.

Additionally, the ordinance prohibits landlords from imposing unique rental standards or otherwise treating potential public assistance tenants differently from other tenants.25
However, the ordinance was challenged by landlords, and was struck down i n June 2018, when a County judge ruled that it violated landlords’ due process rights.26
Washington, D.C In May 2017, Washington D.C. approved $4.5 million in funding for a pilot program that offers low -income residents free legal counsel for eviction pro ceedings in the city’s landlord -tenant court. D.C. residents who make up to 200 percent of the poverty line would be eligible for free legal representation for eviction cases in landlord-tenant court. 27
Washington State In March 2018, Washington State passed a law that bars landlords from discriminating against tenants who use federal, state, or locally issued benefits to pay their rent, including but not limited to Housing Choice Vouchers, Social Security, or veterans’ benefits.

This bill also creates a mitigation fund to assist landlords who rent to tenants using these alternative sources of income. Landlords can apply for these funds to make required property
improvements and for reimbursements for property repairs due to tenant damages.28
Policies for Research and Consideration
Based on the results of this research, staff compiled the following list of policies. This list represents the range of policy approaches discovered during the research process, analyzed by staff, presented to stakeholders for input, and ultimately refined and narrowed into recommended policies and programs for consideration by Council. Note 25 http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news/WCMSP-210567
26 https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/06/08/minneapolis-landlords-win-suit-to-block-section-8- anti-discrimination-law
27 https://wamu.org/story/17/05/18/need-lawyer-fight-eviction-new-d-c-program-provide-one- free/
28 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-lawmakers-ok-bill-to-ban- housing-bias-based-on-tenants-source-of-income/

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 36
that the policy approaches that have been included in this report are simply policies that are being implemented in other jurisdictions. Th e analysis does not measure the effectiveness or success of the policies that are offered. • Relocation Assistance Payments
Twenty (20) of the cities studied require that landlords provide tenants with relocation assistance payments if they are displaced thr ough no fault of their own.

Approaches to determining eligibility vary between agencies. Most California cities requiring relocation assistance payments are tailored to require assistance for extremely-low to low -income renters. Other ordinances may specif y relocation assistance for up to moderate -income renters (Pasadena) or for households with seniors, disabled members, or children (Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco). Others calculate these assistance payments on a case-by-case basis. • Just-Cause for Termination of Tenancy
Eighteen (18) of the cities surveyed have adopted a local just -cause termination of tenancy policy. These policies specify that tenants may only be asked to vacate for certain enumerated reasons (i.e. “just causes”). These ordinances specify the permissible bases for termination, including those due to the tenant’s fault (such as nonpayment of rent or criminal activity) and those due to “no fault” of the tenant (e.g. the landlord wishes to occupy the unit).

A just-cause policy is often included in rent control policies, but can be included with a relocation policy as well . A good example can be found in San Jose’s Tenant Protection Ordinance.
• Anti-Retaliation Policy
Anti-retaliation policies bar landlords from retaliating against a tenant because the tenant has exercised certain legal rights protected under the law. These conferred legal rights include the right to complain to a governmental agency regarding the habitability of the unit. Anti -retaliation policies can provide an affi rmative legal defense for a tenant who is being served with an unlawful detainer suit by a landlord. • Enhanced Notice Provisions
The goal of enhanced notice provisions is to blunt the impact of displacement and provide tenants more time to find and arrange for other housing.

Several cities have adopted enhanced notice provisions for no -fault lease terminations, including San Jose , which applies to rent -stabilized units only and requires that tenants in these units be given 90 days ’ notice if the tenants have resided in the unit for a year or more, and 120 days ’ notice if the vacancy rate is less than 3% citywide. Enhanced noticing provisions have also been adopted in Portland, OR and Tacoma, WA.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 37
In California, the adoption of an ordinance requiring enhanced noticing provisions for all rental units –not just those under a rent stabilization ordinance –is pre-empted by existing case law as an usurpation of the notification provisions set forth in California Civil Code section 827(C).
• Senior and Disabled Specific Assistance Programs
Many of the policies described in this section may be written to create specific provisions for senior and disabled residents, such as eligibility for additional relocation assistance and extended noticing requirements. These policies can help to reduce the impact of displacement on seniors and disabled residents on fixed incomes or who have unique needs for accessible or supportive housing. Senior and disabled specific assistance programs help ensure that these households find affordable and comparable replacement housing and help to mitigate trauma and disruption to these tenants and their families.
• Source of Income Discrimination Laws
Source of income discrimination occurs when a landlord denies housing to an applicant because of the type of lawful income the tenant plans to use to pay for the housing. A concern is when landlords deny applicants who will pay for the housing with a Housing Choice Voucher, Social Security Disability Insurance, or other income or housing benefits from the government. Discrimination against these types of families can be a problem in a housing market with rising rents and low vacancy rates.

According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, twelve states and dozens of cities and towns have adopted laws prohibiting housing discrimination against families because of their lawful source of income. In addition, three states provide incentives to promote the acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers. California state law bars discrimination based on source of income, though it does not apply to Housing Choice Vouchers. Local ordinances adopted by Santa Monica, East Palo Alto, Berkeley, Marin County, Santa Clara County, Corte Madera, and Woodland explicitly bar voucher discrimination.29
On August 21, 2018, the City Council directed the City Manager to create a source -of- income discrimination policy aimed at reducing the number of denied Housing Choice Vouchers by landlords in the City.
29 “Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building a Successful Housing Mobility Program.” Poverty & Race Research Action Council, 2018.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 38
• Right to Counsel, Legal Assistance, and Mediation
In hou sing courts around the country, few renters appear with counsel, whereas landlords are nearly always represented. Providing tenants with legal representation to help avoid an eviction and the risk of subsequent homelessness helps to ensure that evictions a re lawful and that the tenant’s defense is effectively asserted.

Additionally, even if the tenant lacks a defense to an eviction, lawyers can negotiate effectively for time to secure alternative housing, negotiate settlements, and help the tenant apply for public housing or rental subsidies. 30 New York City and Washington, D.C. have recently adopted pilot programs and committed funding to provide free legal counsel for tenants facing eviction cases.

Other cities have adopted ordinances which create mediati on programs for rent and other housing related disputes and guarantee legal representation for tenants through the mediation process.
• Right of First Refusal to Occupy Affordable Units
Tenant right of first refusal laws give tenants the right to first ref usal when the building they live in is demolished or converted to a condominium. Right of first refusal ordinances can provide a path to homeownership and give households an opportunity to occupy affordable units in a new replacement building. Unless the tenant can afford the new unit, these policies were typically considered ineffective. • Priority Waiting List for New Affordable Units
A priority waiting list for new income -restricted affordable units can be created for low-income tenants who are displaced from market -rate housing. This type of program may require significant staff time and may not meet Fair Housing Act requirements.
• Certification of No Harassment
In addition to anti -retaliation laws, which typically offer tenants a pathway to an affirmative defense against eviction, the “Certification of No Harassment” policy implemented by New York City creates an additional tenant protection and requires owners of buildings covered by the law to prove that they have not engaged in harassment of tenants b efore they can get permits to demolish or make significant alterations to their building.
30 “Protect Tenants, Prevent Homelessness.” National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2018
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 39
Housing Stock & Market Background Data
In the last several years, the issue of housing affordability has become increasingly urgent in California, with rising housi ng costs and limited supply taking a toll on communities statewide. The confluence of rising rents and rising land values in Long Beach, as well as a large stock of older apartment buildings being purchased by investors and rehabilitated , has increased the frequency of lower -income renters being served with notices to vacate their rental units by no fault of their own. The following information was presented to stakeholders during the Meeting of the Minds focus groups and used to inform staff’s recommendations for the City Council’s consideration.

Since 2012, the volume of sales of apartment buildings has risen steadily in Los Angeles County, according to CoStar Market Analytics. This growth in sales activity is especially prevalent for Class C buildings, w hich are predominantly older buildings without amenities such as community rooms, parking, or open space. In 2017, CoStar recorded 3,603 total multi -family sales in the County, compared to 1,336 in 2012 , an increase of 170 percent. The trend of sales volum es in Long Beach follow this trend, with 358 total sales in 2017 compared to just 95 in 2012 , an increase of 277% over 2012 levels. This indicates a n especially active market for acquisitions of multi -family residential rental properties in the City of Lon g Beach. While much of Long Beach’s housing stock, particularly in Class C properties, needs updating and rehabilitation, these types of substantial rehabilitations would not occur without an increase in future rents to offset the cost of the rehabilitation.

FIGURE 2. TOTAL SALES, CITY OF LONG BEACH
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 40
The number of substantial rehabilitations requiring vacancy of the property also appear to be rising. The City of Long Beach’s Building Bureau tracks permits issued for all building permits required by the Building Code, including but not limited to additions, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, reroofs, window changeouts, and full remodels.

Depending on the scope of the rehabilitation, multiple permits may be required by the Building Bureau. In 2012, a total of 767 permits were issued for 427 multi -family apartment buildings , while in 2017 a total of 1 ,668 permits were issued for 746 apartment buildings (Figure 3), a 117% increase in the number of permits and a 7 5% increase in the number of buildings for which these permits were applied.

This data suggests that there is a higher volume of rehabilitations of multi-family housing in the City in recent years, as well as that the types of rehabilitations being perfor med are requiring more permits per building on average, indicating a higher level of rehabilitation. Staff analyzed number of permits issued per building and found that while the total number of permits increased, the number of buildings requiring multiple permits—indicating a substantial rehabilitation —remain only a small percentage of the multi-family rental housing stock (7,644 units) in the City.

FIGURE 3. BUILDING PERMITS, 2012-17, APARTMENT BUILDINGS ONLY

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 41
TABLE 5. BUILDINGS BY YEAR AND NUMBER OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS Number of Buildings, by Year
Number of Permit
Applications 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1 Permit 315 314 244 314 397 532
2-3 Permits 71 61 81 100 127 133
4+ Permits 41 46 36 77 76 81
Finally, staff utilized data from the Department of Financial Management’s Business License Division to develop a better understanding of characteristics of multi -family rental properties. In all, there are a total of 70,317 rental units within 7,644 properties containing at least 4 units each. The following data was used to inform the recommendations relating to thresholds of applicability depending on building size (Tables 5-8).

TABLE 6. MULTI-HOUSING OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
All Multi-Housing Owners
Number of Owners in the City who own properties with 4+ units: 5,902 Owners Number of Total Properties with 4+ units in the City: 7,644 Properties Number of Total 4+ Units in the City: 70,317 Units
Most of the City’s rental ho using stock is comprised of small apartment buildings containing between 4 and 10 units each. These types of buildings make up 81.6 percent of the 7,644 multi-family residential properties in the City and contain slightly more than 50% of the housing units in the City. The next largest chunk of the housing stock is made up of mid-size buildings co ntaining between 11 and 29 units, which comprise 16 .2 percent of the rental buildings and 27.3 percent of the rental units. Together, small - and mid-size apartment complexes contain 78.2 percent of all rental housing in the City of Long Beach.

Finally, large rental complexes with more than 30 units on a lot comprise only 2.2 percent of the City’s residential rental buildings and contain 21.8 percent of the rental units in Long Beach. More detailed information can be found on the following page in Table 7. Multi-Housing Properties by Unit Count.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 42
TABLE 7. MULTI-HOUSING PROPERTIES BY UNIT COUNT
Building Size Totals Percentages Cumulative
Properties Units % of All
Properties
% of Total
Units Properties Units
4 Units 2,888 11,552 37.8% 16.4% 37.8% 16.4%
5 Units 592 2,960 7.7% 4.2% 45.5% 20.6%
6 Units 757 4,542 9.9% 6.5% 55.4% 27.1%
7 Units 369 2,583 4.8% 3.7% 60.3% 30.8%
8 Units 898 7,184 11.7% 10.2% 72.0% 41.0%
9 Units 342 3,078 4.5% 4.4% 76.5% 45.4%
10 Units 390 3,900 5.1% 5.5% 81.6% 50.9%
Total, Buildings
with 4-10 Units
6,236 35,799 81.6% 50.9% 81.6% 50.9%
11-29 Units 1,237 19,206 16.2% 27.3% 97.8% 78.2%
30+ Units 171 15,312 2.2% 21.8% 100.0% 100.0%
Total, Buildings
with 11+ Units
1,408 34,518 18.4% 49.1% 100.0% 100.0%
Total Buildings,
All Sizes
7,644 70,317
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 43
Citywide Rental Rates
In May 2017, staff transmitted a Report on Citywide Rental Rates (Rent Report) to the City Council, containing data on current residential rental rates and market trends.

The following tables contain updated rental rate information relating to mean rents and vacancy rates citywide as requested by the City Council, and is up to date as of February 1, 2019. Staff util ized CoStar Market Analytics to obtain this data and utilized the methodology described in the May 2017 Rent Report, which can be found in APPENDIX F – REPORT ON CITYWIDE RENTAL RATES.

According to CoStar Market Analytics, the citywi de mean rent for multi -family residential units of any size stood at $1,418 as of February 1, 2019. This is a 2.3% increase in the citywide mean rent at the end of the first quarter of 2018, when mean rents were reported at $1,386 citywide. Rents for the p ast five years, and select past years by ZIP code are presented in the table below.

TABLE 8. MEAN RENTS, Q1 2019
Mean Rents, Q1 2009 to Q1 2019
ZIP 2009 Q1 2014 Q1 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 2017 Q1 2018 Q1 2019 YTD Citywide $1,107 $1,127 $1,182 $1,244 $1,341 $1,386 $1,418 90802 $1,232 $1,296 $1,346 $1,457 $1,626 $1,677 $1,723 90803 $1,407 $1,391 $1,448 $1,491 $1,557 $1,594 $1,625 90804 $1,023 $1,103 $1,139 $1,197 $1,265 $1,301 $1,325 90805 $1,042 $1,013 $1,041 $1,085 $1,147 $1,203 $1,223 90806 $788 $810 $830 $910 $975 $1,000 $1,011
90807 $1,109 $1,148 $1,218 $1,302 $1,401 $1,440 $1,491 90808 $1,201 $1,207 $1,235 $1,288 $1,358 $1,435 $1,472 90810 $885 $870 $1,135 $745 $774 $798 $817
90813 $917 $918 $969 $1,027 $1,096 $1,129 $1,150 90814 $1,159 $1,158 $1,190 $1,259 $1,305 $1,338 $1,354 90815 $1,552 $1,550 $1,666 $1,831 $1,877 $1,959 $2,031 Source: CoStar Market Analytics
While the rents have continued to increase, the year-over-year increase has slowed citywide after a period of more dramatic citywide rent increases in 2015-2017. During this time frame, year-over-year rent increases were as high as 7.8% citywide, and over 10% in ZIP code 90802. Rent growth for select periods is shown in Table 9. Rent Growth.

TABLE 9. RENT GROWTH
Rent Growth, Q1 2009 to Q1 2019

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS | Page 44
ZIP 1-Year 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year
Citywide 2.3% 5.7% 25.8% 28.1%
90802 2.7% 6.0% 32.9% 39.9%
90803 1.9% 4.4% 16.8% 15.5%
90804 1.8% 4.7% 20.1% 29.5%
90805 1.7% 6.6% 20.7% 17.4%
90806 1.1% 3.7% 24.8% 28.3%
90807 3.5% 6.4% 29.9% 34.4%
90808 2.6% 8.4% 22.0% 22.6%
90810 2.4% 5.6% -6.1% -7.7%
90813 1.9% 4.9% 25.3% 25.4%
90814 1.2% 3.8% 16.9% 16.8%
90815 3.7% 8.2% 31.0% 30.9%
Source: CoStar Market Analytics
Finally, residential rental vacancy rates have continued to drop from a citywide peak of

5.7% in 2010 to 3.8% in Q1 2019. This citywide vacancy rate is lower than the rate of 4.4% in Q1 2018 and 4.5% in Q1 2017 (Table 10).

TABLE 10. VACANCY RATES
Vacancy Rates, Q1 2009 to Q1 2019
ZIP 2009 Q1 2014 Q1 2017 Q1 2018 Q1 2019 YTD
Citywide 5.2% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 3.8%
90802 6.1% 5.1% 6.2% 5.5% 4.6%
90803 5.6% 5.4% 5.0% 5.2% 4.5%
90804 4.8% 5.2% 3.8% 3.6% 3.4%
90805 4.9% 3.9% 3.1% 3.1% 2.9%
90806 5.0% 4.5% 3.8% 3.6% 3.2%
90807 4.7% 4.4% 3.5% 4.0% 3.7%
90808 4.5% 2.2% 3.1% 2.1% 1.8%
90810 4.5% 3.0% 2.0% 1.6% 1.4%
90813 5.0% 4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 3.4%
90814 4.9% 4.6% 3.8% 3.8% 3.4%
90815 5.9% 3.9% 6.1% 7.9% 6.8%

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 45
III. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS
The Council’s January 16, 2018 direction to staff included a request to conduct a “Meeting of the Minds” stakeholder outreach session that includes all landlord and tenant groups within the City to provide on potential tenant assistance policies, as well as gather feedback and attitudes regarding these policies. To provide background information for this effort, Housing Services sta ff researched tenant protection and assistance policies across large California cities and considered examples from select cities in other states.

In March 2018, the Department of Develop ment Services solicited proposals from qualified public outreach and meeting facilitation firms to assist with the planning, development, and facilitation of these meetings. In May 2018, staff selected PlaceWorks, Inc., of Santa Ana, a community planning policy and design firm, to plan and facilitate tenant assistance stakeholder engagement meetings, with the goal of finding common ground and documenting attitudes toward, and concerns with, a potential expansion of tenant protection policies.

Two focus group meetings were initially held, one for tenant advocates and the other for owner advocates. At both meetings, participants offered candid examples and experiences, as well as a range of policy ideas for staff to explore. Every stakeholder represented a la rger organization. This approach limited the number of attendees to ensure that in-depth discussions could take place and detailed input could be collected.

The tenant assistance research and case studies collected by staff were presented to both focus groups, using the same presentation materials. Then, participants were asked to discuss the types of policies from the presentation and determine a general level of consensus. The next step was to prioritize the potential policies presented.

The following organizations participated in this process:
• Apartment Association, California Southern Cities
• Better Housing for Long Beach
• California Apartment Association
• Centro CHA, Inc.
• Housing Long Beach
• Legal Aid Foundation
• Long Beach City College
• Long Beach Community Action Partnership
• Long Beach Forward
• Long Beach Gray Panthers
• Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization
• Long Beach Residents Empowered (LiBRE)
• Minority Property Owners Association
• Small Property Owners Alliance of Southern California • United Cambodian Community
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 46
The policies presented to the groups for discussion included the following:

1. Just cause for termination of tenancy

2. Relocation assistance

3. Anti-retaliation policies

4. Source of income anti-discrimination

5. Legal information and assistance

6. Enhanced notice provisions

7. Right of first refusal

8. Priority wait list for new affordable units for previously displaced tenants This section contains summaries of the proceedings of the four stakeholder engagement meetings, held August 14, August 29, September 26, and October 9, 2018. Supplemental information on these meetings is provided in APPENDIX G – STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS including materials presented and rosters of attendee sign -ins. Additionally, a few participants submitted formal comm ents to staff. These materials are provided in APPENDIX H – STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS.

Tenant Advocates Focus Group Meeting – August 14, 2018
The tenant advocates focus group included the presentation, small group discussion, and a prioritizing exercise. An important takeaway from this meeting includes rethinking how the City uses the term “tenant protections” moving forward. The group was unified in agreeing that a distinction between programs and policies that help prevent displacement and those that ease the burden of being displaced is important. They felt that “tenant protections” should only refer to policies that prevent displacement.

In that spirit, the group divided potential policies into those two categories; tenant protections and displacement mitigation or tenant assistance. The most supported displacement mitigation measures were to increase relocation assistance throughout the city, followed by legal information or assistance, and enhanced noticing. The most supported ten ant protection was just cause, followed by anti -retaliation policies, and source of income anti-discrimination policy.

Some other important points discussed at this meeting include:
• Being sensitive to special populations without unintentionally creating reasons for property owners to discriminate against them.
• Enhanced noticing should assist renters whose leases have converted to month - to-month.
• It is hard to predict when an owner will vacate a building for substantial rehabilitation.
• The state’s anti-retaliation laws require a tenant to prove the landlord’s intent was retaliatory and are rarely utilized as a successful affirmative defense against an unlawful detainer lawsuit.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 47
• Right of first refusal is not a resource for tenants unless the new or upgraded unit is affordable.
• A priority wait list for new housing for previously displaced tenants would be ineffective.

Small group discussions Presenting small group discussion notes Reviewing and prioritizing policy ideas Tallying priority exercise responses Owner Advocates Focus Group Meeting – August 29, 2018
Overall, owner advocates appeared to have entered the meeting with some consensus in place; that state law is sufficient in supporting tenants in general, but inadequate in protecting good tenants and owners from disruptive or dangerous tenants. They agreed that it was important to have swift remedies against tenants that are causing problems.

At this meeting, stakeholders chose to have a large group discussion instead of participating i n the prioritizing exercise. They felt that there was enough consensus around the types of potential policies in the presentation. Overall, the group agreed that some policies to help keep good tenants in Long Beach should be explored. They agreed that “flipping” of large properties was causing displacement and that there could be an appropriate policy response specific to that issue. Some participants supported STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 48
enhancing relocation assistance, especially in the event of an investor vacating an older building in order to rehabilitate it and raise rents. There was also some participant support for an anti-source of income discrimination policy.

Extended noticing was not initially supported by participants specifically due to concerns that once a notice was is sued, a tenant would no longer pay rent. There were some stakeholders who potentially support extended noticing of a termination of tenancy at no fault of the tenant as long as the rent was being paid.

Group discussion Sample of discussion notes
Meeting of the Minds #1 – Both Advocacy Groups –
September 26, 2018
Based on input provided at the first two meetings, some policy priorities and areas of potential common ground were established. Both groups have a desire to protect good tenants. Both gro ups want to find a way to address displacement. There was some shared interest in enhancing relocation assistance so Long Beach residents can remain in the community. These areas of potential common ground resulted in focusing the third meeting on noticing times, relocation assistance payments, and no fault termination of tenancy issues.

The third meeting was referred to as the “Meeting of the Minds” because it brought representatives from both owner and tenant interests together. Participants were asked to focus on housing issues specific to Long Beach, seek a balance between tenant protections and property owner investments, and consider unintended consequences of potential policies. The following organizations were represented at the Meeting of the Minds:

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 49
Tenant Advocates Owner/Landlord Advocates
• Centro CHA, Inc.
• Housing Long Beach
• Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
• Long Beach Residents Empowered
(LiBRE)
• United Cambodian Community
• Apartment Association, California
Southern Cities
• Better Housing for Long Beach
• California Apartment Association
• Minority Property Owners
Association
• Small Property Owners Alliance of
Southern California
Participants from both groups explored ideas to help keep quality tenants in Long Beach.

After two hours of discussion, the stakeholders we able to come to agreement on further research on some concepts. Participants stated that their potential support for changes to City policy depends on details to be determined through further work by City staff and PlaceWorks. This summary will focus on areas where there is some level of consensus. It is important to note that consensus does not necessarily mean that all parties in the discussion unanimously agreed, but rather that the group was willing to move forward with a concept or idea. Participants in these meetings were encouraged to express degrees of consensus ranging from outright opposition to full support, with varying levels of acceptance or support in between. This facilitation approach was intended to foster a discussion based on shared goals and values and develop recommendations that could be accepted by the whole group.

FIGURE 4. DEGREES OF CONSENSUS
In concept, the group recommended the City should research extending notice to vacate times only when the notice is being issued at no fault of the tenant. Staff could prepare a STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 50
draft policy extending residential notice to vacate times from 30 days (month -to-month) and 60 days (lease) to 90 days, citywide, regardless of length of lease, the tenant’s age, or income level. This would not remove an owner’s ability to use 3 -day notices related to causes specified in the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1161. The extended noticing would be null and void if a tenant stops paying rent in full. I f nonpayment does occur, the owner can issue the tenant a 3 -day notice to vacate per state law. Note that the extended noticing would apply to all renters in Long Beach facing termination of tenancy at no fault of their own to avoid the unintended conseque nce of inspiring discrimination against certain populations, such as seniors. If there is a draft policy, it would need to go through an approval process that includes public hearings and therefore public comment.

In concept, the group recommended that th e City studies relocation assistance when a tenant is asked to vacate only at no fault of their own following a change in ownership.

The group requested that staff specifically defines the circumstances in which a relocation assistance payment would be req uired before some participants could identify their level of consensus. Several participants felt that the owner or their relatives moving in should not be listed as a termination qualifying for relocation assistance.

Some owner advocates suggested the fo llowing parameters for new relocation assistance:
• Building has ten or more units (ten was recommended based on high profile displacement situations in recent years); and
• Notice to vacate was issued within 6 months prior to a sale and two years after new ow nership (recommended to address displacement caused by property “flipping”); and
• Tenant is being asked to vacate at no fault of their own (to be defined clearly); and • Relocation payment is one to two months’ rent (depending on length of tenancy), plus 100% of the security deposit.
• If the tenant needs to vacate due to a City permitting issue (such as an existing, nonpermitted use) there should be some sort of caveat if the property was purchased without the new owner knowing of the permitting issue. • No relocation assistance if the tenant stops paying rent in full after being notified of termination.

Tenant advocates expressed that displacement caused by substantial rehabilitation and related increasing rents is happening in all types of rental housing, not on ly large complexes. There was limited support from tenant advocates for the ten or more -unit threshold. Some tenant advocates felt that 2 units or 4 units should be the threshold for requiring relocation assistance payments. There was some concern about wh ether an amount equal to one or two months’ rent and security deposit would be sufficient for Long Beach residents to afford to move within the c ommunity. Tenant advocates also suggested including a provision for reasonable accommodation of rent payments i n accordance with state law.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 51
The City’s economic consultant could undertake a study to estimate an appropriate amount for a relocation assistance payment. Note that any change to the City’s relocation assistance policies would go through an approval proce ss that may include a public hearing.

Property owner advocates expressed the concern that tenant advocates would continue to petition for a rent control policy regardless of the policy changes the City moves forward as part of the current policy development effort.

At the end of the first Meeting of the Minds focus group, the groups present asked for a follow-up Meeting of the Minds to further discuss the presented policy issues and consult with their constituents. This meeting was organized for October 9, 2018.

Meeting of the Minds #2 – Both Advocacy Groups –
October 9, 2018
The meeting began by both tenant and owner advocates agreeing that the extended noticing idea previously explored was no longer a viable option, as it was discovered that extending noticing requirements is pre -empted by State law. Both parties agreed that such a change in City policy would make the City vulnerable to legal action based on existing case law31. As a result, this item was removed from future consideration.

The second Meeting of the Minds was centered around identifying the circumstances in which relocation assistance would be required, who would qualify, and what amount would be appropriate. The discussion began with some confusion about which types of terminations would or would not quality for potential relocation assistance.

The following two lists of causes for termination were presented:

No Fault Termination (rent is current, with reasonable accommodation, eligible for relocation assistance)

1. Substantial rehabilitation requiring tenant move-out (HUD definition)

2. Removal of the units from the market (Ellis Act)

3. Owner or owner’s family move-in

4. Rent increase of more than 10% (stay or vacate with relocation)

5. Code enforcement action requiring vacating the unit

6. Conversion of an unpermitted use to a permitted use (resulting in vacating the unit)

7. Any other request to vacate that is not a For-Cause Termination of Tenancy For Cause Terminations (ineligible for relocation benefit payments)

8. Nonpayment of rent (with reasonable accommodation in accordance with existing laws)
31 See Tri-County Apartment Assoc. v. City of Mountain View, 1987 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 52

9. Material or habitual violation of the rental agreement (including unapproved subtenant/occupant)

10. Damage to the apartment unit (threshold needed)

11. Disorderly behavior/disturbing the peace (documentation details TBD)

12. Refusing access to the unit when requested in accordance with the law

13. Using the premises for unlawful activities (documentation details TBD) Both stakeholder groups agreed that implementing the above lists of no -fault and for - cause terminations in excee dance of state law would be burdensome and hard to enforce or manage properly, and suggested the City explore options that encourage efficient and effective implementation. There was disagreement on which approach to pursue further, as shown below.

Most tenant advocates suggested the City should focus new policy efforts on defining the circumstances in which no relocation assistance is provided, and all other circumstances are eligible to avoid omitting vulnerable tenants. There was a high level of conse nsus among tenant advocates to address significant rent increases, such as #4 on the list of no-fault terminations. However, there were differing opinions on whether a percentage of rent increase or a percentage of household income (for example, expending more than 30% of household income on rent) should be utilized.

Owner advocates preferred the City to focus on identifying under which circumstances relocation assistance would be required. Owner advocates agreed that they would not support #4 and #7 in the list of no-fault terminations There was some level of consensus within this group that the HUD definition of substantial rehabilitation was inadequate for Long Beach.

Participants were asked to discuss potential details of where relocation assistance wo uld apply. Owner advocates expressed that CoStar data and media reports indicate that in Long Beach, large apartment buildings are the greatest concern for displacement.

Owners advocates reached a high level of consensus (4 or 5) that relocation assistance could apply under the following circumstances:

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 53
Tenants are issued a no -fault termination of tenancy within one year of new ownership (and retroactively 6 months prior to change in ownership) in buildings with 10 or more units.

Tenant advocates expressed that their organizations work with Long Beach residents who are being displaced from rental properties of all types and scales. City staff asked participants to consider using the City’s rental housing business license procedure as a trackable threshold. The City’s existing procedure is to issue a business license for property owners leasing properties containing four or more units. Some tenant advocates felt that a four -unit threshold for relocation assistance would result in continued negative impacts of displacement from single -family, duplex, and triplex rentals. Owner advocates felt that four or more units was too low of a threshold; citing that it would significantly impact small rental property owners, especially seniors utilizing rental investments as a source of retirement income.

There was no consensus between the stakeholder groups on the amount for relocation assistance. The City presented the existing relocation assistance amount of $4,500 per unit that was adopted for condominium conversions, code enforcement violations requiring relocation, and displaced lower income households in the Coastal Zone (LBMC

21.60 and 21.61)32. There is an annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index. The City asked participants to respond to the idea that no -fault termination relocation assistance would be paid to qualifying low income renters. Owner advocates recommended that there be no income limits on relocation assistance, and both groups reached consensus (4 or 5) that an income limit (for example, based on AMI) would increase bureaucracy and make managing the program too complicated.

Owner advocates suggested a no -fault relocation assistance payment could be one months’ rent for someone that has rented from one to five years and two months’ rent for tenan ts beyond five years. One participant suggested the City look at HUD Fair Market Rents because the City, although they vary by zip code. Another suggested the City creates and funds a relocation assistance pilot program.

Tenant advocates felt that the Cit y’s existing $4,500 amount does not reflect current rental prices, provide for storage or temporary housing, and other moving costs. They do not agree that one - or two-months’ rent would adequately cover the rehousing process including rental application f ees, deposits, missing work to move, etc., especially for lower income households.

Both sides expressed some interest in learning what the real costs of moving within Long Beach would be and how that would relate to a relocation fee. Another area of common ground includes a preference for the City to reiterate state law about security deposit refunds in a local code.
32 Amount calculated as of January 1, 2018 based on base amount and annual escalation specified in LBMC 18.30.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PROCESS | Page 54
Other topics of conversation that warrant more staff investigation:
• Tenant advocates requested the City include affirmative defenses to unlaw ful detainers (unlawful evictions) language.
• Tenant advocates requested the City explore an anti -harassment clause with the intent to deter owners from harassing or intimidating renters out of a unit to avoid paying relocation assistance (this is different from anti-retaliation policies studied earlier in this engagement process).
• Owner advocates requested the City consider new owner expenses such as high property taxes, deferred maintenance, and significant damage caused by tenants. • Owner advocates warned that new fees would be built into proformas prior to purchasing or rehabilitating a rental property and could unintentionally result in higher rents.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS | Page 55
IV. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
This report contains basic information on California law that governs tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, as well as existing Long Beach tenant assistance policies including the Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program (PRHIP), condominium conversion requirements, code enforcement tenant relocation assistance, maintenan ce of low -income housing in the Coastal Zone, and the LBCIC Local Housing Preference Policy.

The report also contains the results of a survey of 115 various jurisdictions in California and several other states in the country. Fifty -two (52) of those jurisdictions did not have any form of tenant protection policy above what is required by California State law, while the rest of the jurisdictions have tenant protection policies in various degrees. Of th e 63 jurisdictions with tenant protection policies, the m ost common policy , aside from a multifamily unit inspection program, is some form of tenant relocation assistance, which was adopted by 20 out of the 115 jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the 10 most populous cities in California were analyzed as a subset to see which cities offered relocation assistance programs. F our of the 10 largest cities, including San Diego, did not have an adopted tenant relocation assistance policy. Two cities, including Long Beach, have a limited tenant relocation assistance policy, pri marily to address displacement due to code enforcement or demolition. The remaining four cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland ) have expanded tenant protection policies coupled with rent stabilization ordinances.

The report also analyze d housing stock and market data in the City and observed an upward trend in the sales of existing apartment buildings and the number of building rehabilitations, although this activity is occurring in a relatively small percentage of the overall multifamily housing stock. The report also indicated an increase in mean rents citywide, and a slight reduction in the Citywide vacancy rate.

APPENDICES | Page 1
V. APPENDICES
APPENDICES | Page 2
APPENDIX A – SURVEY & RESULTS
Questions/Script:

Hi, this is _____ from the City of Long Beach. We’re doing a study on tenant protections and renter assistance programs, and are hoping we could ask you a few questions. Do you have a few minutes to answer a few questions about the policies your city has on the books? This should take no more than 10 minutes.

Questions:

1. Does your City have a rent control or rent stabilization ordinance?

2. We’re interested in finding out about renter protection policies cities have that go above and beyond what is required by St ate law. Does your city have any of the following? If so, can you please provide the name of the policy and a brief description?
a. Just Cause Eviction Policy
b. Anti-Retaliation Policy
c. Relocation Benefits
i. If yes, are there specific categories of tenants that are entitled to relocation benefits?
ii. What is the amount that they are entitled to receive? (if the City has Rent Control) How are these policies related to your Rent Control policy?

3. Does your City have any specific enforcement tools to address landlor ds with persistent building code violations, neighborhood blight, or other neighborhood quality-of-life issues?
a. Does your City have a proactive unit inspection program in place? i. If yes, how often are units inspected?

4. Does your city have any special pro tections/benefits for senior renters? Again, these would be any policies above what is required by State law. Do you have:
a. A senior rental assistance program?
b. Additional relocation benefits/relocation programs for seniors?

5. Does your city have homeownership assistance programs currently available (as of 2018) to renters? If yes:
a. What type of assistance? (e.g. Second Mortgage Assistance, Downpayment Assistance)
b. How is the program funded?
c. What income levels are eligible for these programs?
d. What populations are eligible for these programs? (e.g. teachers, police, etc.) APPENDICES | Page 3
e. What is the annual budget for this program, and how many first -time homebuyers do you typically assist per year?
(If all questions answered)
Thanks for taking the time to help out with this study; (If some were answered because they didn’t know all the answers) Can I send you a copy of these questions to review and provide more info? (If they couldn’t answer all)
Who would be a good person to talk to about (specific program)? APPENDIX A - Tenant Protections Survey Matrix
10/30/2018
City Population Just-Cause for Termination
of Tenancy
Anti-Retaliation Policy Relocation Benefits above
State Law
Additional Tenant
Protection Policies Above
State Law
Unit Inspection Program Senior Rental Assistance Senior Relocation Benefits City Population Just-Cause for Termination of
Tenancy
Anti-Retaliation Policy Relocation Benefits above
State Law
Additional Tenant Protection
Policies Above State Law
Unit Inspection Program Senior Rental Assistance Senior Relocation Benefits Los Angeles 3,980,000 Yes No Yes Relocation Assistance Program (part of the rent
stabilization program).

Yes Rent Stabilization
Program.

Yes Rent Escrow Account
Program. The Housing &
Community Investment
Department of LA (HCIDLA) &
Systemic Code Enforcement
Program (SCEP)>
No No
San Diego 1,400,000 Yes No No No Yes Housing Program-
Inspection by Area
No No
San Jose 1,030,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
San Francisco 864,816 Yes No Yes-Apartment Rent Ordinance No Yes No No Fresno 522,053 No No Yes No Yes Rental Housing Inspection Program
No No
Sacramento 495,234 No No No No Yes Residential Rental
Inspection Program. REAP
Program
No No
Long Beach 470,130 No No Yes For low-income
households displaced by
Demolition or condominium
conversion.

Yes Yes Proactive Rental Housing
Inspection Program.

No No
Oakland 420,005 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, Rent Adjustment
Program(RAP)Residential
Rental Inspection Program
No No
Bakersfield 376,380 No No No No No No No
Anaheim 351,043 No No No No Yes Anaheim Rental Inspection Program
No No
Santa Ana 349,909 No No No No Yes Proactive Rental
Enforcement Program (PREP).

Under Code Enforcement.

Citywide, due to understaffed
dept. inspections are done
once every 4 yrs.

No No
Riverside 322,424 No No Yes-Relocation Allownace No No No No Stockton 307,073 No No No No Yes No No
Chula Vista 265,757 No No No No Yes No No
Irvine 256,927 No No No No No No No
Fremont 223,206 Yes No No No No No No
San Bernardino 216,108 No No No No Yes Crime Free Inspection No No Modesto 211,266 No No No No No No No
Fontana 207,460 No No No No No No No
Oxnard 207,254 No No No No No No No
MoreNoValley 204,198 No Yes …MoreNoValley Tenant
Rights & Immigrant Tenant
Protection Act. Does Not Go
Above And Beyond State Law.

Just, Perhaps, Endorses It.

No No No No No
Huntington Beach 201,899 No No No No No No No
Glendale 201,020 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Housing Quality Standard No No Santa Clarita 182,371 No No No No No No No
( - ) indicates no response.
1 of 4
APPENDIX A - Tenant Protections Survey Matrix
10/30/2018
City Population Just-Cause for Termination
of Tenancy
Anti-Retaliation Policy Relocation Benefits above
State Law
Additional Tenant
Protection Policies Above
State Law
Unit Inspection Program Senior Rental Assistance Senior Relocation Benefits Oceanside 175,691 No No No No No No NO
Garden Grove 175,393 No No No No No No No
Rancho Cucamonga 175,236 No No No No No No No
Santa Rosa 175,155 No No No No No No No
Ontario 173,212 No No No No Yes No No
Elk Grove 166,913 No No No No No No No
Corona 164,226 No No No No No No No
Lancaster 161,103 No No No No Yes Residential Rental
Inspection Program.

No No
Palmdale 158,351 No No No No Yes-1,3,&5 year inspections Residential Rental Inspection
Program
No No
Hayward 158,289 Yes No No No Yes Residential Rental
Inspection Program.

No No
Salinas 157,380 No No No No No No No
Pomona 153,266 No No No No No No No
Sunnyvale 151,754 No No No No No No No
Escondido 151,457 No No No No No Yes; rental subsidy for VLI seniors on waiting list for HCV;
limited funding through
Successor Agency Funds
No
Torrance 148,475 No No No No No No No
Pasadena 142,250 No Yes Yes All households below
140% AMI receive 2 months’
rent plus up to $3,000 in
moving expenses.

No No No No
Orange 140,992 No No No No No No No
Fullerton 140,847 No No No No No No No
Roseville 130,269 No No No No Yes, Restricted Units Only No No Visalia 130,104 No No No No No No No
Thousand Oaks 129,339 Yes No No No No No No
Concord 128,726 No Yes - built into Rent Review
program
No No Yes No No
Simi Valley 126,327 No No No No No No No
Santa Clara 126,215 No No No No No No No
Victorville 122,225 No No No No No No No
Vallejo 121,253
Berkeley 120,972 Yes No Yes; Yes No No No; relocation ordinance applies to everyone
El Monte 116,732 No No Yes, Tenant Relocation
Ordinance
No No No No
Downey 114,219
Carlsbad 113,453 No No No No No No No
Costa Mesa 113,204 No No No, but has been encouraged
for certain projects
No No No No
Fairfield 112,970 No No No No No No No
Temecula 112,001 No No No No No No No
Inglewood 111,666 No No No No No No No
Antioch 110,542 No No No No No No No
Murrieta 109,830 No No No No Yes-restricted units only-annual inspection
No No
Richmond 109,708 Yes No Yes- Multi before 1995 Yes Yes, Residential Rental Inspection Program
Yes- Multi before 1995
No Not specific
Ventura 109,592 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
( - ) indicates no response.
2 of 4
APPENDIX A - Tenant Protections Survey Matrix
10/30/2018
City Population Just-Cause for Termination
of Tenancy
Anti-Retaliation Policy Relocation Benefits above
State Law
Additional Tenant
Protection Policies Above
State Law
Unit Inspection Program Senior Rental Assistance Senior Relocation Benefits West Covina 108,484 No No No No No No No
Norwalk 107,140 No No No No No No No
Daly City 106,472 No No No No No No No
Burbank 105,319 No No No No No No No
Santa Maria 105,093 No No No No No No No
Clovis 104,180 No No No No No No No
El Cajon 103,679 No No No Yes No No
San Mateo 103,536 No No No No Yes Multi Residential
Inspection Program. Program
ran by the FD. Exterior
Inspections - annually, interior,
every 2 years
No No
Rialto 103,132 Yes No No No Yes No Rehab program not specific Vista 100,890 No No No No No No No
Jurupa Valley 100,314 No No No No No No No
Compton 98,462
Mission Viejo 97,156 No No No No No No No
Vacaville 96,803 No No No No No No No
South Gate 96,401 No No No No No No No
Hesperia 93,295 No No No No No No No
Carson 93,281 Yes Yes No Yes No No No
Santa Monica 93,220 Yes Yes City Attorney's Office
enforced the ordinance. If
tenant feels they are being
harrased w/ actions that are
intended for them to move out,
they file a complaint & CA
office investigates.

Yes Yes No Yes - POD Pilot Program Yes
San Marcos 92,931 No No Yes No Yes-affordable units No No Westminster 92,114 No No No No No No No
Santa Barbara 91,842 No No No No No No No
Redding 91,582 No No Yes No No No No
San Leandro 90,712 Yes No Yes Up to $7,000 No No No No
Chico 90,316 No No No No No No No
Hawthorne 88,451 No No Yes No No No No
Livermore 88,126 No No No No No No No
Indio 87,533 No No No No No No No
Whittier 87,438 No No No No No No No
Menifee 87,174 No No No No No No No
Newport Beach 87,127 No No Mobile Home Parks Only No No No No Tracy 87,075 No No No No No No No
Citrus Heights 87,056 No No No No No Yes No
Chino 85,595 No No No No No No No
Alhambra 85,551 Yes No No No No No No
Redwood City 85,288 No No No No No No No
Hemet 83,861 No No No No No No No
Buena Park 83,270 No No No No Yes; Rental Inspection system, inspected on rotating basis
No No
Lake Forest 82,492 No No No No No No No
( - ) indicates no response.
3 of 4
APPENDICES | Page 4
APPENDIX B – HOUSING AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2019

PAYMENT STANDARDS
Effective Date: 12/12/2018
The above payment standard will be applied to new contracts effective December 12, 2018 and after and for existing participants beginning with annual certifications effective January 1, 2019 and after.

Zip
Code
0 Bdrm 1 Bdrm 2 Bdrm 3 Bdrm 4 Bdrm 5 Bdrm 6 Bdrm 7 Bdrm 90802 $1,291 $1,543 $1,995 $2,677 $2,940 $3,381 $3,822 $4,263 90803 $1,607 $1,922 $2,489 $3,339 $3,675 $4,226 $4,778 $5,329 90804 $1,431 $1,719 $2,218 $2,979 $3,268 $3,758 $4,249 $4,739 90805 $1,352 $1,614 $2,087 $2,796 $3,071 $3,532 $3,993 $4,453 90806 $1,378 $1,641 $2,126 $2,848 $3,137 $3,607 $4,078 $4,548 90807 $1,302 $1,554 $2,016 $2,699 $2,972 $3,417 $3,863 $4,309 90808 $1,439 $1,722 $2,226 $2,982 $3,287 $3,779 $4,272 $4,765 90810 $1,040 $1,239 $1,607 $2,153 $2,373 $2,729 $3,085 $3,441 90813 $1,263 $1,513 $1,950 $2,613 $2,875 $3,306 $3,738 $4,169 90814 $1,291 $1,543 $1,995 $2,677 $2,940 $3,381 $3,822 $4,263 90815 $1,491 $1,785 $2,310 $3,098 $3,413 $3,924 $4,436 $4,948 APPENDICES | Page 5
APPENDIX C – HCV INCENTIVES REPORT, JUNE 30, 2017
(This page intentionally left blank)
City of Long Beach Memorandum
Working Together to Serve
Date: June 30, 2017
To:

From:
f,,trick H. West, City Manag-,;-j:�
V C / Kelly Colopy, Director of Health and Human Service\ .,.

Mayor and Members of the City Council For:

Subject: Housing Choice Voucher Landlord Incentive Program On April 4, 2017, the City Council requested the City Manager, the Health and Human Services (Health) Department, and the Development Services Department (Development Services) to develop an incentive package to encourage landlord acceptance of subsidized tenants through the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. It was requested that the incentive package incorporate options to: align and streamline the current City-mandated inspections with the HUD-mandated HCV inspections; waive various permits and inspection costs for apartment owners who accept HCVs; create a damage mitigation fund that provides financial assistance to landlords to mitigate damage caused by tenants during their occupancy under the HCV Program; and, provide landlords vacancy permits to hold units while the landlord is going through the HCV Program approval process.

The Health and Development Services Departments have reviewed the available options for the requested incentive program, and provide the following opportunities:

1. Streamlining current City-mandated inspections with HUD-mandated HCV inspections.

The Housing Authority conducts HUD-mandated HCV inspections each time a new tenant moves into a subsidized apartment unit, and every one to two years after that to ensure the safety of the unit. The City-mandated Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program (PRHIP) inspects entire buildings on an approximate schedule of once every five years.

The two inspections focus on different issues and are not duplicative. For example, the HCV program will inspect a specific unit's living conditions, while the PRHIP inspection looks at the entire building's living conditions and code issues not covered by HUD inspections. However, the City recognizes that although these two inspections are different, that for building owners undergoing both inspections within a short period of time, there is a desire to have both inspections in a coordinated manner. Therefore, to streamline and coordinate inspections, Development Services will provide a list of all buildings scheduled for inspection in the upcoming 30 days to the Housing Authority.

When the Housing Authority is scheduled to conduct an inspection in one of the PRHIP scheduled buildings, the Housing Authority will notify Development Services, and the visits will be coordinated to reduce burden on the landlord and the tenant.

Housing Choice Voucher Landlord Incentive Program
June 30, 2017