[0:00] Good evening, everybody. My name is Muruhah Klensay. I'm the Assistant Director here at the Community Development Department in the City of Interet.

[0:07] Thank you for joining us for our anti-herrasment ordinance. Stay colder meeting. This was requested by our subcommittee.

[0:15] Housing and Homeless subcommittee at the August 20 meeting. As directed by Council, we were instructed to pursue an anti-herrasment ordinance.

[0:23] We took that forward, got some feedback and here we are today.

[0:26] So, again, while this is not live streamed, this is being recorded for a future watching.

[0:32] If anybody here needs translation services, they're in the back of the room.

[0:37] And so, in front of you, you will see, oh, let me introduce the rest of the team.

[0:41] I'm sorry.

[0:43] Good evening, everybody. I'm Leona Rollins, Housing Services Manager for the City of Interna.

[0:49] Hello, my name is Rachel Westman, Management Analyst in the Housing Services Division.

[0:55] Monica, the law, yes, is in city attorney.

[1:01] So we don't have mics.

[1:02] So because this is being recorded, we want to make sure we hear all your voices in the future.

[1:08] So as we share comments, there's two mics.

[1:12] So we're going to have to play hot potato and pass them around.

[1:16] Game is trainer.

[1:17] You can sit wherever you like around the table.

[1:18] Thank you.

[1:21] I have a couple other agenda packets here too.

[1:23] So we may go a little off script just because, again, I wasn't expecting.

[1:26] and we weren't expecting not sure how many people

[1:28] to expect this evening.

[1:30] On the agenda, though, we have our introductions.

[1:33] I'm going to jump around a bit.

[1:35] How the meeting is going to work, we'll have general public

[1:38] comments, should anyone in the audience just wish to share

[1:41] their thoughts don't really want to participate

[1:43] in what will be a page by page, exercise of the ordinance.

[1:47] We will have the ordinance that you have in draft form,

[1:50] displayed on the screen, and Leonor Rollins

[1:52] will scan type, while obviously hand type.

[1:55] We'll type your comments and bubbles on the image or on the PDF to capture those comments and then we will move forward with those comments back to our subcommittee at their meeting on September 30th.

[2:09] Before we get started into the actual exercise and before public comment we did want to have our city attorneys office representative senior attorney Monica de la Joya

[2:20] Just offer some comments to help set the stage for the meeting.

[2:23] We really want to make sure that we have bookends on our purview and just ensure that the

[2:28] comments we get here are the best value of your time and can make sure we can include

[2:33] everything that you give us this evening.

[2:35] So with that, Monica, if you wouldn't mind sharing your comments.

[2:47] Good evening.

[2:48] So as far as my role tonight under the municipal code, our office, the city attorney's office

[2:54] responsible for drafting ordinances and providing legal advice to the departments.

[3:00] So I will be working with staff to update the ordinance based on the feedback this evening.

[3:06] And so it's helpful for me to be here and hear the feedback directly and ask questions if needed.

[3:12] So the anti-harassment ordinance to be ultimately adopted by council

[3:16] should support program 32 of the housing element and the purpose of any

[3:22] protection policy according to the housing element is to counter the effects of economic displacement.

[3:29] So generally, tenant protection ordinances at the local level need to be more protective than state law not less.

[3:36] So ultimately the anti-horassment ordinance that is ultimately seen by council should be drafted to serve that purpose to help tenants counter the effects of displacement.

[3:47] So, as far as what would be helpful tonight is specificity to get specific recommendations for

[3:56] changes to the proposed ordinance.

[3:59] So, for example, feedback on how to improve section 9.10 40 in the draft ordinance, which lists

[4:08] the examples of prohibited harassment.

[4:11] So, if one of the examples should be deleted or improved, you know, or even just a minor change in language,

[4:21] that type of specificity will, is helpful feedback and would be appreciated.

[4:27] Same with the enforcement and penalty section, and with all the other sections.

[4:31] If there's something that in there that can be deleted or improved, modified in some way,

[4:36] specificity to that would be appreciated and if there's something like

[4:42] ways if there's something that's missing that's not in there. Feedback as to

[4:48] what is missing and should be and there would also be helpful. So if you're

[4:52] so we are going to be speaking to each other but if you're more comfortable with

[4:57] providing edits and writing, writing directly on your draft, either right now

[5:02] and sending it to us or taking it home, I'm redlining and then scanning a version to send to us.

[5:11] Then I'm going to provide an email where you can do that.

[5:15] And this could be an addition to what you provide us feedback tonight.

[5:20] So your feedback is not limited today.

[5:22] And so the email to provide any additional feedback is housing services.

[5:29] one word housing services at cityofentura.ca.gov and if you need that again, you know, we can

[5:39] recirculate that email and ideally what if you're going to provide any written feedback

[5:44] that will be email to that address email by September 19th so next Friday.

[5:52] And so, as Michael mentioned earlier, this is not being live stream, but it is being recorded.

[6:00] So we will have audio in case we need to re-here any feedback, but we are at the same time taking notes.

[6:11] And again, feel free to email if you think of something else later that was not discussed today.

[6:22] Thank you. Thank you Monica. So for those who just arrived, thank you for coming. We

[6:28] wanted to show how many people to expect, so we were going to do general public

[6:32] comment and then a focus group, but we're all the focus group, so that's great.

[6:36] Before we get started, I wanted to see if anyone, anybody here wants to just do a

[6:40] general three minute public comment, acknowledging that we're going to go through a page

[6:45] by page exercise with the ordinance itself. And just if you could speak your name and

[6:51] And then your role, or if you represent a certain group, or property owner, or tenant,

[6:57] that would be great.

[7:01] No, I didn't turn them on.

[7:04] There it is.

[7:05] Hi.

[7:06] Good afternoon.

[7:07] Everybody.

[7:07] My name is Adele Trainer.

[7:09] I'm a community member.

[7:10] I'm a property owner.

[7:12] I also work in the housing industry as a real estate agent for residential properties.

[7:17] Just before we get started, I was wondering if this information had already been put out.

[7:22] But what is this statistics and the data of the harassment that we are talking about that we're addressing?

[7:31] So we're coming up with a solution for harassment.

[7:35] What I'm not clear on is what kind of the harassment are we getting?

[7:40] What are those numbers that that part I've missed?

[7:51] So my understanding of how this ordinance came about,

[7:56] It's not necessarily in response to a specific request to address known harassment and as far

[8:08] as that information, we can request it from the Housing Rights Center.

[8:11] This ordinance stems from the housing element, obligations that we have to create ten

[8:18] and protection ordinances.

[8:19] So when council was provided a menu of ten and protection ordinances, this is one of the

[8:26] elections that they made.

[8:30] And also, this is general public comments.

[8:32] So just, general set the stage, we'll get into the,

[8:34] to the particulars of the ordinance itself.

[8:37] Yes, sir.

[8:42] Matt Caprito, community member, property owner, property manager,

[8:47] housing provider,

[8:51] such, so on and so forth.

[8:56] I think your introduction was so appropriate

[8:59] as to the focus of the ordinance and what the ordinance,

[9:03] What the outcome of the ordinance is supposed to do.

[9:09] I, in particular, was really taken a back by, and I think, also, a couple of the council members,

[9:21] when reading the ordinance and the background information.

[9:26] So I'm specifically talking about the discussion in the analysis.

[9:33] I think there are a number of things that are so inflammatory that don't need to be said.

[9:41] I think the message can be set in a way that as far as our analysis of why we're here and what we're doing.

[9:51] And I think it was just appropriately stated.

[9:54] But most of this is inflammatory and unnecessary.

[9:58] And it is, as a housing provider, it just really doesn't sit

[10:03] well.

[10:04] As a guy who's done everything right for the many years

[10:08] I have, I just find it wholly inflammatory.

[10:12] Thank you.

[10:13] Thank you for that feedback.

[10:14] All right, next,

[10:19] hygiene.

[12:36] OK, great.

[12:38] We're going to go page by page.

[12:39] And I think we're getting to a granular detail, which is very beneficial.

[12:42] I really wanted to get general set the stage.

[12:46] What's the sentiment moving in?

[12:47] And we will go line by line, but thank you, James, so much.

[12:50] One over here, please.

[12:51] Thank you.

[12:56] It turns green.

[12:58] Yes, if I can just say, that's the type of specific TV we need.

[13:01] So that was helpful.

[13:03] But you're going to have to repeat yourself once we get to it.

[13:06] I really just wanted general, like how we're feeling.

[13:09] Like, you know, you had, you know,

[13:10] we're going to take to consideration with our next report, you know, just

[13:13] general set the stage where we're at to help just inspire people as we move forward

[13:17] with the exercise.

[13:18] So thank you.

[13:20] So I'm going to hope I'm going to hope to aim.

[13:22] I'm going to aim to please and satisfy the request.

[13:25] Thank you.

[13:26] But my name is Jorge Delion.

[13:27] I am a resident of Ventura.

[13:29] I'm also a tenant with the hopes of one day being a property owner with the

[13:38] But witnessing how individuals behave, I'm very concerned that the way that this proposal

[13:46] is being written can be used as extortion for those that are properly honored as a housing

[13:52] provider.

[13:53] I have seen it firsthand where somebody will say, I have rights on do this.

[13:58] I will turn you in where somebody that rightfully have the ability of doing things because

[14:05] the property being destroyed was extorted into providing to the point that it, in that

[14:10] costing me money as the individual that helped find that tenant.

[14:15] Secondarily,

[14:17] when you limit someone's ability to document something that was discovered in

[14:22] a property just because you enter the property under a different scenario, I'm going to give

[14:26] you an example.

[14:28] We just discovered that one of the properties that we're bringing to market has mold.

[14:32] And during the inspections, if we would have been able to discover that and at that time,

[14:40] under this ordinance, if we discovered that under a different scenario, we would have to re-notice them,

[14:45] I would have been considered harassment under this rule by documenting a situation like that.

[14:51] So my encouragement for this group is, let's not lose sight of how to be able to provide a reasonable ordinance.

[15:00] For everybody involved and not limit somebody to be able to protect someone because, by the way, it's not lawful based on this ordinance.

[15:09] Thank you. Any other general comments?

[15:11] Over there? Marty? Hi, Marty. Would you mind passing the mic?

[15:17] Good evening, everyone.

[15:19] My name is Dr. Richard DeVay.

[15:20] I'm a professor of political science event

[15:22] or a college and a longtime event

[15:24] or a residence.

[15:25] I just wanted to make a couple of broad points.

[15:28] One is that in all of the housing

[15:32] policy work that we've been doing,

[15:34] essentially the city is flying blind.

[15:36] We do not have data,

[15:37] like housing rights commission might have some.

[15:40] But really we're running on anecdote,

[15:42] right? Tenants experience lands or experience with some tenants.

[15:45] So we don't really know this scope of this problem.

[15:47] So I think we need to keep that in mind.

[15:50] The other thing we need to keep in mind

[15:51] is the power imbalance between tenants and landlords.

[15:54] It's a structural issue.

[15:56] It's not a personal issue.

[15:58] Landlords have more power than tenants.

[16:01] That's the long and the short of it.

[16:03] If someone can kick you out of your home,

[16:06] you are in a less secure place

[16:07] than the person who owns the property.

[16:10] So again, that's not to say that all landlords are bad

[16:12] or all landlords are greater all tenants are bad.

[16:14] that's just to say that there are structural factors

[16:16] that we have to consider when looking at an ordinance.

[16:21] So I know this city can't really,

[16:24] without a rental registry or some way to study this,

[16:26] to put lots of money towards how much of this harassment happening,

[16:31] what kinds of harassment are happening,

[16:33] the academic literature I've been trying to look through

[16:34] is fairly scarce on this.

[16:37] So just keep in mind that we don't actually

[16:41] have a lot of solid data to go on

[16:42] and we do really have to keep in mind that some people have more power than others in these situations.

[16:48] Thank you.

[16:49] Would you like my passing note?

[16:51] There's a migrative front or pass it down perfect.

[16:53] Thank you.

[17:27] There's

[17:31] a migrative front or pass it down perfect.

[17:34] There's a migrative front or pass it down perfect.

[17:38] Thank you.

[17:41] Thank you.

[17:56] Would you check?

[17:57] Make sure your mic is on.

[17:58] It should be green if it's on.

[18:00] Is it?

[18:07] I think we didn't have your mic on, so we'll make sure to keep it on next time.

[18:11] Peter McKenzie, a long time Ventura resident, a landlord, also owner property management company,

[18:17] work with a lot of other landlords and a lot equal number of tenants.

[18:22] I'm excited that we're here to have a conversation and hopefully come to some sort of compromise,

[18:27] something that works for all sides that are involved.

[18:31] I would be pleased if we brought down the rhetoric, and we had an actual conversation.

[18:37] Obviously, both sides have their talking points, everybody knows that, but let's have a conversation

[18:42] and have something productive that takes into account both sides, which I think, which is currently written, that's not the case.

[18:52] Thank you.

[18:53] Any other general comments, sir?

[18:57] My name is Robert Chatternever.

[19:01] This is the second meeting of this type that I've attended

[19:06] in the last few months.

[19:08] I spent time on the tenant protection act.

[19:12] I'm an owner.

[19:14] I don't know when owners became the villains in need of regulation.

[19:23] I've been dealing with more and more regulation by the city, by the state, by the feds.

[19:32] I've got the feds wanting me to put electrical improvements that are not required by code in my section eight units.

[19:42] I'm not going to do it, and those tenants are probably going to get evicted because housing is not going to pay their share of the rent.

[19:52] I've spent time on the Tenant Protection Act that you came up with last time.

[19:58] This is a similar ceremony to be able to say that we've gathered input from all of the

[20:04] stakeholders when I fear it's a concluded proceeding.

[20:13] We're just going through the motions.

[20:14] I don't feel like our comments are really going to have an impact.

[20:21] I've had a great relationship with my tenants.

[20:24] My long-term tenants, I hardly ever raised the rents.

[20:29] I've got many units that are 30, 40, 50 percent below market rates.

[20:37] But having a deal with all this regulation, it's just wearing on me.

[20:42] And I don't know why I should be the good guy.

[20:48] I am ready to say that if this goes into effect, and I see this as not a shield for tenants

[20:56] but a sword to be used against landlords,

[21:01] this goes into effect.

[21:02] I'm going to have another round of right-end creases and start doing what I'm permitted to do by law.

[21:10] And I'm going to attribute it in the rent increase notices to all the regulation that I have to put up with that's just becoming more and more burdensome.

[21:22] This is not how I like to spend my evening.

[21:27] But some some place this has to stop.

[21:33] Thank you.

[21:34] So any other general comments before we get started?

[21:38] Just for background, we have a certified housing element, I'm sure you're from a housing

[21:43] element, as part of a city or jurisdictions general plan that's certified by the state.

[21:48] We have a myriad of programs in there that have been adopted by council and we are required

[21:54] as staff to fulfill.

[21:56] One of those programs is program 32 titled tenant protections.

[22:02] We went through an exercise with planning commission city council. I say a lot of familiar faces that were part of that.

[22:08] We provided a menu of options.

[22:11] Those menu of options were selected by council and advice staff to come back with these options.

[22:19] This ordinance is one of those options.

[22:23] We're going to the subcommittee.

[22:25] The ordinance was presented.

[22:26] Our subcommittee recommended get a task force together, get stakeholders together, let's have a round table discussion under the intent of being collaborative hearing from everybody.

[22:40] And I would like to all of us together because we want to see something different in this ordinance.

[22:45] So let's come in, proactively, collaboratively, you will see your notes on the screen being transcribed.

[22:53] It's our intent to attach that as an attachment to future reports for consideration of the elected and the appointed commissioners.

[23:04] So with that, I would really appreciate it if we could just quickly pass some mic and just introduce for the record everybody that is here.

[23:12] For anybody in the future that wants to live or watch this recorded, and then we can just have note of everybody who participated.

[23:23] Yeah. Peter McKenzie, resident landlord, owner property management company.

[23:30] Jose Rodriguez, committee organizer for calls, as well as a tenant and just a human.

[23:36] Hi everyone, Christian Nunes and you're a policy advocate with calls and the west side resident.

[23:43] In Gamble, I live on the East End.

[23:47] I am one of the main organizers for the Venturitan Senior.

[23:53] Marty Ingram, landlord.

[23:55] Who's going to make the final decision?

[23:57] Are we going to finally get to the decisions?

[23:58] Council.

[24:00] So the way on the agenda, you'll see the dates that it's proposed.

[24:03] September 25th, it goes to Planning Commission.

[24:06] September 30th, it goes to our Housing and Homeless Subcommittee.

[24:09] And Council, I believe, is October.

[24:11] I don't have it in front of me, I get my last agenda.

[24:14] 7th, thank you.

[24:17] So that will be the final decision makers.

[24:20] Will there be more of these meetings?

[24:21] Or is we're going to be done?

[24:23] I mean, this is like we just keep doing these meetings.

[24:26] Yes.

[24:28] This is hopefully one good meeting where we go line by line.

[24:32] We get that product and we move it forward to the next round.

[24:39] Richard and VAPHD, professor of political science,

[24:42] Ventura College.

[24:44] Grant Whitefis, resident and real estate agent.

[24:49] Camie Pinsack, community member, real tour,

[24:53] a Ventura County Coastal Association of real tours.

[24:58] Robert Chattanova, housing provider,

[25:03] Matt Capredo,

[25:05] lifelong area resident, housing provider,

[25:10] property manager, property owner,

[25:13] and everything else. By the way, I want to applaud staff for having a dialogue. The meetings

[25:26] that were previous to this were not a two-way conversation, they were a one-way conversation.

[25:32] If there's any progress that I think is worthy here and it would be that we're having a dialogue

[25:41] and I can't tell you how much, many of us appreciate that. Thank you.

[25:45] Thank you. I appreciate that.

[25:48] Dr. Ozzo, Ventura County Coastal Association of Realtors.

[25:53] Jane Haker, broker owner of California's property management.

[25:57] Bridget Gonzalez, life-long Ventura resident, broker owner of Joe Capri-Listate.

[26:04] Joe Verning, Realtor, and property manager here in Ventura.

[26:08] Good evening, Karen Flock, Ventura Housing, and Homes for All, and Ventura Resident.

[26:15] Jorge Delione, I'm a resident of Ventura.

[26:17] Also, almost a lifelong resident of Ventura.

[26:21] I happen to be a real estate broker, but I'm a tenant as well.

[26:26] A delicate trainer, community member first, and always, but also a homeowner.

[26:33] And I really care about housing.

[26:37] Can trainer, citizen of this wonderful little city, and just concerned about, or this is all going.

[26:46] Bonnie gets a long time venture resident, also a homeowner.

[26:50] And I also believe that we need to realize we need each other.

[26:54] I'm a landlord, and I need a good tenant.

[26:56] And a good tenant is an understanding realtor, but we need to come to an agreement.

[27:03] We need each other.

[27:04] Great. Thank you. Hello.

[27:08] Please.

[27:09] Royland Downs. I'm a Ventura resident and I'm also a real estate agent and potentially a landlord.

[27:16] Would you like to sit at the table? There's a seat right over there.

[27:20] There's on right there.

[27:26] Judy Alexander chair the Ventura Social Service Task Force and a member of Homes for all.

[27:33] and a homeowner and a 45th year resident of the city of Ventura.

[27:44] We could also pull up a couple chairs, Judy, and Dawn, I think your name was?

[27:51] Hello.

[27:53] My name is Shayna, I'm 25 years old.

[27:56] I've worked in several areas of education in the county and I am a renter.

[28:03] Okay, what a wonderful group.

[28:04] I'm really happy to see you all.

[28:06] So I'm with Ventura, Tendenzimian.

[28:08] Oh, taking time out of your evening from your family

[28:12] and loved ones to be here.

[28:13] So thank you for that.

[28:14] So as you'll see on the screen,

[28:16] we have the ordinance, the copy is identical

[28:18] to the one you have, hard copy in front of you.

[28:21] I have an extra one here.

[28:24] If anybody needs an extra copy, oh my gosh, that light.

[28:29] Anybody, Judy?

[28:30] You have one, okay, great.

[28:33] All right.

[28:34] So you'll see some mics around the table.

[28:36] We're going to do this kind of organic and free form.

[28:40] And we'll go section by section.

[28:42] Leona will type.

[28:45] And as we move on and get a thumbs up,

[28:47] kind of to move on to the next one, how does that sound?

[28:51] OK.

[28:51] All right.

[28:52] Thank you.

[28:53] So we can't really touch the ordinance title.

[28:56] So we'll move on to chapter description.

[28:59] Is there any concern or hesitation

[29:02] or suggested refinement with the project description.

[29:07] And it's okay if there's none.

[29:10] I'm sorry.

[29:11] Would you mind using the mic just because we're recording?

[29:15] I wonder if this is a program or a guidance.

[29:22] So it says this chapter establishes an entire

[29:23] harassment program.

[29:25] And I would like for us to consider

[29:28] not using the word program but the word guidance.

[29:38] And the reason why, if I may, if it is a program, that means that people are going to feel that this is a, and now maybe I'm actually answering my own question on this.

[29:51] I just don't like the word program, and that's just a personal scenario, and it's, you know, right?

[30:01] I mean, we wouldn't order that out to see if anybody's going to do that.

[30:05] Would ordinance, I mean, it's verbatim to what the title is, but maybe that's just more straightforward.

[30:12] Ordinance, I'm seeing thumbs up, some what thumbs up, okay.

[30:17] And for changes like that, guidance, for example, is not appropriate because it's not guidance.

[30:22] It's a requirement, right? And the word program is pretty generic.

[30:30] So I think it's fine to make the suggestion, but I don't think we need to do a thumbs up or not as to, you know,

[30:39] word changes that are not substantive, okay?

[30:42] If anyone, you know, wants to chime in, they can.

[30:47] I think that's more also in alignment with the just the municipal code in general.

[30:52] so they 작업 isn't the starting point of grandma.

[30:53] It doesn't have, it doesn't provide guidance.

[30:59] It provides, you know, mandates, requirements,

[31:04] programs,

[31:04] there's tacit Satation with the word program.

[31:06] Can we just say Anything.

[31:10] The establishment, this chapter establishes an anti-herrasmin ordinance,

[31:14] just a supplemental segment.

[31:15] ordinance and then we can talk about it some more and see what matches with the rest of the

[31:18] municipal code.

[31:21] Thank you, Leona.

[31:25] Any other refinements to 9.10.010.010.

[31:31] Seeing none.

[31:32] We'll move on.

[31:42] Sure.

[31:42] Yeah.

[31:42] Absolutely.

[31:43] That's OK for sure.

[31:45] So chapter description.

[31:46] This chapter establishes an anti-harassment program or ordinance to supplement existing state

[31:54] federal laws, prohibiting and deterring harassment in all rental units, including single family

[32:00] residences and condominiums.

[32:08] But I just got to ask again.

[32:10] So we're doing this because the Council directed you to come up with this or to, let's

[32:19] have a conversation on whether we need it.

[32:21] The Council directed us to come forward with an anti-harassment ordinance that's beyond what

[32:25] the state supplies already.

[32:27] That's correct.

[32:29] Even though we have no data, I understand.

[32:31] Thank you for that explanation.

[32:38] So moving on, sir?

[32:40] I'm sorry.

[32:41] There's a mic.

[32:41] I want to make sure we get all the voices in the recording.

[32:44] Thank you.

[32:45] Great.

[32:45] My light was just clarifying Council's directive was to come up with an ordinance that was supplemental

[32:51] to state law, meaning enhancing state law, meaning in addition and above and greater than state law.

[32:57] Was that Council's directive?

[32:59] Council's directive.

[33:00] But maybe we should pull up the motion exactly so we can have it on hand.

[33:03] It would be nice to have.

[33:04] Is that a local anti harassment ordinance?

[33:07] Can we reach?

[33:07] Can you pull up the motion?

[33:09] Thank you.

[33:10] Can we pause that question really quick or pause to get that answer?

[33:17] We have a lot of bright minds in this city, but I have a hard time believing that we're

[33:20] any brighter than the state in their already comprehensive laws that are on the books.

[33:28] Disagree.

[33:37] So just to be clear, there's state law and federal law that establishes protected

[33:43] categories, and members of those protected categories are, for example, in California, I think

[33:52] it's called now the California Civil Rights Department, it used to be the Department

[33:55] of Fair Housing and Employment.

[33:57] So if you are in one of those protected categories, and you are discriminated in employment

[34:02] or housing, you go to them.

[34:04] If you are discriminated for a reason, that is not in one of the protected categories,

[34:10] they are not, there's no statute, so the purpose of the ordinance is not to adopt

[34:21] state law locally only because there's already protections, you can just, you know,

[34:29] you already have recourse, but it is, there would be no purpose if not to go beyond

[34:34] state law.

[34:41] What would be the purpose of not going beyond state law?

[34:52] So,

[34:55] but the council directed an anti-harassment ordinance.

[35:08] On May 27th, 2025 City Council directed staff to create an anti-harassment program which clearly defines harassment,

[35:16] protects property owners and tenants from several forms of harassment and to present the ordinance to city council for their

[35:22] consideration on or before October 1st 2025.

[35:26] This is a point of clarity.

[35:27] You did say that they directed staff to come up with an ordinance that also provided anti-harassment

[35:32] or harassment protections for landlords.

[35:34] Tenants and property owners.

[35:36] I just want to make sure I heard that correctly.

[35:38] Thank you.

[35:39] Just want to talk about the mortgage.

[35:41] Probably.

[35:44] I joke, Marty.

[35:45] Marty and I know each other.

[35:47] I was your landlord.

[35:49] She was my landlord.

[35:50] Thank you.

[35:51] Thank you, so here we are. Again, yes, ma'am.

[36:02] I'm sorry, I'm new here, so this is my first time hearing all this.

[36:07] So I'm trying to figure out, and I'm looking at the beginning just to understand what the ordinance is,

[36:14] and it says an ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Francisco, California adopting a new title,

[36:22] Title 9 housing regulations, including chapter 9.10 anti-Harrassment program to the municipal code.

[36:30] Is that what it is? I wasn't sure what title new title Title 9 was all about.

[36:36] Correct. That's where it will live in our municipal code.

[36:39] It's adopted. Yes.

[36:40] I just wanted to be sure. Oh, thank you. No problem.

[36:42] Okay. So we are at now section 9 point. Are we cool with the motion?

[36:49] We got back the motion. Here we are. Okay.

[36:51] So, moving on to Purpose and Intent, 9.10.020.

[36:57] The purpose of this chapter is to promote safety and stability in the city's residential

[37:03] rental market by establishing clear guidelines for tenants and property owners regarding unacceptable

[37:10] harassing behavior, providing protections that go beyond those afforded by state law, and creating

[37:17] effective enforcement mechanisms, including private civil remedies.

[37:25] Anyone want to take a

[37:27] siege, okay?

[37:33] I know.

[37:34] They're not turned on your mic, I think your mic is off. It'll be green for go.

[37:44] Does

[37:44] you have to be closer?

[37:47] And one last time is anybody new translation services here tonight,

[37:50] because then I can dismiss our translator.

[37:58] So I note that the aim is to create guidelines for tenants and property owners, regarding

[38:07] an acceptable harassing behavior, yet in going through the ordinance,

[38:15] just went through

[38:16] it quickly.

[38:17] I didn't note any behaviors that could be attributed to tenants, that would be that would

[38:25] be harassing.

[38:27] I mean, if I talk about somebody's immigration status, I'm going to lose a $2 to $10,000

[38:35] lawsuit, but if a tenant talks about it, that's OK.

[38:40] So I can address that.

[38:43] So for those of you who were at the subcommittee,

[38:48] if you saw the materials, the staff report,

[38:51] they're addressed why protections for landlords are not appropriate.

[38:58] There is no other jurisdiction that provides protections for landlords and ultimately the purpose

[39:11] what the housing element requires is 10 protections, not protections for landlords and tenants.

[39:19] So that is not part of this proposed ordinance.

[39:22] We don't intend to include those because they're not appropriate.

[39:29] It can create more problems than actually be helpful.

[39:34] So that is not going to be part of this.

[39:38] And so if we can just continue, it's in the staff report.

[39:41] I can share the copy with you.

[39:44] Why can we do it directly?

[39:46] But that would take time.

[39:47] but you're correct, that protections for landlords are not in here.

[39:56] Not in, should not include guidelines for tenants if there are none.

[40:01] Okay, thank you, that's a good recommendation to make it on the comment.

[40:06] More accurate.

[40:12] Question?

[40:14] Yes.

[40:14] Or comment, I'm sorry.

[40:17] So I disagree with your finding here, because I'm looking at the city of Claremont,

[40:21] And they actually have a Section 8.35030.

[40:25] It says landlord harassment.

[40:28] And I don't think that this is all about working together

[40:33] and coming up with solutions that make this palatable.

[40:43] And compromise.

[40:45] And so, sorry, would you mind telling me the ordinance

[40:49] I didn't catch it.

[40:51] I've got the city of Claremont pulled up.

[40:54] It's 8.35, 0.030.

[40:58] Okay.

[40:59] We'll look at that.

[41:00] There are four items under landlord harassment.

[41:04] And so I think it's appropriate that harassment works both ways.

[41:11] And I don't, I mean, I think it's just appropriate to add a section for landlord harassment.

[41:17] I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility, the ordinance itself, as you've started, it's said property owners and tenants.

[41:28] So you want to get tenants property owners and landlords?

[41:32] I, to expand to, I have a third.

[41:34] There, you can say housing, you call it whatever you want.

[41:38] Housing providers?

[41:40] Yeah, it says here, your ordinance says tenants and property owners, and I think that's appropriate.

[41:45] it. Okay. And I would like to include some of the items in that section because they work both ways.

[41:53] Clue items from the city of Claremont?

[41:56] And Clue items under, well, first of all, the premise was there's no other ordinance in the entire world.

[42:01] And I'm found one here in five minutes. And so that we have to really be careful about when we speak about things.

[42:08] I just think having clear language and factual language, I think is really important for this process to work and I think that would be adding some landlord harassment.

[42:25] I think you will get agreement all the way around because it works both ways, may not go the way around, but I think that would be appropriate.

[42:33] Thank you.

[42:34] Do the comments in the bubble that Leona has put?

[42:39] They do not reflect guidelines for tenants and property owners.

[42:44] That should be left there.

[42:45] Recommendation ad protections to, I'm sorry, I didn't, I missed that.

[42:50] In the bottom.

[42:51] Okay.

[42:51] I'd just like to leave the purpose and intent as it stood.

[42:55] I think this is all about harassment.

[42:57] I think in the world that we live in, harassment works both ways.

[43:01] I think it's reasonable supposition that we include some language for landlord harassment.

[43:09] I don't think you can, as a worldly person, think that it only works one way.

[43:14] Okay.

[43:14] Thank you.

[43:17] Sir?

[43:18] Yeah, I'm fine with removing the guidelines for tenants and leaving it all for tenant protections.

[43:23] Because landlords already have enforcement mechanisms that they could wield against tenants.

[43:27] So if a landlord has a tenant that's harassing them,

[43:30] they can evict them or raise the rent,

[43:32] and inflict an immediate financial penalty,

[43:34] whereas tenants don't have any one

[43:36] that they can go to at this point.

[43:38] So again, this is a structural problem

[43:41] of landlords have power to enforce behavior on tenants

[43:46] that tenants don't have because tenants can't go anywhere.

[43:50] And again, we're also using, again,

[43:53] I'm speaking from a structural position

[43:54] because all of the landlords in the room and the tenants, most of us were all using anecdotal

[44:00] data.

[44:01] So we don't actually know if the city needs to take an interest in landlord protection

[44:05] because we have no idea how often it happens.

[44:09] So we can only really make big decisions for the entire city based on structural problems that

[44:15] we have.

[44:15] And we do know that we have structural problems because the price of rent has gone up

[44:20] double in the 20 years that I've been living here.

[44:23] There's lots of data around affordability, eviction rates, that's kind of thing we can find and deal with.

[44:30] So this idea that the city is a flood of tenants who are harassing landlords.

[44:35] We just can't sustain because we don't know.

[44:38] And landlords already have tools that they can use against tenants.

[44:42] And tenants don't really have any options if they have a landlord who is harassing them.

[44:46] So, I heard this comment that you're okay with this as written.

[44:50] I've heard another comment that we need to embolden a bit for property owners in landlords.

[44:57] And I believe this gentleman has a comment over here.

[45:00] Yeah, I don't agree with what you're saying, because what you're describing is illegal. It's retaliatory. There's laws that prevent landlords from doing that. And if any landlord does that, they're breaking the law.

[45:13] What? The white parade or another one.

[45:17] But the other thing I'll say is, I think we can all agree that harassing anybody is bad. So why are we, why are we stuck on a landlord or a tenant?

[45:29] It's all not acceptable, and I think that is the crux of my issue with this ordinance is

[45:38] Why are we excluding landlords because there's plenty of good landlords? There's plenty of good tenants. The other thing I want to say is

[45:47] Oh, I just lost it. I'll get it later. Okay, if I can go before you so

[45:51] So staff based on the ordinance, staff looked at in surrounding cities and other jurisdictions.

[46:01] We did not see an adopted ordinance that has protections for landlord, as far as I'm aware.

[46:07] I'm not aware of Clairemont adopting this ordinance.

[46:09] I think they're still maybe like in the process that we are, but they are maybe drawing it out a little bit longer.

[46:15] So I'm not aware of an adopted ordinance, it's possible, I'm not aware of it.

[46:22] Second of all, the problem, I totally agree that harassment is, the problem is not that, you know,

[46:31] harassment should only be prohibited by landlords.

[46:37] That's not the problem.

[46:37] problem as stayed in the server for is enforcement.

[46:42] Enforcement cannot be the same because the point of a housing

[46:45] element is to stop tenant displacement, not to contribute to it.

[46:51] And if enforcement is equal for both sides, then that is

[46:54] contributing to displacement.

[46:56] That is why we informed the council that protections for landlords

[47:03] are not advisable we can take note that participants in this session still continue to advocate

[47:13] for landlords and we can point out why, but right now we are not going to copy and paste

[47:21] what's in the draft ordinance for Claire Montgomery Canada to add in here, but we can let

[47:26] council know that that's still being requested by members of the community.

[47:54] I don't understand the question.

[48:07] What I said is that enforcement, enforcement cannot be the same for both sides.

[48:14] That creates unintended consequences and after looking at the issue, we don't want to create unintended consequences

[48:20] is that lead to tenant displacement, which is the purpose,

[48:24] which is, goes counter to the direction

[48:26] from the housing element.

[48:27] So you're saying it.

[48:33] That's not what I said, can we move on?

[48:35] We can talk about it individually.

[48:36] You can look at the staff report.

[48:38] It's explained in there.

[48:39] As to why it's not advisable,

[48:45] I explained that the other jurisdictions

[48:47] that we looked at did not have that.

[48:54] Well, generally, we try to look at what our neighbors

[48:56] and other cities are doing, what's happening.

[49:05] to know why we're doing this, and then it's certainly what we're asked to do.

[49:12] So I actually wrote down, and I was trying to copy of it.

[49:15] But what we read earlier, I thought you were supposed to write a board

[49:21] if there's just lines for harassment, orders, and housing for buyers.

[49:27] So that was my incorrect.

[49:29] On May, so we can go back in time to to watch May 27,

[49:33] In 2020, City Council directed staff to create an anti-harassment program, which clearly defines

[49:39] harassment, protects property owners and tenants from several forms of harassment and

[49:44] to present the ordinance to City Council for their consideration, honor before October 1st.

[49:50] Which appears to be a balance statement from our City Council, the contrary to legal opinion

[49:56] over here that it shouldn't be balanced.

[49:58] The city council said find a balance between the landlords and the tenants right that's what it says

[50:06] And that is why we're here

[50:28] that feels a bit what decided when you were asked or the charge was to define harassment

[50:36] for both sides.

[50:38] So I just want to make sure that's there.

[50:40] Yes.

[50:40] The issue is not with prohibiting harassment both sides.

[50:46] The issue is with the enforcement.

[50:50] And if you're not going to have an enforcement mechanism, it really should not be in there.

[50:54] So as far as balancing enforcement,

[50:57] And unless it's completely two different types of remedies,

[51:05] enforcement, if they're equal,

[51:09] could lead to tenant displacement, which is against the purpose of the housing element.

[51:14] So, we're not there. You can't not define something for a future clause.

[51:22] So if we're being asked to define what harassment is for a landlord and what harassment is for a tenant, we can't not not define them because you're afraid that if someone harasses their landlord, they're going to get replaced.

[51:38] That's not fair to be able to say, oh well, because this person is going to say something bad to you, they're going to get moved down.

[51:45] We're not going to define what harassment is for a landlord or a tenant or a landlord.

[51:49] We're going to go out to actually to that into the next section.

[51:52] We'll talk to about definitions.

[51:55] So I just...

[51:55] I'm just going to be on the city premise.

[51:57] But so we're saying if I understand this correctly,

[52:00] then there's been a lot more

[52:04] to ask you to plan for.

[52:10] No, so what I said, that's what you're saying.

[52:12] So what I'm saying is that in...

[52:16] I agree that it would be ideal to have protections against harassment for landlords,

[52:25] But without enforcement, there is no real purpose.

[52:29] There has to be an enforcement mechanism.

[52:32] So then enforcement and enforcement can lead to unintended

[52:38] consequences for tenants.

[52:41] So if you're not going to have enforcement,

[52:43] then there's really no purpose to have the protections.

[52:47] And that's why, like the most other jurisdictions,

[52:51] do not have those protections for landlord.

[52:54] because of the enforcement, because the enforcement can lead to unintended consequences that will go against the housing element.

[53:04] I also want to just take a moment. We got five pages to go through. It's seven o'clock.

[53:11] Like, we can, I think, belabor whether or not this ordinance should be an effect or not to or all blue in the face.

[53:18] We as staff were charged with a deliverable, and with that, a collaborative session to

[53:23] garner all of your input, and that is what we're tasked here today.

[53:26] So the bottom line is that the landlord, the tenant, and landlord protections, this

[53:32] is really designed as a tenant protection act.

[53:36] If that's the case, then that's where we need to go.

[53:38] We can go to council and debate this issue.

[53:42] Debating it here isn't going to do anything else, and there is a lot to go through.

[53:46] And thank you, and with that, well, you know, this is under the tenant protection program 32 of our housing element.

[53:53] We did get the feedback talk to landlords talk to property owners to try and have this, you know, two-way conversation to have an ordinance that hopefully meets everybody in the middle.

[54:03] So that is what we're tasked with in charge with today, and I hope you can join me in that.

[54:07] I know that we could probably go letter by letter, and we're willing to stay past date if you are, but you know,

[54:14] I also want to be cognizant and sensitive to your time too.

[54:17] And so, yes, there is much opportunity to have a conversation at our future meetings that

[54:25] are on your agenda, planning commission, subcommittee meeting, and council for this ordinance.

[54:30] So while I appreciate the healthy dialogue back and forth, I would love it if we could kind

[54:35] of come to the next sentence and section and see how else we could maybe bring this closer

[54:40] to a consensus of some form.

[54:42] So just before you do, and I'm all about moving forward,

[54:46] let's just be real here and say guidance,

[54:49] guidelines for tenants and property owners.

[54:51] This is really guidelines for tenants.

[54:53] I think that's just so we're clear.

[54:57] I just want to make sure that there's a note there

[55:02] that says that's directly what this is for.

[55:05] Because it shouldn't say landlords,

[55:07] if it's property owners, if it doesn't relate to them, thank you.

[55:11] And then we can move forward.

[55:41] So I'm seeing this more as an evolving dialogue.

[55:44] While we had our first draft of our ordinance city attorney's office

[55:47] reviewed and consult with our contract attorney B.B.K.

[55:50] They advised us for the reasons that a senior attorney Monica Delooy

[55:55] mentioned to extract components involving property owners.

[55:59] Draft was presented without property owners.

[56:01] Here we are city council subcommittee said talk to property owners.

[56:05] So I still feel it's an evolving conversation that ultimately will be decided on

[56:08] decision-makers. So I think the tension is evident within the comments. Someone

[56:15] it in, someone it out and will report that out and as a neutral fashion is

[56:20] possible and leave it to our electives to decide. Does that sound okay?

[56:29] No, but it's not adopted yet, right? So they gave the direction.

[56:33] Have a menu of options. There is always an opportunity for that to evolve by way

[56:37] of a discretionary hearing and a public hearing before something is adopted.

[56:41] So with that, I believe we are still within purpose and attempt can we move on to definitions.

[56:51] I'm seeing if you thank you.

[56:53] Love me a thumbs up.

[56:54] All right, so 9.10.030 definitions.

[56:58] As used in this chapter, the following terms are defined as follows.

[57:04] I'm sorry.

[57:05] So, we can one definition of the client, so we'd like it.

[57:06] Absolutely.

[57:08] Okay.

[57:09] So, are we okay with that sentence as presented?

[57:13] I mean, there's two follows in there.

[57:16] The grammar person of me wants me to strike one of the follows, but it's okay.

[57:20] First definition, harassment.

[57:24] Any intentional conduct, design to annoy, harass, injure, provoke, or vex another person.

[57:34] See a couple thumbs up?

[57:35] I think that in terms of housing, we need to include words like

[57:39] intimidate and displace because these are minor, I think, and I think if landlords

[57:47] were just annoying or provoking tenants, which plays into the fact that our

[57:54] definitions of harassment are very skew, then I don't think we would be here

[57:59] counting after this or denence, intimidate or displace, evict, if you would.

[58:09] Any other comments for the definition of harassment? Yes.

[58:13] I think the definition of harassment in and of itself encompasses all of that.

[58:19] So I don't know that it's necessary to go above and beyond what's already there, because just the word harassment encompasses everything that you're saying there.

[58:27] So it sounds like as presented you're okay with it. I'm fine with it. Okay, so we have a opinion to add two terms and a opinion to leave as is. Yes

[58:36] I'll sorry. I don't know your name, but I will second you are called to change the wording because we need to be specific because the enforcement mechanism is civil penalties

[58:44] So a judge would have to go through and look at different types of conduct and so the more specificity we have actually the better the easier it would make a

[58:53] And

[58:55] I would disagree with that, because I think the broader it is probably the better it would be to catch something.

[59:05] Christian?

[59:06] Yeah.

[59:07] Is

[59:21] your mic on?

[59:27] So I'm hearing add a couple words.

[59:30] Keep as is.

[59:33] Yeah, I'd like to say also to, yeah, I want a second.

[59:36] I guess, because it's in the context of, you know,

[59:41] popular tenant, right, like, that's, that's what it's about to be specific.

[59:45] So they're all these guidelines.

[59:47] So I understand that it could be generalized, but I think this is specific to this policy.

[59:51] It's going to be within this order and to, it's not going to apply to other things, right?

[59:55] So I think it would be appropriate.

[59:56] Okay, sir.

[59:58] Okay, so I, I just want to come.

[1:00:00] And on that, because in my mind, if I'm having a conversation with the tenant who's laid on to their rent, who isn't complying, maybe they're doing something dangerous, and I can't suggest or just inform him that he's going if the conduct doesn't stop, he doesn't pay their rent, they're going to be evicted. By my saying that, that that somehow harassment, and I think if I can reply to that comment, I think that's a very helpful comment, but I think that if we look at the whole of the

[1:00:29] ordinance, that comment goes to more or where it says condive prohibited.

[1:00:34] Yeah, that's enough for other section.

[1:00:36] I think if you look at the second page, where it says harassment is prohibited, and it has

[1:00:41] 17 items that talk about different actions, considering that we have an hour left, maybe

[1:00:47] if we want to take 30 seconds to look at the whole ordinance and really focus your energy

[1:00:52] and time on the most significant things that are important to you, as far as what's in

[1:00:59] ordinance because we're going pretty slow we have an hour left and that's the great

[1:01:03] comment but I think that comment better than here probably goes is better suited to fix

[1:01:10] that section in the prohibition

[1:01:16] understood yeah so up ahead after definitions we do look at

[1:01:20] particular examples of harassment after that we talk about affirmative defense lawful

[1:01:28] convictions, enforcement impenalties, fees, citations,

[1:01:33] mediation outreach, and then other remedies

[1:01:37] impenalties, and survivability, and waiver.

[1:01:42] So that said, we have a definition of harassment.

[1:01:46] I've heard an addition of two words.

[1:01:47] I've heard leave as is.

[1:01:49] Are we okay moving on to the definition of housing services?

[1:01:52] Housing services.

[1:01:54] Services provided to a tenant.

[1:01:56] I'm so sorry.

[1:01:59] Okay.

[1:02:00] Thank you.

[1:02:00] Thank you, I didn't see.

[1:02:02] Housing Services.

[1:02:04] Services provided to a tenant.

[1:02:06] Wait, I'm going to pop.

[1:02:06] No, I was going to say bathroom break, but no.

[1:02:08] Services provided to a tenant by a property owner in connection with the use or occupancy of a rental unit, including but not limited to hot and cold water, heat, electricity, gas, refrigeration, elevator service,

[1:02:25] service, window coverings and screens, storage, kitchen, bathroom laundry facilities and

[1:02:33] privileges, refuse removal, furnishings, parking, effective waterproofing, and weather

[1:02:38] protection, and any other benefit, privilege or facility.

[1:02:45] So I have a huge issue with this one because if you look at the elevator service and any of

[1:02:53] the storage and screens. Some of those things if you're in a condo or a townhome are at the

[1:03:01] discretion of the HOA. That's a good point. Okay. So to hold an owner at to those is problematic.

[1:03:09] Okay. So and secondly, sorry question. Does the, does the,

[1:03:14] still for the first sentence service that provided by a property owner? I mean, I think that would

[1:03:20] But if not, how would you make it better like what would be the I would eliminate some of the services because

[1:03:26] You know some of some HOA's cover water sewer trash electric gas elevator service for sure

[1:03:34] Because also with an elephant with an elephant there's just a lot with that elevator service thing because it's the fire

[1:03:40] It Marshall and everything else

[1:03:42] Also, I put new window coverings in and they get destroyed and now they're not there is that part of harassment

[1:03:50] or and some we don't do that. So I think this is very broad strokes. I think it should

[1:03:58] say housing services services provided to the tenant per their lease. Okay. Is it harassment

[1:04:06] if it's taken out of their security deposit when they leave or you evict them? There's laws.

[1:04:12] Again, that's why you have to take pictures now. I mean, if we're back tracking there are unlawful

[1:04:19] that is a form of harassment.

[1:04:22] Okay, but that's an unlawful eviction that you can be.

[1:04:26] Thank you everyone for all of those comments.

[1:04:29] I've got a comment.

[1:04:30] And let us just finish really quickly typing and then we'll get on to the next comment.

[1:04:34] Thank you.

[1:04:35] So you said that how you wanted to be housing services defined as services provided to what's in it.

[1:04:40] By a property owner and connection with their lease agreement?

[1:04:43] Yeah, per their lease agreement.

[1:04:46] Thank you.

[1:04:47] Thank you for everybody's patience as we work together on this.

[1:04:50] I would take, I actually don't like that entire paragraph because a landlord already has

[1:04:56] a legal obligation to provide a habitable home that's well defined in the code.

[1:05:00] Why don't we just put the code in there?

[1:05:03] Because now we're per health and safety code, and the people say, yeah, because now we're

[1:05:10] creating two different standards for what a landlord is supposed to provide, which is just

[1:05:14] confusing.

[1:05:17] So we're going to, as, as a recommendation, do suggest deletion of definition and refer back to civil code.

[1:05:27] But I also think it needs to be the least to be.

[1:05:30] And the least, yes.

[1:05:32] Because certain things are in that washing machine and dryer, or,

[1:05:36] level, whatever, what, refrigerated, or, yeah.

[1:05:41] And just, that's not code.

[1:05:43] And just so you know, we're, we're, we're,

[1:05:46] we are conduits, right? We are going to take all the messaging, all the suggestions on both sides,

[1:05:52] or different opinions, I shouldn't say sides, we're all together in a circle,

[1:05:57] different opinions for our decision makers to decide. So we're going to really try and include

[1:06:02] everything as articulated here. Was there any other comments over there to do you have a comment?

[1:06:12] Whatever, I guess it would be, I mean I have to look it up.

[1:06:25] I mean, elevators understand their problematic.

[1:06:28] They might not be called out specifically in the rental agreement.

[1:06:31] They might not be required by code, but if the elevators are not working, it's a major problem.

[1:06:38] I fully acknowledge that it's a major problem.

[1:06:42] But typically, unless it's in a single family home,

[1:06:45] an elevator is not being serviced by the homeowner, or by the property owner.

[1:06:51] It's being serviced by the NHOA or something that the homeowner, the property owner does not have any control over.

[1:07:02] So if an elevator is not working in your apartment building or in your condo complex,

[1:07:09] for that to be harassment against the owner, it can't be.

[1:07:14] You can have harassment against the HOA all day long, but they are not in here.

[1:07:18] We acknowledge that 100%.

[1:07:20] Just one quick note about elevators,

[1:07:22] so as you mentioned,

[1:07:23] if it is a condominium complex,

[1:07:25] or a sound home complex,

[1:07:26] there is usually a homeowner association,

[1:07:28] but a traditional apartment complexes,

[1:07:31] they're not always a homeless owner association.

[1:07:33] And I think if you could pass the mic to our professor,

[1:07:36] he also has a comment.

[1:07:39] Can we just fix this by saying,

[1:07:41] by a property owner or homeowner association,

[1:07:44] because they're providing some of the services

[1:07:46] that in a single family home, the property owner would be providing anyway, and, you know,

[1:07:53] like tenants and property owners, H.O.A.s can be good and bad, and they can be monstrous

[1:07:57] to deal with, or they can be confusing, so maybe just sort of blanketing these protections,

[1:08:03] applying the protection to the H.O.A.s as well wouldn't be about that.

[1:08:06] So I disagree with that, because a lot of leases are written in a certain way that says

[1:08:16] And we are not held liable to what the HOA does, and that's just a slippery slope, right?

[1:08:25] No, I think we heard the feedback may be one more, and then we understand the issue,

[1:08:31] and we'll look at the habitability and compare.

[1:08:35] But again, I think the crux of the issues are going to be in the other section, more importantly,

[1:08:42] not definition so much.

[1:08:46] So they are important, but I expect we're going to spend a lot of time on the prohibition.

[1:08:53] So let's just walk through a scenario here just so I'm understanding as a housing provider.

[1:08:58] The way this is written and the way adding homeowners association.

[1:09:02] I own a place, it has an HOA elevator.

[1:09:07] The way this is written, right, if we were to leave this the way that it was, the tenant

[1:09:13] could come after me for, or does this say they could come after the homeowners association?

[1:09:21] That's the part that I'm not understanding, or both, because that's, in practicality,

[1:09:29] this is really about landlords and tenants.

[1:09:32] this is

[1:09:42] totally understand but I do think there's a distinction. I haven't seen any other

[1:09:48] language in any of the other cities that say homeowners association, that's all. I don't

[1:09:53] even know if that's defensible. Thank you.

[1:09:57] Okay, so I think Judy, did you have a comment?

[1:10:05] Okay, hold one second, we're going to get you a microphone. Thank you.

[1:10:08] Large apartment units do not have homeowners associations. They do have elevators that are under

[1:10:14] the operation of the owner of the apartment building.

[1:10:18] So it needs to be either the property owner or the H.O.A.,

[1:10:23] which effort the lease states.

[1:10:27] Thank you, Mr. Capriota, for giving her the mic.

[1:10:30] Okay, I think we've heard good information

[1:10:33] about the definition of housing services,

[1:10:36] how about lease agreement?

[1:10:38] Lease agreement, any agreement, oral or written or implied

[1:10:41] between a property owner and tenant

[1:10:43] for use or occupancy of a rental unit and for housing services.

[1:10:51] I just would like some clarification on what an implied lease is.

[1:10:55] If there is nothing and writing in any way.

[1:11:02] So it would be exactly what you said.

[1:11:06] A situation where there is a tenant maybe very, very long term,

[1:11:11] or maybe that had an agreement at some point with an owner,

[1:11:16] that's deceased and now the family has taken over.

[1:11:20] I mean, there's situations where someone pays rent to a landlord

[1:11:28] and they don't have a written agreement.

[1:11:30] Not the norm, not common, but if someone is living somewhere

[1:11:35] for more than three days and they're paying rent,

[1:11:40] that establishes a tendency under California law.

[1:11:42] So you mean like an automatic month to month tenancy by that month to month. Yeah. Yes, I think the word implied there is just such a slippery slope between what a

[1:11:55] Lisa agreement and for both parties what a

[1:11:59] Lisa agreement is what the terms of that Lisa is in

[1:12:03] Conjunction with these tenant protections implied as dangerous

[1:12:08] Your suggestion is really delete the word implied

[1:12:15] Yes, and that's been a cool as a comment, the one situation where we have seen in our

[1:12:20] actual community where we see in the middle and I have an oral written lease agreement,

[1:12:24] where people are doing weekly stays at local motels.

[1:12:28] And once you see the 28 day calendar period, then they automatically get tenorized,

[1:12:32] but they have nothing written in an agreement that says that or orally.

[1:12:35] But like I said, we didn't know that you would like the word implied to be removed from this particular

[1:12:38] definition.

[1:12:42] Don't I kind of disagree with that. I think it should stay in because those are the people the people that don't have

[1:12:48] Leases are the people that are going to need this

[1:12:51] So why would we take that out? It makes no sense. It's it's I rented it to my cousin's friend. Oh, it's fine

[1:13:00] Go ahead

[1:13:02] There are those are the ones that are getting in trouble. So I think implied is probably the most important word in there

[1:13:08] Okay, so we have I can that's the one word that is a sticky point

[1:13:11] and we have both options to consider moving forward.

[1:13:15] Next definition property owner, any person or entity entitled to receive rent

[1:13:20] for the use or occupancy of a rental unit, including owners,

[1:13:24] lesser's, sub-lessers, agents, representatives, or successors.

[1:13:29] Seems pretty straightforward. Okay. Moving on to rental unit.

[1:13:34] Oh, ma'am.

[1:13:46] Yeah. In our chapter description, we could talk all rental units,

[1:13:49] including single-family economies.

[1:13:51] Okay, so rental unit, any housing accommodation as defined in government code section, 1, 2, 9, 2, 7,

[1:14:00] including dueplexes, condominiums, and single-family homes in the city of San Buena, Ventura,

[1:14:05] that are rented or offered for rent for residential purposes.

[1:14:09] This includes associated land, apartment buildings, garage, and parking facilities, mobile homes,

[1:14:17] where the rent is paid for the structure and or the land and all related housing services

[1:14:23] and facilities. Any changes to this definition?

[1:14:28] I'm not seeing any immediate hands,

[1:14:29] so I'm going to sail on tenant. Any tenant, sub-tendant, leese, sub-leese, or other person,

[1:14:36] thank you, Judy, entitled to use or occupy a rental unit within the city. Any comments here?

[1:14:43] See, none moving on to probably the mediest of sections.

[1:14:48] Nine, ten, zero, four, zero, harassment is prohibited.

[1:14:53] First, paragraph.

[1:14:55] Tenant harassment is defined as a property owner's

[1:14:58] knowing and willful course of conduct.

[1:15:00] Directed at a tenant that causes harm and serves no lawful purpose, including but not limited to.

[1:15:08] Do we have any, Mr. Sorada?

[1:15:11] So what I, I think what was very helpful in going through the Oxnard ordinance was kind of setting the tone for

[1:15:22] what rights landlords have already inherent and how

[1:15:35] many of these things I,

[1:15:37] have issues with, or many people will have issues with, because just

[1:15:51] keep going.

[1:15:53] I lost my trace.

[1:15:54] It's okay.

[1:15:54] We can come back to it.

[1:15:56] Do you mean, for example, that after lawful purpose to put parenthesis for example, and then

[1:16:03] putting example of common lawful purposes that landlords need to engage in?

[1:16:08] No.

[1:16:09] Many of these things that stand alone look like they could be harassment.

[1:16:13] So, let's give you an example, if somebody's late and I text them and say they're late, okay.

[1:16:22] Your late and you were jeopardizing your lease agreement by continuing to be late, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[1:16:27] That's a common thing, probably most people in here do something similar to that.

[1:16:30] As a standalone, that looks like that could be harassment.

[1:16:34] I think what owners are what the premise that I'm looking for from you is there are lawful behaviors that will

[1:16:42] that look, if you just read this raw, that look like they will be unlawful.

[1:16:48] And I think that's the premise that we need from you, is that if I'm doing something

[1:16:53] lawful, if I go to a tenant and tell them, hey, by the way, the owner's going to sell and you

[1:16:59] have 60 days notice, and I'm going to give you a month for an upfront.

[1:17:02] And by the way, if you leave earlier than 60 days, I'll give you an extra month rent.

[1:17:07] Okay, that's not harassment.

[1:17:08] And so what we need to do is have some clarity, otherwise it would be stuck in the mud on every one of these issues because what I do legally is not necessarily consider harassment because all most of the practitioners do the same thing on an ongoing basis.

[1:17:23] Thank you for saving me.

[1:17:25] No, I understand what you're saying what you're saying is that we, the things that you are doing for example, sending a text is beneficial to attend it before you have to give a three day notice.

[1:17:36] That's something that you don't want to be forced to stop because it actually benefits

[1:17:42] a tenant.

[1:17:42] For example, that's one of the examples that I can think of.

[1:17:46] Same thing with the, you know, the moving, you know, giving someone, instead of just

[1:17:52] a 60-day notice on that day, verbal and punishment before the 60-day starts because then

[1:17:57] they would have more time, which is a benefit.

[1:17:59] So I understand that.

[1:18:01] So, I don't know if that, if the first sentence needs to be addressed, I think it, I'm sorry, I was referring to the entirety of the, all of the, the 17 items.

[1:18:16] So then, I understand that we'll get feedback on those, but then we're trying to avoid is landlords from feeling that they cannot engage in behavior that actually serves to help tennis.

[1:18:31] I would like to offer this notifying someone

[1:18:34] reminding them about paying the rent.

[1:18:37] It serves a lawful purpose, right?

[1:18:40] So I don't have an issue with the statement based on

[1:18:45] because it's, hey, kind of reminder you have to pay your rent

[1:18:48] in three days.

[1:18:50] And even serving a three day notice,

[1:18:51] because it serves a lawful purpose,

[1:18:54] would not fall under a harassment.

[1:18:56] That's how I read that as well.

[1:18:59] Yes, that would.

[1:19:02] So, as long as we have that understanding, I don't want to get bogged down on all of these,

[1:19:07] but thank you.

[1:19:09] And I think, thank you, Mr. Daley, on.

[1:19:11] But with that first sentence of tenor has been as defined as, we really want to focus

[1:19:16] that causes harm and serve as serve, serve as no waffle purpose.

[1:19:22] Oh, my gosh, it's already late.

[1:19:23] And so I think we'll keep it all 17 of those within mind so that it's not just out of the blue

[1:19:28] You're entering someone's property without proper notice as long as you're serving the notice

[1:19:33] And you're going in there without harm or for a lawful purpose or because it's part of the least

[1:19:38] Or things like that that is not something that would be considered harassment

[1:19:42] Thank

[1:20:10] you

[1:20:11] And I think an important to note in the statement is including but not limited to within that with the list below

[1:20:18] So, looking at number one as a potential tenant harassment, reducing eliminating or charging

[1:20:28] additionally for housing services provided in the lease contract or applicable law,

[1:20:34] example parking, unless required by court order of applicable law.

[1:20:39] Any changes to that?

[1:20:42] I don't see any hands-up, sir.

[1:20:44] I don't want to say I don't want to change it.

[1:20:46] I just want to understand what law the laws and I aren't the laws already there.

[1:20:53] That's a breach of contract, which you just said in that first one.

[1:20:56] If they have a lease or a contract, and you go in and change it, you've now breached that contract with that tenant.

[1:21:05] So why are we writing a rule that is covered in our and ordinances and laws that exist in our state already?

[1:21:12] And again, I think the thought processes that, you know, you're following the laws and you're giving the notices or you're following the lease and things like that and that is fantastic.

[1:21:21] And that's what, you know, we love to see whether we're tenants or property owners and things like that, but there are those who may not even be aware of the laws that they have to get proper notice for things like that or that there's a change to the lease, which means that there could be additional fees or what,

[1:21:37] those who are not aware or those who are, quote unquote, I know, it's said all the time,

[1:21:43] but the bad apples, and we really do appreciate the property owners in the city because

[1:21:48] there are tons of tenants and things like that, but I think we're going into this with

[1:21:52] those who are either unaware or they are just truthfully trying to harass a tenant or there

[1:21:59] is some drastic change to it that they just didn't understand.

[1:22:04] But once again, what changes, you're going to write this rule.

[1:22:08] You're going to publish this rule, they already exist, right?

[1:22:11] This is a breach of contract, simple and pretty simple.

[1:22:14] So if the person that's renting this tenant doesn't know

[1:22:17] that the breach of contract, or the person that's created the lease

[1:22:20] and had its line is now breach of contract.

[1:22:23] And it doesn't understand that we're breaching a contract.

[1:22:26] How is this additional ordinance by the city?

[1:22:30] at another level of government, can a manage that relationship between two people that one shouldn't

[1:22:36] be in pro-managing property and other probably shouldn't be paying for a place to live in.

[1:22:42] They don't understand what rules guide their life and the one that shouldn't be renting property

[1:22:47] because they're not smart enough to figure it out.

[1:22:51] You just write an ordinance on top of a law.

[1:22:55] It sounds, I'm preaching, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

[1:22:57] No, you're okay.

[1:22:58] It's okay.

[1:22:58] This is redundant to so many laws, I mean a couple of these, some of these makes some sense, some clarity to the way our city would like to see the renter rental relationship appear.

[1:23:12] But a lot of it's just restating stuff on another layer of laws that we're going to get bogged down and not be able to figure out in a corridor law.

[1:23:21] So I'm going to take that your recommendation for number one is made we deleted right doesn't need to be there.

[1:23:30] Okay, so we want to hear that.

[1:23:33] But as far as to why something would be in here is to provide a remedy for it.

[1:23:39] So then the remedy, if it's not in here, the remedy is sue them and superior port for a breach of contract versus if it's in here then you can use the remedies in the ordinance.

[1:23:48] I think that's that's why they're in there, but if your recommendation is to delete it, then you know, we want to hear that.

[1:23:54] Thank you Monica for that. Thank you for your comment. Don.

[1:23:58] I just want to piggyback on that. It is a law. So why wouldn't we just reiterate it here? I agree that it should stay in.

[1:24:05] It adds clarity to what to what's going on.

[1:24:09] So the biggest issue to just answer your question is.

[1:24:13] Having a local ordinance, the only reason for a local ordinance is to inflict civil penalties on those that don't understand and follow.

[1:24:23] You can't be ignorant and do things to tenets without paying a price.

[1:24:28] So the civil penalties is the only reason for this ordinance.

[1:24:32] It is redundant. Everything we're going to read here is redundant.

[1:24:35] I'm not going to disagree with that.

[1:24:37] But the only reason for the ordinance is for the civil penalties for those that are not acting

[1:24:42] appropriately.

[1:24:43] Thank you, Mr. Sarota.

[1:24:45] Okay, I think we're good with number one, number two, failing to perform timely repairs

[1:24:57] and maintenance required, or what, man, I think best practices need to be clarified because

[1:25:06] that could vary from culture to culture person to person.

[1:25:15] So just for the record for reading for live stream,

[1:25:18] failing to perform time to repairs and maintenance required

[1:25:20] by housing, health, or safety laws,

[1:25:22] or feeling to follow best practices to limit exposure

[1:25:25] to noise, dust, lead, as bestos, or other harmful substances.

[1:25:30] What about the word industry practices in the industry?

[1:25:35] I mean, do you have an alternate suggestion, or yeah, do you have an alternate suggestion?

[1:25:42] I think that it needs to be something that you can point to the facts and say this is an industry

[1:25:47] standard or if you can't do that then it's just up to interpretation.

[1:26:00] I have a question if we were to use the, oh sorry, oh. As far as the timely repairs we just had

[1:26:09] issue where we needed to get something repaired, we couldn't get a plumber over the weekend

[1:26:14] of the three-day holiday.

[1:26:17] So is that a standard practice?

[1:26:19] Is that a reasonable scenario where I took them the better part of a week and we went

[1:26:24] through about four different plumber?

[1:26:27] I think that would come to, was the plumbing issue to where it was like a man or a habitability,

[1:26:32] like it was, no.

[1:26:34] We had a broken sewer line.

[1:26:35] And so the back of us were no longer used.

[1:26:39] We could, obviously they were put in a hotel because it couldn't flesh the toilet.

[1:26:43] But what is considered a timely repair?

[1:26:47] So I have a question.

[1:26:48] Would you suggest adding the word reasonably before the word timely?

[1:26:53] I was going to suggest maybe remove the word timely.

[1:26:57] Because if it's already required by housing health and safety laws,

[1:27:02] then timely is already a,

[1:27:06] Can we carve out about things outside of the landlord's control, like supply chain issues, labor permits from the city that aren't issued?

[1:27:28] A lot of us totally out of your control.

[1:27:34] limit to noise. I mean, when you're jackhammering for the sewer, you know, nobody's going to be happy about this.

[1:27:41] So a lot of these best practices, I don't know how the limit exposure to noise does.

[1:27:48] You know, I mean, it's messy. You cut the concrete, it's messy, everybody's going to get it.

[1:27:54] So maybe a caveat with the exception of construction or home improvement projects or something.

[1:28:02] So we have a repair project.

[1:28:06] Repair projects.

[1:28:08] Right.

[1:28:10] Okay.

[1:28:24] Right.

[1:28:27] Yeah.

[1:28:28] I'm so sorry.

[1:28:29] So my question is.

[1:28:32] Based on what I'm hearing.

[1:28:33] Because there's different scope.

[1:28:35] Different work that needs to be done.

[1:28:36] Like plumbing.

[1:28:37] A specialist removal.

[1:28:38] So it's time.

[1:28:39] So I think tell me it's important to keep.

[1:28:41] Because are we basing it off?

[1:28:43] What are experts saying?

[1:28:44] It will take to complete a project.

[1:28:45] computer innovation or complete a model, so maybe a plumbing issue can take three weeks

[1:28:50] or maybe, you know, you know, integrity of the building can take four months, or be

[1:28:55] basing it off what experts say, because I think there doesn't to be a time frame for tenants to know

[1:29:00] when they're moving in or what the situation's going to be for them.

[1:29:05] Okay. So,

[1:29:12] just a quick story for a point of reference, just a quickie.

[1:29:16] I had a property owner that it took their, they needed to get their energy, they had to do a significant remodel.

[1:29:26] It took, the project was done in December of 2024.

[1:29:30] They just got that meter energized.

[1:29:34] So it took that long.

[1:29:36] Eight months, here we are in December.

[1:29:38] That's how long it took to get that meter energy.

[1:29:39] It's just, you know, I know you guys know, but out of our control.

[1:29:45] If I ever come in, I feel number two may be possible if we look at the civil code to maybe align with state law.

[1:29:56] So I have a question. Let's just walk through a scenario.

[1:30:00] So, I have an issue with a water leak, it's in a condo association. Tenets in the property, we determine that the issue is the HOA, but it's going to, they don't have the leak detection company to come out.

[1:30:15] Or even if let's just say it's my owner, I still have to get a leak detection company to come out. Those kinds of things take time to negotiate.

[1:30:23] So, the tenets upset, they call the city, what's going to happen?

[1:30:27] What I want to know is the practicality of who's going to do this is it's staff who's going to make the determination

[1:30:33] To take it to the next level because I have to tell you my concern in here is not what's written

[1:30:38] My concern is what's going to happen after and so what would be very helpful for this group is to know

[1:30:44] Just in practical use I call the city and I say I don't have water

[1:30:49] I don't know what the guys doing please walk us through this scenario and kind of kind of give me and I give us all an

[1:30:55] ideas to what's going to happen with that issue? Who's going to determine what?

[1:31:00] Well, my understanding is that with our expanded contract with the housing rights center,

[1:31:04] there will be in person hours somewhere in City Hall.

[1:31:09] Okay.

[1:31:10] And then so yes.

[1:31:12] Yes.

[1:31:12] And then so they will come and as far as what the scope of work of the housing center provides,

[1:31:22] It could be, I don't know if they're going to do a phone call, do a letter, you know,

[1:31:29] their housing rights center is not providing direct representation to attendance,

[1:31:34] as far as I'm aware.

[1:31:36] I think what they provide is comfortable in advice and mediation services.

[1:31:43] So as far as what the city is providing through the housing rights center, I think that's

[1:31:49] the extent of it.

[1:31:49] Yeah, so essentially what's going to happen is that it's not like a situation where, if, you know, a 10 it comes in and they say, well, you know, I'm being harassed by my, by my housing provider, there you go, it's not like we're going to say, okay, well, shame on housing provider ABC management for doing that, those types of complaints have to be investigated and they have to be substantiated.

[1:32:07] So that's what I'm asking you.

[1:32:09] Yes.

[1:32:09] Is specifically, do we have a process? What does that look like? Do we have intake forms? How?

[1:32:14] because we want to make it look, I want this to be real, and I want it, those that are not doing the right thing,

[1:32:23] but I also know the other side of that. I'm waiting for some service provider that I have no control over,

[1:32:30] and I know that people will say, aha, I can go to the city.

[1:32:36] So, yeah, go ahead, Matt.

[1:32:37] That's okay. I just want to make sure that there's going to be some kind of an intake and not not a personal

[1:32:46] Some wow you're really screwed from city staff or someone else that doesn't know. No, because yeah

[1:32:52] Cut that thing out of the day the housing rights center is not there to take size. They're a neutral party

[1:32:56] So there is an actual intake process. What if you do a via phone via email via in person?

[1:33:01] we will have them here twice a week once the contract is executed, and that they'll do it and

[1:33:05] take, they'll assess the matter, and typically what has happened in the past, even for

[1:33:09] you know, some fair housing complaints, they actually reach out to the housing provider first

[1:33:13] because it's always going to be a difference of opinion. You may say, well, I had a

[1:33:17] water lead, they never just might water lead, I had a working bathroom three months. You're like,

[1:33:21] why haven't you given a 24 hour notice, they have my primary command to do the address of

[1:33:23] water lead, they have a let me in. So you have to do an investigation to substantiate whatever

[1:33:27] obligation actually is. Okay, so it isn't going to be someone's opinion when they call

[1:33:32] and this is not on anyone here. It isn't going to be, while that happened to be once

[1:33:37] and staff is going to answer that question directly. Okay, so thank you. That helps a

[1:33:46] lot.

[1:33:47] Okay, the only thing I don't see in there is a little bit of what Jorge addressed with failing

[1:33:55] to perform timely repairs, and he had a delay because of the holidays, but I heard him say,

[1:34:01] and I could be wrong, but I heard him say, well, of course I put him in a hotel. So there's

[1:34:06] no reasonable accommodation there, so it just says, if Jorge didn't fix it, then he's harassing

[1:34:15] them, but it doesn't take into account that he made some accommodation for them. So I was just wanting

[1:34:23] to see if that language might a reasonable accommodation

[1:34:27] might be added in there?

[1:34:29] I don't know.

[1:34:35] I'm wondering if we could, what the issue seems to be

[1:34:38] sort of intent is unclear in the statute

[1:34:42] and that if a tenant says, hey, my water doesn't work,

[1:34:45] the landlord says, you know, probably,

[1:34:47] and I just says, okay, we'll get this fixed.

[1:34:48] They call a plumber, they're like, hey, sorry,

[1:34:49] I can't get a plumber right here.

[1:34:51] A judge isn't gonna look at that and say,

[1:34:55] The housing provider is on the hook for a $5,000 fine, all right, so and but but thinking about intent actually makes me think that the property owners knowing and willful course of conduct

[1:35:05] Also needs to include some standard of negligence because civil negligence is a legal standard that we can use and if I like I have never met the person who owns my building, but I know the property manager she's lovely texture all the time

[1:35:18] If I text her and say, hey, there's an issue, roof is leaking.

[1:35:22] She says, OK, I'll tell the owner about it.

[1:35:25] And then, come back a day later, I can't get in touch with this person

[1:35:27] for whatever reason.

[1:35:29] It might raise rise to a level of negligence.

[1:35:32] If some or especially with corporate landlords

[1:35:34] where you call a phone service and you can't get anybody

[1:35:38] and there's some sort of, you get lost in the bureaucracy.

[1:35:41] So we might want, I was just adding something

[1:35:43] about negligence, but also clarifying intent

[1:35:46] that, like, housing provider who, you know, I think it's pretty well covered under knowing

[1:35:51] in willful, meaning if you intend to help and fix the thing you're not liable, but

[1:35:56] there may be a way to sort of tweak that a little.

[1:36:01] Maybe some references that I think every single property owner has a right to do emergency

[1:36:05] repairs that they can't get a hold of their client in their contracts, in my wrong.

[1:36:11] When you have a contract with a land of housing provider you have the right to do emergency,

[1:36:17] so they already have those already in there.

[1:36:19] So, no, what I'm talking about is like,

[1:36:22] someone, a housing provider who is just unaccessible

[1:36:24] to the extent that it constitutes civil negligence.

[1:36:28] That, that, that should also be include,

[1:36:30] because if you say knowing in the willful,

[1:36:31] that's a higher legal bar in a, in a court, right?

[1:36:35] And the only enforcement mechanism is city mediation

[1:36:37] or civil courts.

[1:36:39] And the civil courts use a negligent standard.

[1:36:42] And so, if a housing provider can't be reached

[1:36:46] and is causing some, one of these harms

[1:36:49] would make the unit a livable, that should also come. I would argue that should also come

[1:36:54] to the harassment. But I think your direct question goes back to number two fail to perform

[1:36:59] timely repairs. Right? That's the intent part, right? You as a housing provider are not providing

[1:37:08] repairs. If you are, if you're in a court of law and a judge says, did you call the plumber and

[1:37:14] say yes, you are not civilly liable for failing to perform repairs because you try to do it,

[1:37:20] but you can't actually do it, right?

[1:37:21] Or there's a leak in the roof, the judge doesn't expect you to go up on the roof to do it.

[1:37:26] If you say, no, I didn't really care, you don't want to, that's an intense standard, right?

[1:37:31] Or if you say yes, I did, it just took longer than we wanted.

[1:37:33] I provided these reasonable accommodations, then you're not liable for it, that's not her

[1:37:37] harassment.

[1:37:39] So, we're taking on the notes, we're hearing everyone just a reminder, we have about

[1:37:47] 22 minutes left and remember, reading comment very valuable, very important, red line it.

[1:37:54] But we are on number two of, and we haven't gone to enforcement yet, which I would really like to hear about.

[1:38:12] So, we can stay until nine.

[1:38:17] Okay.

[1:38:18] So, if we have to relieve, again, I think that as a tenant, I am responsible, you know, if I can't get all of my landlord for whatever reason, I'm also, I'm also, I also have the responsibility to preserve the property.

[1:38:34] And I've actually, and I will build them or withhold it from my rent, it's already in the least agreement where you have the ability of getting it to recover, or not pay my rent for those items, and that's lawfully in my lease.

[1:38:50] So I would just, it's not getting to the weeds of this, my recommendation is failing to perform the repairs.

[1:38:57] And as far as the timely scenario, what is the definition of timely?

[1:39:04] And I do think that we do specifically state required by housing health and safety laws.

[1:39:11] And it seems that for emergency repairs that does say when it where it does lack habitability,

[1:39:19] it would be typically within 24 to 72 hours and then for non-regent repairs within 30 days.

[1:39:25] And I think the addition of civil negligence actually kind of helps bridge the timeliness, right?

[1:39:30] If you're with intent not wanting to do it, or a property owner doesn't want to do the repair, that's obviously negligent.

[1:39:37] If you want to do the repair camp because so-and-so's at a town, you can't get a contractor, the tenant was unable to help you in to fix the window.

[1:39:45] That obviously is not civil, you know, negligence.

[1:39:52] What if, what if my housing provider passes away and we happen to

[1:39:57] the Chairman who the, the rightful owners, what, what is, what is that open up?

[1:40:01] I would think that would be within your lease agreement.

[1:40:04] Right.

[1:40:04] But the thing is that if, if, if, if it, I, again, I, I, how can we hold the

[1:40:09] estate of someone negligent, you know, negligent for something that was

[1:40:14] out of their control?

[1:40:15] I think let's make a note about potential passage of property owner and

[1:40:21] address and see what another way we can address that.

[1:40:25] And then we can do number three.

[1:40:30] OK, hold on, that's OK.

[1:40:44] All right, number three.

[1:40:45] Abusing the right of access under California Civil Code

[1:40:48] Section 1954, including photographing

[1:40:53] or recording parts of a unit unrelated

[1:40:55] to the reason for entry.

[1:41:02] Abusing the right of access, do we have a civil code

[1:41:05] section 1954?

[1:41:06] California Civil Code Section 1954 outlines the landlords limited right to enter attendance rental unit requiring proper notice except in an emergencies.

[1:41:16] Landlords may enter for necessary repairs, agreed upon services to exhibit the unit or when a tenant has a ban in the property.

[1:41:22] For most entries at 24 hour written notice specifying the date and time and purpose of entry is required.

[1:41:28] So again, I think this one is that we're really hoping that you refer to California Civil Code.

[1:41:37] So, Leona, Kirk, could be if I'm wrong, but one example is the toilet's not working.

[1:41:41] You go in there to inspect the toilet and need to take a photo of a part and then you decide by the way I'm going to go check in the bedroom and in the kitchen and this area and take photographs of that as well.

[1:41:54] Is that an example?

[1:41:55] So, one of the recent phone calls that we received that we referred to the Individuals of the Housing Rights Center was that they were alleging that their property owner was coming in saying that they were going to do agreed upon repairs.

[1:42:05] gave them 24 hour notice every other day for two weeks, but did not do a single repair.

[1:42:10] That was one of the things that we have faced, but if you have a recommendation on how

[1:42:14] we can rephrase it to make it a little bit more clear, that would be extremely helpful.

[1:42:28] So it does, the cell code does outline that there's limited right to enter and then lists

[1:42:35] the reasoning of rights to enter.

[1:42:37] So, I think anything that is not listed under California Civil Code, Section 1954.

[1:42:48] So, how about are you suggest you may be entering in violation of the Civil Code?

[1:42:54] Well, I think it's a slippery slope. What is it, music?

[1:42:57] What if the landlord has a right access one day and they make something up that is within their rights the next day and the next day?

[1:43:05] Right?

[1:43:05] A lot of people say that's abuse, but if it's legally their right to access the property,

[1:43:10] then that's not it.

[1:43:11] It's just, it's slippery.

[1:43:13] If you're acting outside of the limitations that the law states, which we just went over,

[1:43:20] then, um, I think that covers it.

[1:43:24] Could we just say, like, acting outside of the law or outside of the limitations?

[1:43:35] Yes.

[1:43:36] Let's say we have one quick note on that.

[1:43:40] So if I were to enter an apartment of somebody because there was a flood in the bathroom,

[1:43:45] but then I observe a total nuisance and lack of care of the property in the kitchen,

[1:43:50] and I take a picture of that while I'm in there, can I be held liable for taking a photograph

[1:43:55] that was not my intent to purpose, but I observed dog damage or something else that's a major breach of contract.

[1:44:02] I wouldn't be able to, so usually within leases it does state that most of the tenant has

[1:44:11] to keep the leaseable property habitable, and usually outlines what damaging is cleanliness

[1:44:18] and things like that.

[1:44:19] So if it's within the lease, then I think that's something that I'm saying, if I'm there

[1:44:24] for this purpose, but I observe a major concern over here that I could be liable for taking

[1:44:28] a photo of this to document it so that I can then properly address it.

[1:44:32] So I can't take that photo, it would be a violation of this ordinance.

[1:44:37] I think we go back to the first sentence, which it has to serve the conduct we have to

[1:44:45] serve to cause harm and serve no local purpose.

[1:44:49] So if the intent or the intent of the drug...

[1:45:29] Security deposits. Again, I mean, like, begs this so that you can just kind of take it all right, if those things arise.

[1:45:39] You know, I think that habitability and how we define it is vague. Everything's vague, right?

[1:45:48] So, so we can go through what ifs all my long and split hairs or we could keep going.

[1:45:53] So I don't know if it helps to just to point out that each of the one through nine on this page

[1:46:00] has to be done for the purpose that has to cause harm and serve no level purpose.

[1:46:06] So they're not standalone.

[1:46:10] I mean, these are more like specific examples of behavior prohibited.

[1:46:17] What is prohibited is something that causes harm and chose no level purpose.

[1:46:21] And I think that addresses your concern.

[1:46:24] If you notice that the oven's not working,

[1:46:26] we're in your there for something else,

[1:46:28] that's a lawful purpose to inspect, take a photo

[1:46:31] for the part you need, and then do as you need to do

[1:46:35] as a per contract.

[1:46:37] And maybe what we need is a little elaboration,

[1:46:42] or examples of lawful purpose activity, especially

[1:46:47] as we do.

[1:46:49] I mean, we'll think about this, yeah.

[1:46:54] So, I can clarify this for people.

[1:46:58] Those instances that you guys have put forward, those are in plain view.

[1:47:02] They're not being hidden from you while you're in the building.

[1:47:05] If a cop sees something, if a cop sees something, if a cop sees something, if a cop sees something,

[1:47:13] if a cop sees something illegal and you're, say, looks in your car and sees something

[1:47:17] illegal on the seat, that gives them, you know, probable cause to search or stuff.

[1:47:21] I don't think that anything that you guys are saying is going to, like, I don't think we need

[1:47:29] to quibble over this sort of thing, like you're in there, you were legally allowed to be in there

[1:47:36] and you saw something that violates the lease. I don't think that constitutes this harassment.

[1:47:42] It's when you start entering the property unannounced and start looking for things in that sort

[1:47:48] way, or, you know, we've had tenants come to us that have said, you know, they're doing some sort

[1:47:54] of repair, but they're entering without, you know, telling us about it. They're going through

[1:48:01] our bedrooms, and they're going through our, like, we have video of them going through our dresser.

[1:48:09] That's, that's using the right of access. That's harassment. The whole intent behind this is for

[1:48:14] bad actors, right? You guys are here because you're the good actors, you're the good

[1:48:19] property owners that you want to make sure that other people are held accountable and

[1:48:24] do what you do for your tenants. And understood, and that's why we're here.

[1:48:43] Can we, can

[1:48:48] we, no, no.

[1:48:59] Then say the abuse of right of access and then add in photography

[1:49:05] can we just take every-

[1:49:07] Can we just take every-

[1:49:07] I'd rather see a tenant, you know, the use of power

[1:49:10] including landlords that make a point in three days in a row and never come in and fix it.

[1:49:16] That is her acting.

[1:49:18] So that's what's written.

[1:49:20] But photographing when it's not associated with the reason for entry.

[1:49:25] Can you just-

[1:49:26] So potentially-

[1:49:26] A little bit like-

[1:49:28] So-

[1:49:28] Or reasons you can take a photograph when you came in for something.

[1:49:31] potentially just striking, including a photographing or recording.

[1:49:37] Yeah, or do you think the example that would be?

[1:49:39] So, 1954, period of the minute or last.

[1:49:42] I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said.

[1:49:43] It was saying, you know, make it a period and then eliminate the rest of that after

[1:49:47] 19.

[1:49:48] So that's a suggested strikeout.

[1:49:51] So, you delivered the book?

[1:49:53] Also, when a tenant says that taking out of their deposit,

[1:49:57] that deposit sometimes will not cover some of the stuff that goes on.

[1:50:01] in a rental, you know, my tenant, he passed out the shower and his butt hit the drain and

[1:50:10] it overflowed from the third floor to the first floor with the tenant downstairs, that's not

[1:50:16] going to cover in this closet. So, just things like that because it covered the floor.

[1:50:21] Okay, we're moving on to number four. Pardon?

[1:50:25] Okay,

[1:50:29] number four, using abusive or offensive words, which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

[1:50:37] I'm sorry?

[1:50:39] I'm not.

[1:50:40] I'm not.

[1:50:41] Okay.

[1:50:42] Wow.

[1:50:42] Thumbs up there?

[1:50:43] Man.

[1:50:43] You have one.

[1:50:45] Yeah.

[1:50:47] So, you know, pay rent might be offensive to somebody.

[1:50:50] But, you know, or if somebody calls me maim or if somebody is not appropriately addressing them by the proper pronouns, is that now considered harassment, if it's like...

[1:51:05] But, not addressing someone.

[1:51:07] Yeah, the intent.

[1:51:08] Okay, I'm not going to report in here, so the landlords are all good with this again.

[1:51:14] Well, it turns out, if you're aware of someone's appropriate pronouns and not addressing them by their appropriate pronouns,

[1:51:19] That is a fair housing violation, that's a discrimination.

[1:51:22] Sure, not harassment.

[1:51:23] So can we put this back to the fair housing rule laws, then?

[1:51:28] Can we take that into our offensive words pursuant to fair housing law?

[1:51:34] Which pretty much covers any arbitrary characteristic or intersectionality?

[1:51:44] Well, that's what it says, that's what we have in our forms that fair housing does.

[1:51:48] It's got California has one of the most strictest fair housing laws in the country.

[1:51:53] Percent to fair housing law.

[1:51:58] You're right.

[1:51:59] I think if you,

[1:52:02] you can call someone lots of mean ugly names.

[1:52:09] They're not prohibited by fair housing.

[1:52:12] So the what are, how do we determine what those are?

[1:52:17] Causes harm and there's no lawful purpose.

[1:52:23] I think it's very vague, but I am going to defer to the landlords and property owners in the room on that one.

[1:52:34] Sir.

[1:52:36] Just leaving a vague, because if somebody takes offense to me calling the master bedroom the master bedroom,

[1:52:42] if I'm going into their property and I'm referencing, hey, I saw some black stuff on your ceiling in the master bedroom.

[1:52:47] I want to make sure it's not mold, can we address this too?

[1:52:49] And they're now offended by the use of the word master bedroom.

[1:52:52] How is that unlawful?

[1:52:54] But is that going to be possibly

[1:52:56] construed to being offensive or

[1:52:59] How would you determine that master bedroom is offensive?

[1:53:04] But there are a lot of people that are

[1:53:05] Primary bedroom or

[1:53:07] Well, I guess I guess the second part of the sentence likely to provoke an immediate

[1:53:15] Violent reaction.

[1:53:16] I think if someone were

[1:53:18] or mature by a master bedroom as compared to a primary bedroom, maybe that would be discomfort.

[1:53:23] But I would hope that wouldn't have an immediate violent reaction.

[1:53:28] I would hope not, but if I were looking to abuse this ordinance for my own personal gain,

[1:53:35] it's easy to imagine somebody saying, I was so upset that he used the term Master Bedroom

[1:53:40] instead of primary bedroom that I was ready to throw hands.

[1:53:44] Again, these would all be cases that we're working with the Housing Rights Center, they would

[1:53:49] all be investigated.

[1:53:50] This isn't just, you're saying, master bedroom offends me, there's a reason that there's

[1:53:54] a whole investigation that would go into this.

[1:53:57] It's not like someone is just calling and reporting something that's going to be back up to

[1:54:01] make sure that things are actually fall under the harassment and not just, you know.

[1:54:05] That's my concern.

[1:54:06] Is leaving it vague?

[1:54:07] Is it encouraging, you know, this type of a hater and going to that phone call with the

[1:54:12] And now we're just all wasting time and fees.

[1:54:15] Do we fill the addition of adherence to fair housing law?

[1:54:18] Makes it a little, okay.

[1:54:20] I have more comments saying, okay.

[1:54:22] We're going to keep that.

[1:54:22] Thank you for your comments, sir.

[1:54:24] And then, Dawn?

[1:54:26] I don't know how you square this with the first amendment.

[1:54:30] First amendment is not designed to protect civil speech.

[1:54:34] Civil speech doesn't need protection.

[1:54:37] It's things that are offensive that need protection under the first amendment.

[1:54:43] So we'll add first amendment, concern, uh, dawn in the new sir.

[1:54:51] So I think we need to see big picture here and realize who we are trying to protect.

[1:55:01] And something like this is not going to be the point of somebody coming and filing a claim.

[1:55:11] So let's stop picking at things.

[1:55:15] You guys are all doing things the right way.

[1:55:19] You have to think of that guy or that woman who is not.

[1:55:24] Okay, so in the scheme of everything,

[1:55:28] you can have a conversation with your homeowners and say,

[1:55:31] I've got you.

[1:55:33] We are doing everything right.

[1:55:34] We are making it.

[1:55:35] We are putting in notices in.

[1:55:37] We are filing our leases on time, we are protecting you and your tenant.

[1:55:45] This is not for you guys.

[1:55:48] So you won't be going into a house and snooping through somebody's closet.

[1:55:54] You won't be going and calling people names.

[1:55:59] You will file the proper paperwork.

[1:56:02] Okay, but there are people out there that do these things.

[1:56:07] So please can you take your property management hats and your professional hats off and

[1:56:13] stop nitpicking at this and read it in the scope.

[1:56:17] If it is truly offensive to, or not offensive, I'm sorry, if it's truly going to hinder

[1:56:24] you doing business, then speak up.

[1:56:31] This ordinance looking at Big Picture, this is very similar to Oxnard in many ways.

[1:56:38] Doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it any more palatable, but this is all about

[1:56:44] consensus building and again, most of us will not be affected by many of these things.

[1:56:53] I would take a shoot with the fact that nobody's going to use language as a basis to file a claim.

[1:57:01] You'd be amazed what people are going to use to file a claim.

[1:57:05] When the interaction is between the landlord and the tenant,

[1:57:11] these things rarely, if ever, arise.

[1:57:16] But when the city decides to put themselves in the middle of it,

[1:57:20] and say, well, you have rights, and we're going to protect you.

[1:57:26] And then the tenant says, well, yeah, yeah, I could do that.

[1:57:29] And I might get 2,000 or 10,000 bucks in a bargain here,

[1:57:34] and you say that's ridiculous.

[1:57:37] Well, let me tell you about ridiculous.

[1:57:39] I'm fighting with the city right now

[1:57:41] because they're attempting to make me get permits

[1:57:45] for work that was done and approved by the city 40 years ago.

[1:57:49] You can't believe what somebody's claims are based on.

[1:57:56] I am talking to my fellow constituents here, my colleagues.

[1:58:00] They are doing things the right way.

[1:58:02] They will not be calling people names.

[1:58:05] So I'm not talking about society in general.

[1:58:08] I'm talking about the people that are sitting here,

[1:58:10] who own businesses, and who are professionals.

[1:58:15] So I very doubt that you will be calling people names.

[1:58:45] We have to look at the big picture. This ordinance is going to this ordinance is going to be in front of council. This is likely to pass.

[1:58:56] This is our opportunity to speak to the issues that are of concern.

[1:59:04] I can I can tell you with certainty this ordinance is going to pass so we can either

[1:59:09] take the time and have some input or we can be we can grind this to a halt and talk

[1:59:14] about every conceivable aspect of every one of these and get absolutely nothing done except

[1:59:21] frustrating each other. So just keep in mind the big picture. Thank you.

[1:59:46] I actually do want to suggest an edits a number four, which is that we should remove the violent reaction clause.

[1:59:51] That's the constitutional standard for unprotected speech.

[1:59:54] One of these standards for unprotected speech, and it's very, very low.

[1:59:58] And there are other kinds of harm.

[2:00:02] I think it's an easy change would be put in line with fair housing law and with civil rights law and California around hate speech.

[2:00:10] Great. Thank you. We'll get that comment. Moving on to number 5, threatening physical harm to a tenant, whether verbally or by gesture.

[2:00:22] I'm seeing some thumbs up with that, so I'm going to move on number six, misrepresenting

[2:00:28] that a tenant must vacate the unit or inducing them to vacate the unit, sorry, vacate

[2:00:34] through misrepresentation, concealment or omission of material facts.

[2:00:41] I see a thumbs up. A couple of thumbs up. All right, I'm moving on.

[2:00:48] We're going to zoom down.

[2:00:55] There we go.

[2:00:56] The month 7, yes seven.

[2:00:59] Threatening or taking action to terminate

[2:01:01] at tendency including serving an eviction notice

[2:01:04] based on facts which the property owner has

[2:01:06] no reasonable basis to believe to be true.

[2:01:24] Threatening or taking action to terminate a tendency,

[2:01:28] including serving an eviction notice

[2:01:30] based on facts which the property owner

[2:01:32] has no reasonable basis to believe to be true,

[2:01:38] Information so change in from facts to information sounds like okay, I'm going to add information instead of facts

[2:01:53] All right, moving on to number eight

[2:01:55] interfering with attendance peaceful enjoyment of the unit or rendering the premises

[2:02:01] Uninhabitable okay,

[2:02:06] which am I grabbing a microphone number one went and remind me of a reading each of these?

[2:02:11] It's that causes harm and serves no lawful purpose. Thank you Rachel

[2:02:16] So, usually what renders a property uninhabitable is not under the control of the landlord.

[2:02:22] It's something that happens to the property.

[2:02:24] Most of the time from ex, like weather, things like that.

[2:02:29] And then interfering with a tense peaceful enjoyment, that's a right that's already in the law.

[2:02:33] Like why do we have to reiterate that?

[2:02:35] It's in the lease as well.

[2:02:37] So, a suggestion is to strike.

[2:02:39] And again, even though I'll just, you can just, it might be in the law.

[2:02:43] things like this. Again, this is to add it to the or propose to add it to the city of

[2:02:47] Interra's local ordinance, so we do have our own civil penalties related to them.

[2:02:52] And the specifically just a render the credits

[2:02:58] on, or it is the willful intention of a bad

[2:03:02] upland lord, which we keep circling back to. So if you are adhering to this, maybe it's an

[2:03:08] on issue, and maybe people that aren't aware of this ordinance benefit from seeing this in front of

[2:03:14] because it's news to them.

[2:03:17] So, I have a comment as to the word rendering,

[2:03:20] like to me that implies that it's rendered by the landlord

[2:03:24] or like the landlord is intentionally making.

[2:03:28] On an uninhabitable, but we can clarify that we can use,

[2:03:33] we can be phrased it to-

[2:03:35] Or the premise has become uninhabitable?

[2:03:38] No, to prohibit that what's prohibited

[2:03:44] It is the landlord reading, but I'm happy to do that, which is not just for the commission,

[2:03:51] which is basically all right.

[2:03:54] But again, Mr. Daily on and instead of being a fantastic landlord like he is, he chooses

[2:03:59] not to fix the root organ super, superpise, so they can no longer use the bathrooms or things

[2:04:04] like that, so it is now rendered uninhabitable.

[2:04:07] I'm just using using an example because you were a good landlord and try to fix it.

[2:04:11] Thank you.

[2:04:11] Um, that would be rendering it uninhabitable with no intention to maintain it or fix it.

[2:04:19] Okay, so number nine.

[2:04:21] Refusing to accept lawful rent payment as set forth in the lease agreement, or as established by the usual practice of the parties are applicable law.

[2:04:30] Sir.

[2:04:31] I think this has some real unintended consequences.

[2:04:37] Tenant comes to me and says, I lost my job. I'm going to be late with rent. Can you give me a couple of weeks?

[2:04:43] Yes, of course, and the next month still catching up, yeah, of course, I'm not going to

[2:04:50] bet. You can catch up in the future. And then he doesn't catch up at all.

[2:05:00] I'm going to

[2:05:01] serve a three-day notice. He's going to say the usual practice of the parties here is that

[2:05:06] he's been given me an extra three weeks. I think this provides an automatic waiver on the part

[2:05:13] of the landlord to enforce the terms of when rent is due?

[2:05:17] I don't believe that this one refers to that one.

[2:05:21] This is the property owner refusing to offer the tenant

[2:05:24] the ability to pay rent or the security deposit

[2:05:28] by a form other than cash electronic funds.

[2:05:32] Oh, sorry, my bad.

[2:05:43] Yeah, it's the usual practice that I'll

[2:05:45] have a problem with.

[2:05:46] And if you want to add something, you

[2:05:48] could say, although this accepting late rent does not create an automatic waiver of the landlord's

[2:05:56] right to collect rent on the due date.

[2:05:58] So perhaps strike everything after lease agreement.

[2:06:02] So it reads refusing to accept lawful rent payment as that fourth and the lease agreement

[2:06:05] stop.

[2:06:09] Sir.

[2:06:14] I would suggest that it should just say refusing to accept sensibilities pay the rent or security

[2:06:20] deposit by any form of legal tender because I've actually recently had an experience of a

[2:06:24] and they're who said, these are the three things you can pay me with and I won't accept anything else

[2:06:29] and it seemed ridiculous.

[2:06:30] Like if it's a legal tender in the United States, it's legal tender so we should be able to simplify it.

[2:06:35] So we're jumping to 10.

[2:06:41] Oh, sorry.

[2:06:42] Okay, okay.

[2:06:44] So, no, right, yeah, we're, we're, so nine, we suggest it's striking everything after

[2:06:48] least agreement stop.

[2:06:51] Okay, I have that comment.

[2:06:53] Sir?

[2:07:17] Okay, once you're in the victim proceedings, it's no longer lawful.

[2:07:22] Yeah, because typically when you are served with an eviction, your whole goal of the eviction is to get back possession of the unit.

[2:07:30] So, at that point, you're not supposed to be accepting it anyway. So why would you take the rent?

[2:07:37] But at that point it's no longer a lawful because they're in the lawful container process.

[2:07:42] Peter.

[2:07:43] No, this is two-year point exactly.

[2:07:48] This, as a result of this ordinance, this will happen.

[2:07:51] And tenants will have to go through a process all we can do at this point is to hope that is to hope that whoever's on the other end sees that there was a lawful action filed.

[2:08:04] They look at the paperwork because many of these are subject to the opinion of housing rights center when they're.

[2:08:13] when you were going to be, I think the essence of this entire ordinance is, as a housing provider week,

[2:08:23] we're going to be much more subject to any of these from tenants who may make up claims or some may be legitimate.

[2:08:34] And that's an era.

[2:08:53] Don't change it.

[2:08:54] something more or less so that the section can be used to force a lander to accept rent to

[2:08:59] impede an eviction process.

[2:09:02] I have

[2:09:06] the note.

[2:09:11] Okay, so moving to number 10.

[2:09:13] Refusing to offer tenants the ability to pay rent or security deposit by a form of payment

[2:09:18] other than cash or electronic funds transfers such as personal check money order.

[2:09:27] I've got a problem with the fact that it says personal check, and I'm not sure if that's

[2:09:35] unclear to me whether you must accept a personal check or if personal check is just an example

[2:09:43] of some non-electronic.

[2:09:45] It's an example.

[2:09:48] Then maybe we don't need an example because

[2:09:52] I could see somebody reading this as you paid me by personal check.

[2:09:57] It bounced. Next month you paid me by personal check it bounced.

[2:10:02] I tell a tenant, I'm no longer accepting personal checks from you.

[2:10:06] It's got to be a money order or a cashier's check.

[2:10:09] And then he weighs this in my face and says you have to accept personal checks.

[2:10:15] Your recommendation will the phrase personal check?

[2:10:18] Okay.

[2:10:22] Number 11.

[2:10:24] Inquiring is to the immigration or citizenship status or suspected status of a tenant,

[2:10:29] prospective additional tenant, occupant or prospective additional occupant of a rental unit,

[2:10:34] or requiring a statement representation or certification concerning their immigration or citizenship status.

[2:10:40] status.

[2:10:42] Sounds up?

[2:10:43] All right.

[2:10:44] Moving on.

[2:10:47] Yeah.

[2:10:48] Disclosing or threatening to disclose immigration or

[2:10:51] citizenship status or suspected status of a tenant or

[2:10:54] occupant to influence a tenant to vacate or for any other

[2:10:57] reason.

[2:10:59] Good.

[2:11:00] 13.

[2:11:01] Reporting or threatening to report a tenant to a

[2:11:03] government agency for engaging in legally protected

[2:11:06] activity.

[2:11:07] I'm up, 14, violating federal, state, or local housing, and tied discrimination laws.

[2:11:17] Although we have technical difficulties, we added a column accidentally.

[2:11:21] We'll control Z.

[2:11:23] Get out of the colors, things, control Z.

[2:11:29] Okay.

[2:11:30] All right.

[2:11:33] Okay.

[2:11:34] So violating federal, state, or local, and housing and tied discrimination laws, we're good.

[2:11:38] Okay. 15, retaliating against tenants for organizing or participating in tenant associations or unions.

[2:11:47] Thumbs up. 16, violating a tenants' right to privacy or requesting information that infringes upon that right.

[2:11:57] No comment.

[2:12:06] Monica, do you have any insight regarding the privacy?

[2:12:09] Tenants' right to privacy or requesting information that infringes upon that right?

[2:12:12] Okay.

[2:12:16] Let's see a problem with deleting that just because I see that in number 14.

[2:12:26] All right.

[2:12:26] So, because violating attendance right to privacy or requesting information that

[2:12:31] infringes upon that right is connected with number 14, violating federal state or local housing

[2:12:37] and tight discrimination laws, because that could be captured within that.

[2:12:42] So, the recommendation was to strike 16 is written.

[2:12:46] One, I would actually, can we just put a comment into investigate that further because I think the right of privacy is a broader in scope than just anti discrimination law.

[2:12:55] And so might just be worth double checking what this standard is in the state of California.

[2:12:58] Recommendation to investigate in the state. Thank you.

[2:13:04] Definition of it.

[2:13:06] I mean the right to privacy is going to be under the Constitution.

[2:13:12] 17, repeated acts are already, okay sorry, all right, repeated acts or omissions that

[2:13:18] substantially interfere with attendance comfort, peace or quiet, or are intended to

[2:13:23] cause the tenant to wave or forfeit tenancy rights. Again, going back to the

[2:13:30] preface of what is considered causes harm or serves no lawful purpose. Repeated acts or

[2:13:41] conference piece or quiet or no. We're all good.

[2:13:46] We're good. Okay. Moving on now to our next

[2:13:49] section, we did it, guys. Good job. 9, 10, 0. Oh, sorry. Sorry. 9, 10, 0, 5, 0. Affirmative defense.

[2:13:59] Attent may use the protections afforded in this chapter as an affirmative defense in an unlawful

[2:14:05] detainer action when a property owner engages in actions constituting harassment as defined in this

[2:14:13] Chapter,

[2:14:16] thumbs, thumbs, thumbs.

[2:14:19] Section 910-060, lawful evictions.

[2:14:23] Nothing in this chapter shall be construed

[2:14:26] as preventing lawful evictions of a tenant

[2:14:28] through appropriate legal procedures.

[2:14:31] If that had been at the forefront of this entire night.

[2:14:34] I know, right?

[2:14:35] Maybe we could have avoided something.

[2:14:41] I know.

[2:14:42] Recommendation moved to the top.

[2:14:44] We're getting it.

[2:14:45] Thanks.

[2:14:47] All right, nine, thank you for staying with us for our 820.

[2:14:52] Good job, team.

[2:14:54] All right, 910, 070, enforcement and penalties.

[2:14:58] A civil actions.

[2:15:00] One, any person entity or organization may bring a civil action, including in small claims court to enforce this chapter.

[2:15:10] Seeing some nods, question, what happened to mediation?

[2:15:22] where yeah, where we're down in E, mediation's in E.

[2:15:28] So I have issue with any person.

[2:15:31] Can we put any tenant or any person affected by this?

[2:15:38] Because any person reads that my friend Matt has been harassed

[2:15:42] and I'm going to file a claim against him.

[2:15:44] Do you want to report it by saying any tenant or household member?

[2:15:53] Any, any lease holder?

[2:15:55] Okay.

[2:15:59] Andrea.

[2:16:16] The entity organization comes to play.

[2:16:18] So for any person that you want to add, any affected person.

[2:16:22] So it's like if you're a best friend there, they can't sue them on behalf of you.

[2:16:35] With tenant unions are organizations and they are comprised.

[2:16:39] They are.

[2:16:43] I'm sorry.

[2:16:59] Okay.

[2:17:00] Moving.

[2:17:20] How would you recommend rewarding that or providing clear clarification?

[2:17:26] Sorry, that's not.

[2:17:28] because there are people who don't have leases who are lawful tenants, so should

[2:17:31] it just say lawful tenants.

[2:17:35] Lawful tenants.

[2:17:51] I mean, issue of scope, because if you are, say, you're living with an elderly parent.

[2:17:55] There may be an ADA issue of, like, you take care of someone who's see-nile.

[2:17:59] That person can't bring us, bring it.

[2:18:02] We do have tenant defined back up where we went over.

[2:18:06] All righty.

[2:18:07] Any tenant, subtenently, see, subly see or other person entitled to use

[2:18:11] or occupier rental unit within the city so would we like to use tenant.

[2:18:17] Tenant.

[2:18:18] Tenant.

[2:18:20] Tenant.

[2:18:21] Tenant.

[2:18:22] Entity or organization.

[2:18:23] Any tenant tied to the property somehow.

[2:18:25] Any tenant tied to the property.

[2:18:26] So here's my thing.

[2:18:28] When you say any affected person, that covers you guys.

[2:18:32] That's covering your landlord and your tenant.

[2:18:35] Now you're specifying only one.

[2:18:48] I have to give this in my next report.

[2:18:49] So, you guys are recommending to change the word any person to any tenant,

[2:19:03] they have to have

[2:19:04] standing.

[2:19:05] The federal standing.

[2:19:12] No, because if you don't have it, actually, if, for example, at the housing rights

[2:19:14] center or any other, like, return a county legal aid, decide to bring a claim on behalf

[2:19:19] of the tenant.

[2:19:20] They won't be able to, because it's not clear to find the actual ordinance.

[2:19:24] Yes.

[2:19:24] So, I'm going to change person to tenant.

[2:19:28] Okay.

[2:19:28] So, number two, a violator of this chapter is liable for each such offense for economic

[2:19:35] damages suffered by the aggrieved party and non-economic damages, including damages for

[2:19:41] a mental or emotional distress, rent refunds for a reduction in housing services, if applicable,

[2:19:48] civil penalties set in the section, injunctive, decotory, and other equitable relief,

[2:19:56] restitution and reasonable attorneys, fees, and costs as specified by this chapter.

[2:20:16] All right, so

[2:20:20] we will move section E, voluntary mediation, and education, and outreach to A.

[2:20:27] Sorry, I'd like to comment about the enforcement actions.

[2:20:31] Do you have a comment about what the, I don't know if this is the right place to put this,

[2:20:35] but if a tenant doesn't have some kind of protection from being evicted from filing a claim,

[2:20:40] And that's going to be a chilling effect on people filing claims, right?

[2:20:45] So there needs to be some kind of protection or assurance, something that like the tenant

[2:20:49] is entitled to some sort of temporary protection while they bring a claim forth against

[2:20:55] a property owner.

[2:20:56] Are you referring to what's similar when you, like for example, if you file a complaint with

[2:21:00] code of force, may you have six month worth of protections?

[2:21:03] Something like that, because otherwise a tenant is going to have to make a calculus of like,

[2:21:07] Do I do I live with this or do I bring do I bring a complete forward?

[2:21:13] Am I worried about my landlord starting an eviction process while I've also started an ANC harassment process?

[2:21:19] So, let me think about that because I don't it's been a while since I've looked at the retaliation statute

[2:21:28] because if the retaliation statute covers coming to the housing rights center and complaining about violation of this ordinance,

[2:21:42] then it's covered, right?

[2:21:45] If the retaliation statute is more narrow than we can think about it.

[2:21:55] But let's say that we'll look into if it already covers it because it covers it then we don't need a remedy for that because the housing rights center will see them about that anyways.

[2:22:11] Because the housing rights center is not only limited to, you know, our ordinances, but state law as well.

[2:22:25] So I'm not sure if we're on paragraph A, or if we are should we,

[2:22:33] but we're still talking about what was reforming on cases.

[2:22:36] So the statement that starts a violator of this chapter is liable.

[2:22:40] That is the statement we are on.

[2:22:44] I'm sorry, so which paragraph are we on?

[2:22:46] So right now on the draft you have in front of you were A2 under enforcement and penalties.

[2:22:52] or

[2:23:07] was it mediation?

[2:23:08] I thought it was mediation first and then the

[2:23:22] correct.

[2:23:26] So we are now as drafted in front of you,

[2:23:29] A2 under enforcement and penalties.

[2:23:32] Selections.

[2:23:34] So any comments on A.

[2:23:35] I've read it.

[2:23:52] I'm not in agreement.

[2:24:08] We're moving ahead to be which actually talks about.

[2:24:12] I'm going to turn this to a penalty.

[2:24:15] Yes.

[2:24:17] Sorry.

[2:24:18] So the question is, if number two at the top, if an award for all of that would be limited to the amounts, the way it's written is,

[2:24:38] no, no, no, no, the 10,000 is the limit for the civil penalties, so for example, if it got to the point or it's in front of Judge, going through trial, the judge is now, if it's a bench trial, where it's a bench trial,

[2:24:55] example, or jury, whoever they're deciding on a war generally,

[2:25:03] but I think what the jury

[2:25:05] gets is like the list of like, you know, this type of damage line, this type of damage line,

[2:25:11] and then they fill it in. So I think the civil penalty will probably be determined by a judge,

[2:25:17] and then all the other like subjective stuff would be a separate one. So I could hold

[2:25:23] It would be,

[2:25:28] whatever is proven and awarded, and then three would be in addition by a day.

[2:25:38] So, yes, here's the Justin and, you know, limited to civil penalties and doctors of Justin.

[2:25:44] But what you're asking, based on what it's written, is, that could be a suggestion.

[2:26:02] We're expanding number two, as Leon is typing, be virtually

[2:26:20] correct.

[2:26:26] Okay, are we ready to move on to right now section B, civil action or small claims, civil penalties?

[2:26:33] So one, a prevailing tenant is entitled to a civil penny of up to 10,000, but not less than 2,000 for each violation.

[2:26:41] And these numbers, for my edification, the, is that a standard, is that an industry standard, the civil penalties?

[2:26:50] The 10,000, not more than 10, not less than two?

[2:26:54] I mean, other jurisdictions, to see what they do, and other jurisdictions they may have been higher.

[2:27:01] Other businesses were sustaining that.

[2:27:04] Okay, so this is what we felt was a middle ground.

[2:27:07] Okay, yes, ma'am.

[2:27:08] I'm confused on the recommendation that was just made, or we can solidating all of B to basically just fall under the umbrella of civil penalties.

[2:27:18] Is that what just happened?

[2:27:20] Like without clarifying what those are?

[2:27:22] I

[2:27:24] think the suggestion for number two is that if a court is going to award money, they're

[2:27:35] going to be limited to the civil penalty only and not to, you know, mental or emotional

[2:27:43] distress and the other things listed, so it would be limited to civil penalties.

[2:27:48] So, what's up on two is, like, for example, you know, this amount was this amount was this amount was this amount was this amount was this amount was this amount was this amount and by making it just a little penalties and it's only one type of definition, just a silly penalty amount which are listed in B.

[2:28:06] No, not really.

[2:28:09] And we're doing that because one and two, we're looking at under B, right?

[2:28:15] So we are making the distinction that two stands alone from one, because it is a specific

[2:28:22] instance.

[2:28:23] What you are the one who made the recommendation.

[2:28:25] What are you saying?

[2:28:53] I mean, is that something that is in our control in this forum right now?

[2:28:58] That seems like going beyond that scope.

[2:29:00] We can, yeah, I'm just wondering, like, is that something you take up with the law?

[2:29:20] So just making it, making it.

[2:29:27] So the very, the number to what the very top, not in for being.

[2:29:32] That spells out the different types of damages that a person could potentially see.

[2:29:38] And they're all separate.

[2:29:40] Civil penalty is also separate.

[2:29:42] And the only number constraint is the civil penalty amount because that's spelled out in B.

[2:30:00] Or other than listed at the very, on to what the top of being, yes.

[2:30:09] So the suggestion was, no, thank you.

[2:30:18] The suggestion was to limit to, for that the only damages awarded could be the civil penalties and be,

[2:30:26] and not the other effects of damages that are listening at the top of two.

[2:30:29] So that was a suggestion.

[2:30:31] But it's also saying that if you had a 5,910,

[2:30:35] that an 8,000, that really says that those would now

[2:30:39] not just be one violation, it's a vain violation.

[2:30:42] So it's $32,000 a day that you're going to have a penalty.

[2:30:46] Is whatever.

[2:30:48] That would be, if whatever occurred,

[2:30:53] to cover 32 times, for up to $5,000 plus $5,5,000 plus $5,000 plus $5,000.

[2:31:03] So, you know, you're up to $30,000.

[2:31:05] So, those are the limits that a judge or a jury would want to do.

[2:31:10] Who's with a one?

[2:31:12] The limit was $60,000, so six thousand days, $30,000, so $30,000, $30,000.

[2:31:18] Do you even want to bring your seats off?

[2:31:47] So we are, thank you.

[2:31:50] I think we are good with the two. Now we're in B. We're looking at civil action. We had a question about the range that was given.

[2:31:58] It looks like we did research with cities of same size. This is a middle range. Is there beyond whether or not it should be here or not.

[2:32:06] It's a different topic. Are we okay with the statement as presented?

[2:32:10] Okay, B or two, sorry, B-2, an additional civil penalty of up to 5,000

[2:32:15] per violation may be imposed that the tenant is a disabled person or a senior or

[2:32:19] 65 and over.

[2:32:23] Thumbs up?

[2:32:24] Three, each violation in each day that a violation continues constitutes a separate

[2:32:28] offense.

[2:32:31] Thumbs up?

[2:32:31] That law?

[2:32:33] I'm sorry.

[2:32:36] Is that a law?

[2:32:39] No, this is the remedy provided.

[2:32:43] Number two, what the top is what it is and the reason that number three and B is what it is

[2:32:49] is because the reality is that it is very challenging for tenants to find attorneys to represent them in any type of

[2:33:02] protection loss because attorneys generally plaintiffs attorneys are business as they need to pay

[2:33:08] overhead they need to be able to you know taking the case take takes cost a lot of money

[2:33:15] experts you know days and court so this the purpose of two and three is to hopefully not guarantee

[2:33:24] to increase the bar, to increase attorneys will actually decide to take these type of cases

[2:33:33] because generally, without these type of monetary remedies, it is going to, it is not going

[2:33:40] to really make a difference as far as a tenancy ability to hire an attorney.

[2:33:54] So what I'm saying is that the remedies are in order to hopefully make it more likely that a tenant will be able to find an attorney, maybe they won't.

[2:34:29] I think the each day would be, I mean, all of them, an easy one to look at is, you know, not remedy, an issue of

[2:34:42] of habitability. So if you're still living there and paying rent and it's gone it's been 62 days

[2:34:48] since you've had where to notice to the property owner that the hot water isn't working.

[2:35:26] So

[2:35:42] for Lamor some break the law. You understand that you're probably never ever going to be

[2:35:54] But that's why I didn't want to see you all that don't listen to, like I completely get it, they're going to be back.

[2:36:04] You don't have to bring a law, that's why you get to give them all the free of effort of law.

[2:36:08] So if you just throw the law, then you're going to win.

[2:36:10] It's investigation.

[2:36:11] Yeah, it's more like something like that.

[2:36:25] So what I'm hearing, coming back to the narrative here, coming back to the language, we're potentially striking B3.

[2:36:55] Okay.

[2:36:55] If we're just arbitrarily leaving this out and we're not using any standard or adding something

[2:37:01] that's not anywhere out of this, I want to know that.

[2:37:05] We can look carefully at what the local look at the other audiences and hunt through them

[2:37:11] to see exactly if they are all still doing a third day violation or take it out.

[2:37:19] All right.

[2:37:20] Pardon me.

[2:37:20] potentially strike, but research.

[2:37:23] Sir.

[2:37:24] I'm interested in reading research tonight.

[2:37:26] The chair of the other states, San Francisco, on San Francisco,

[2:37:29] or does it mean that you have ten and eighty percent performances

[2:37:32] that don't have some of the way.

[2:37:34] If you only learn of these superhuman laws,

[2:37:36] you can't go with the views of views.

[2:37:38] Is that right?

[2:37:39] Because they have to participate in the terms of safety.

[2:37:43] So, this is a very...

[2:37:44] What am I...

[2:37:45] On my point is, this is a very, very real problem with this study.

[2:37:49] And if there is an incite, an impeachment or a term to take you on,

[2:37:54] then it's will.

[2:37:55] Even in the heat where they have a work that we're cutting,

[2:37:57] I have no one going to come in and try it.

[2:37:59] You shouldn't because it can't get to the surface of the surface.

[2:38:02] There's a lot of work on the agenda.

[2:38:04] You can predict that.

[2:38:05] But you can't.

[2:38:06] But you can't.

[2:38:07] I can't.

[2:38:08] I can't.

[2:38:16] I can't.

[2:38:38] I would like to just mention by the way, since it was said, let's take a look and see what other cities are doing in order to be searching and potentially striking.

[2:38:47] And tracking and finding the data of whether or not it's effective, not just because what they're doing.

[2:38:54] For example, Oxnard just started doing it, we really have no data.

[2:38:58] That will be a part of whether that's effective.

[2:39:00] Thank you, Ms. Trainer.

[2:39:00] We'll definitely look at that as part of our research.

[2:39:03] Essentially, well, we will have to do.

[2:39:05] In terms of looking at other jurisdictions, that does not mean looking at jurisdictions that recently

[2:39:10] you just pass and answer our investment ordinances,

[2:39:12] we have to look at jurisdiction,

[2:39:13] I have an answer our investment ordinance on the books

[2:39:15] for at least several years,

[2:39:16] so they could have data and information for us to utilize.

[2:39:18] So yes, we agree with the research.

[2:39:20] Thank you.

[2:39:41] The Senate.

[2:39:42] We also have a mediation section.

[2:39:45] What?

[2:39:46] Yes, yes, we've got 15 minutes, and then I do have to,

[2:39:49] we do have security to release.

[2:39:51] You had a comment though.

[2:39:52] I was just gonna say that the data could be skewed

[2:39:55] by a lot of things.

[2:39:58] I mean, if there are these laws in place and they're not being enforced, then how can we

[2:40:05] like truly trust the data and these other places and context, I think matters place to

[2:40:11] place.

[2:40:11] I think that we should trust that the tenants in this area know what protections they need.

[2:40:19] If we're waiting for data, like we could be waiting for, you know, till who knows when.

[2:40:26] I think it's time to pave the path here.

[2:40:30] Thank you.

[2:40:32] So, moving on to see attorneys fees.

[2:40:35] A prevailing yes, sir.

[2:40:42] Okay, party.

[2:40:44] So, for the live stream,

[2:40:46] it was a prevailing tenant.

[2:40:47] She'll be awarded reasonable attorneys fees

[2:40:49] and costs were suggesting,

[2:40:51] suggesting tenant and putting party.

[2:40:55] Thank you.

[2:40:56] Moving on to D administrative

[2:40:59] of citations, violations of this chapter are subject to civil penalties, set by resolution

[2:41:04] by issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to chapter 1.50, I don't see any hands

[2:41:12] next is E, voluntary mediation and education outreach. The community development director has

[2:41:20] the authority to create policies and procedures to aid in the implementation of this chapter.

[2:41:26] This kind of follows into what I think we had talked about the beginning is what happens after this.

[2:41:32] So this gives our department director the authority to figure out the administrative procedures, right?

[2:41:39] That would be a transparent process and I know Council would want us to report back what that looks like.

[2:41:44] A second paragraph the community development director has the authority to establish voluntary mediation services, which shall not be a prerequisite.

[2:41:51] I'll put up the word pre-prequisite to the issuance of an administrative citation in a community

[2:41:58] education and outreach program related to tenant and property owner rights and responsibilities.

[2:42:04] Thumbs up. Okay. Sir.

[2:42:10] Does paragraph A give the community development director the authority to implement a

[2:42:18] a system of fees, per unit, fees, on landlords.

[2:42:24] I don't see anything in there that prohibits that.

[2:42:35] Outside of this, I understand it's not a registry,

[2:42:40] but if the city, if the community development director decides,

[2:42:44] well, we've got all of this community involvement,

[2:42:48] we need to get compensated for this.

[2:42:50] Any kind of fee would have to go to Council

[2:42:52] for adoption as part of our fee schedule.

[2:42:55] So beyond what you see here as civil penalties or for small claims, there would not be any other fees related to that.

[2:43:01] So I want to speak to the Mediation Services because I think it really creates an opportunity to resolve issues.

[2:43:09] I know that there's a prevailing thought sometimes that we want to punish the other party.

[2:43:16] And I think we'd be better served as a community to reset the standard and what I'd like to see is

[2:43:28] a mediation of these.

[2:43:30] Some won't.

[2:43:31] The mandatory.

[2:43:35] I think rather than have this here, did we move this?

[2:43:41] We didn't move it.

[2:43:42] So this is going to be a, it will be the first section under enforcement and penalty.

[2:43:47] So as far as the, the, the outreach, the education, the, the setup for this, that's, I think, I believe that's going to be a really critical part of this entire ordinance.

[2:44:00] What we want to do is we want to diffuse issues.

[2:44:03] We want to keep people,

[2:44:07] like the gentleman to my right.

[2:44:09] So we want to keep owners here and have some resolution to issues that arise in that if

[2:44:20] and diffuse problems rather than it be hard and fast, everything goes to the housing

[2:44:26] right center and it's, so I think that's really going to be important to the context of

[2:44:31] this overall that's the success here.

[2:44:33] So just to clarify, the housing right center would be the one doing this.

[2:44:36] Yes, that's always going to clarify.

[2:44:38] Yes.

[2:44:38] the mediation service will be free to the housing rights center. Yes. And I believe that

[2:44:45] part of

[2:44:46] part of council requires by the housing rights center if it's in the scope of work is reporting. Or

[2:44:51] there's an annual report on how many people, how many mediation, how many of this. So it'll be public information

[2:44:58] as far as I understand.

[2:45:00] I do think that's really important to clarify that it doesn't necessarily have to be mandatory, but that's the first cause, that's the first action that we take in diffusing issues rather than going all the way with it.

[2:45:16] And I don't know how to, I don't know what the contract states with Housing Rights Center, but I just think that's, look, we all live here, and we want this to work if we, whatever it may get work, that's really make it work.

[2:45:28] So, just for clarification, Matt, are you recommending that the electronic me say I'm

[2:45:33] over?

[2:45:34] Let me try to get this right in my little notes.

[2:45:36] Are you recommending that it's a prerequisite before civil action to do mediation?

[2:45:41] Or tips, voluntary mediation?

[2:45:44] Or should I encourage voluntary mediation?

[2:45:45] Without a doubt.

[2:45:48] I think it's, I was so underneath.

[2:45:51] Regquisite to making this is a successful program because again, those that don't want

[2:45:56] participate. You take your chances. But I think offering that up front is really going to

[2:46:04] resolve many of the issues if they, if we see issues.

[2:46:08] I believe that I believe that our lease agreements that we're using at CIT in our CRE

[2:46:12] form has a agreement to mediate prior to litigation. So, I think that we, if we do have

[2:46:21] that if the lease agreement says, we're going to go into

[2:46:25] intimidation, then if I would say that the voluntary,

[2:46:29] unless by a prior agreement.

[2:46:50] I see that as an issue where, let's say the lease has that provision,

[2:46:58] and let's say it's a griegeous behavior, and the tenant is somehow able to find

[2:47:03] attorney, and then the landlord has an attorney, and it would be up to the landlord to then say,

[2:47:11] you know, let's go to the Housing Rights Center, and that will count as mediation.

[2:47:19] That's not what I'm talking about.

[2:47:20] Yeah, but I think that's what he's talking about.

[2:47:23] Okay, but that's a separate issue.

[2:47:24] That would be the landlord's choice to decide to accept HRC mediation as mediation as envisioned by the lease.

[2:47:48] I disagree that should not be made a requirement and didn't you say that you can't anyways.

[2:47:54] It's a hypothetical situation.

[2:48:00] What you're proposing is hypothetical.

[2:48:02] Can the city mandate an HRC be the initial mediator and put something in there that, if you're going to rent a lease in the city of Ventura, the landlord or the property owners have to go to HRC rather than paying private mediation services?

[2:48:19] Because, again, I'll be the research guide that says there's a lot of research that says private mediation tends to get one by the people who pay for them, and in these cases it's most likely going to be property.

[2:48:29] The only hesitation I would throw out with having HRC specified in the ordinance is it may not be HRC years from now the offers mediation services on behalf of the city

[2:48:40] So we could use something

[2:48:42] City qualified

[2:48:45] Yeah, leave it general enough so we don't have to touch the ordinance

[2:48:48] But we can get the intent

[2:48:51] So

[2:48:51] We may have issue with that because people that do it right have, you know, insurance and our insurance carrier may mandate who we have.

[2:49:03] So how about?

[2:49:05] So how about going, you know, we have a lot of notes here.

[2:49:08] I think what I'm the undercurrent is strongly encouraged mediation.

[2:49:14] As I think something that we could at least put on ever thumbs down.

[2:49:52] So let's say a least provision has mediation as required before what?

[2:49:59] It's not required it has to be in the least, both parties need to agree to it.

[2:50:07] So if they agree to it, they sign up, they agree that they're going to do mediation if anything should happen.

[2:50:12] Okay, so then that would be if the tenant is able to find an attorney and if the attorney

[2:50:19] files a lot, so then it would be up to the defendant's attorney to say, we haven't done

[2:50:46] That would be up to the landlord attorney to assert that defense.

[2:50:50] You can, you know, summary judgment or, you know, file something to say we haven't in

[2:50:54] Mediation.

[2:50:55] Or the landlord could say, let's do, I agree to HRC Mediation.

[2:51:00] Cannot force them to use it, because as you pointed out, maybe the insurance

[2:51:06] requires something else.

[2:51:07] So I don't see it conflicting.

[2:51:08] I think that's an issue between, you know, a representative party to hopefully representative party, if it gets to that point.

[2:51:17] So I think we have comments here on the screen that kind of articulate the conversation here.

[2:51:24] So let's pin this and just have it be, you know, for our decision makers to take a look at and consider unless there's,

[2:51:33] I just want to be cognizant that we have about 10 minutes left.

[2:51:39] We're almost done.

[2:51:42] The third paragraph under this portion is the community development director shall create a document regarding the rights and responsibilities of tenants and property owners under this chapter.

[2:51:54] Property owner shall provide this document to tenants upon execution and renewal of a lease agreement.

[2:51:59] I see some thumbs up.

[2:52:08] So we're at E. Third paragraph under E on page 4.

[2:52:16] Yeah.

[2:52:18] Just say yeah.

[2:52:22] Part of the least packet.

[2:52:26] Yes. I'm not seeing any hands right now. So we'll keep on to. Okay.

[2:52:42] Okay. Thank you.

[2:52:44] Moving on to 910, 080, non-exclusive remedies and penalties, and we're near the finish line folks.

[2:52:51] The remedies provided in this chapter are not exclusive and nothing shall preclude any person from seeking any other remedies penalties or procedures provided by law.

[2:53:01] 910, 090, several ability.

[2:53:04] If any section subsection sentence clause phrase part or portion of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court

[2:53:12] of competent jurisdiction. Such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions

[2:53:18] of this ordinance. The city council declares its intent to adopt the ordinance irrespective

[2:53:23] of the potential envelope in validity of any part.

[2:53:29] And then we were prohibited. Anyway,

[2:53:31] we have rights under this chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy.

[2:53:37] You guys did it. Good job.

[2:53:41] Thank you so much for taking more than the a lot of time here.

[2:53:48] Really appreciate your feedback.

[2:53:49] If you think of anything else,

[2:53:54] housing services at cityof Ventura.ca.gov.

[2:53:59] Again, housing services at cityof Ventura.ca.gov.

[2:54:03] Buy next Friday, please.

[2:54:06] You could also email me, Leona or Rachel.

[2:54:10] I have business cards here. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Tenant and Property Owner: Anti-Harassment Ordinance Stakeholder Collaborative Workshop - 9/10/2025

Agenda

Transcript