Board of Supervisors — 2023-04-06

Hey, let's check out this park. Oh wow! That's really cool! To find a great local park or forest near you go to discovertheforest.org

If you need to do something to feel okay to drive, you're not okay to drive. Don't drive buzzed. Yo Scott! Hey! I'm heading out man, you want a ride? No, I got my car back- I actually really need to go to the bathroom. You know what, I was just in there and the line is like ten people long. Dude, are you okay? You wouldn't believe what I was just thinking. I am definitely buzzed. Yeah... I think I will take this and I will take that ride home. Smart man! Did you see how the dog was looking at me?

Of the board. I do have a few announcements this morning and before I begin can he's using minnows who is joining us via zoom please translate my first announcement for those members of the public who are in person today. First, I would like to announce that we do have translators standing by and available to provide consecutive Spanish translation during today's public comment

Primeramente queremos anunciar que tenemos servicios de interpretación al español para el periodo de comentarios del público.

For those members of the public using this service today, they will be provided the necessary time to complete their comments and the allotted time plus the time to translate their comments

Thank you, Jesus. And if you have any further instructions you would like to provide to the members of the public who will be using these services, you could do so now. Thank you. Thank you so much, Jesus. I appreciate it.

And lastly, for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page 2 of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805-568-2240 again that's 805 568 So I just want to explain.

A little bit the items, there are two items. There is an open item on an urgency ordinance for Just Cause for residential evictions. There is also a closed session. A closed session is when the county anticipates either litigation that we will initiate against someone or that we will be the recipient of and then before that there is public comment but public comment on items Not on this agenda, so right now is the time when we will take public comment for items that have nothing to do with the Just Cause for Residential Evictions. Then we will take the Just Cause for Residential Evictions Urgency Ordinance up.

So general public comment today?

Chair Williams and members of the public, it doesn't appear that we have any members of the public who wish to speak on general public comment today. I do have two members of the public with raised hands so perhaps we can go to them on Zoom just to see if it was for our departmental item today or for general public comment an item not on our agenda today. So we will go to Anna Marie Gott.

Anna?

Good afternoon supervisors. I would just like to make a comment about the cost of living in Santa Barbara and the fact that the county has a minimum wage that is far below what it would take to actually house someone in the county. You know, your minimum wage is $15 an hour. And with a minimum wage for county residents at $15 an hour and with the cost of housing as expensive as it is in Santa Barbara, it really just shows that the Board of Supervisors is fine with businesses paying poverty wages to employ their employees And I think that the Board of Supervisors needs to take a hard look at themselves considering all of the housing that is being built.

You know, not within people who are being paid close to the minimum wages ability to actually afford without crowded conditions or without people living in substandard housing and that you really need to look at implementing a living wage throughout the entire county. If you were to do that And look at ensuring that people who are working 40 hours a week, who can actually afford a place to live in Santa Barbara.

So I would just urge you to consider looking at the actual cost of living what your wages are being paid throughout the county and actually consider implementing a living wage. Thank you.

And that concludes our requests on general public comment today.

And we will go to departmental item number one, which is the urgency ordinance on just cause for residential evictions.

Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Capps. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an urgency ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 44 to add Article Six, just cause for residential evictions. That's four, excuse me. Four-fifths vote required or alternatively consider recommendations with a three-fifths vote required. Thank you. We

will have brief

staff presentation. Mr. Spencer? Mr. Kilbrey?

Good morning, Chair Williams and Supervisors. My name is Spencer Brandt. I'm the District Representative for Supervisor Williams. With me is Jordan Killebrew, District Representative for Supervisor Capps. We are here to give a brief overview of the item before you today. I am going to start with an overview of existing law. Santa Barbara County Chapter 44 requires that landlords pay relocation benefits equal to three months of fair market rent or $7,000 whichever is greater when there's a qualifying relocation event such as an eviction.

In state law the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 requires that a landlord have a just cause to bring about a residential eviction one of these just causes that a landlord can cite for terminating a tenancy is that they plan to substantially remodel a unit This state law also allows local jurisdictions to pass their own just cause eviction ordinances so long as that they are more protective than what exists in state law.

And lastly, I'll also mention that the preservation of affordable housing stock is a policy of the Board of Supervisors in the housing element dating back to 1993. Now I'll pass it to Jordan to talk a little bit about the proposed Just Cause Ordinance.

Thank you. Thank you, Spencer. Hello everyone, Jordan Killebrew. So proposed Just Cause requirements. We're looking at an ordinance modeled off of a recent action by the City of Santa Barbara. We are requiring that landlords to demonstrate good faith. We also looking at landlords must provide early notice to tenants of plans to perform a substantial remodel, obtain all necessary permits prior to giving tenants a notice of termination of tenancy And serve tenants a copy of all permits, the scope of work to be performed and why the word cannot be completed in a safe manner while it's still occupies the unit.

The board to consider the following adopt an urgency ordinance requiring just cause for residential evictions to be effective immediately or alternately. Considered the introduction 1st, reading of an ordinance requiring just cause for residential evictions and set a hearing date to consider adoption on April 18 2023. Thank you.

We'll have some board questions but one thing that struck me in meeting the language, the requirements go down and one of the requirements is giving notice. One of the requirements is obtaining permits from the relevant authority which would be the county. Is this something, the meeting these requirements, is it something that is concurrent or would the permits have to be obtained before the notice? Or would the permits need to be obtained by the expiration of the notice?

This is a question for County Council, of course.

But I will give time and I'm happy to have if there's other questions we could go over those first.

Mr. Chair members of the board on the current language of the ordinance requires that the permits already be obtained at the time of the notice because this section says that the tenants would be served with a copy of the permits along with their written notice stating the reason for termination

And that also would be the case in this draft of our urgency update, correct?

Mr. Chair, both the urgent draft urgency ordinance and the standard ordinance contain the same language.

Thank you. That's helpful. Other questions from the board? Supervisor Caps.

I just want to thank you first, Chair Williams for being such a strong partner on this item. To the teams also to County Council and to the public comment those of you who showed up two days ago gave the most powerful public comment that I've experienced in my time in public service. Just to set the stage a little bit here as we know on March 16th each of of the 264 units at CBC and the sweeps received a notice of termination.

And just to talk about what this is, this isn't just... This is a lot more than just about one housing complex. This is about the rents here in Santa Barbara which we know are the highest across the country for any small city. This is about probably 800 people, not just a few but 800 people. This is about multi-generational families living at the sweeps at CBC raising their children. When we were there, we saw tricycles. We saw sand pails. This is about hardworking people, students who just because of the system rarely catch a fair break This is about the fact that rents have more than doubled in the past two decades, far surpassing incomes.

This is about an out-of-state and out of touch landlord who fails to understand the community even just as example failing to provide these notices in any language other than English. And again this this is about exploitation so what I'm really Thankful to the team, to everybody who advocated for this is that we are today doing everything we can to be as bold and proactive as we can about these tenants but about all tenants in Santa Barbara County. This is about who we are as a community and I just want to again thank you before we get into all the questions about the technicalities. Thank You Chair Williams

Thank you, I think that's good because typically what we do in our business is give a board letter that gives the intent behind an item and so partially you're in my charge. And I will just say, I had a deeply disturbing meeting yesterday with someone who was well-intended, wanted to make some things better but his background was as a real estate investor and he said it is precisely the fact that you guys, meaning not just the county but our whole area does not produce enough rental housing that gives a chance for people in my industry to essentially take advantage of the system and squeeze people out if there was enough housing People would have alternatives and these people have no alternatives because there is not adequate rental housing out there.

And it gives a chance for people who are not thinking of their ethical responsibility for the community to take advantage of that, to the maximum extent possible and to even in some cases not comply with our ordinance or other things that would further disadvantage renters, particularly renters if they did not have legal help or the county with them. And I want to say the county is with you.

It is our intent today to move as fast as we can to provide additional protections. You may not find the ordinance perfect in every way, this was happened about light speed for the county and so we attempted to do what we are certain we have legal justification to do and it is not all of the county's options which is why there is a closed session and why there are other options available.

Are there any other board questions before you move to public comment?

Williams. Yes, thank you add a couple of questions. Is it possible for someone to do substantial

improvements without needing a permit?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Supervisor Nelson, whether or not work triggers a permit depends on the type of work that's done so there is work that can be done without a permit and so we would look to our building code and our zoning code whether or not a permit would be required for the work.

I think the next question is what is the definition of substantial? Is it a dollar amount?

Chair Williams and Supervisor Nelson, there's not a dollar amount set out. But substantial remodel means the replacement or substantial modification of any structural electrical plumbing or mechanical system that requires a permit or the abatement of hazardous materials including lead based paint mold or asbestos that cannot reasonably be accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place and that requires the tenant to vacate And state law sets out specifically that cosmetic improvements alone do not qualify a substantial rehabilitation. So this includes painting, decorating and minor repairs that could be safely performed without requiring the property be vacated.

Supervisor Nelson I just wanted to add in the language it reads that justification for That the repairs would actually require an individual leaving for at least 30 days is one of the things steps asked for in the ordinance. So most repairs that do not require a permit would not require somebody to leave for at least 30 days.

Chair William, where I was getting to is that it seems The, the owner of this property that in question has found a loophole. I'm just trying to find the potential loopholes for this discussion and give us all to have it, you know, the opportunity to potentially close those or better define those. And so that's why I'm bringing up the subject matter on whether there is still an opportunity for someone to Potentially not need a permit to do substantial renovation or not.

I like how you're thinking.

So, I mean, I get there but I'm trying to make better policy if you guys move so long. Absolutely. So the other question I had as well this. If an urgency ordinance is passed today will it apply to

CBC or the sweeps?

Supervisor Nelson, I'm not sure that question was for. Could you please repeat it?

Well, the reason why we potentially need an urgency ordinance is because there's something that's happened in Isla Vista with this. I think it's called a CVC property and the sweeps. And I was curious on whether the urgency ordinance would apply to that property now and to those tenants that are being evicted but just slow down the process of those

Supervisor Nielsen members of the board. The ordinance would apply if the urgency ordinance was adopted, it would be effective immediately. So for any notices that would be sent out after this, it would apply. If permits have not been received yet for that work then the property owner would need to obtain those permits prior to giving It's difficult without knowing all the facts, but yes it is possible that it would impact current events.

So it would only impact those properties that have not yet received their notice? That they've already received a notice would not impact those parties

and their permits

because our current ordinance requires permits as well

Our current ordinance requires permits prior to. I thought that's what the question is. I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Supervisor Nelson, members of the board. So the county has an existing ordinance on Chapter 44. It's been in place since 2011 which does require relocate three months of relocation payments or $7000 whichever is greater and that does apply when an owner gives notice for substantial rehabilitation includes obtaining a permit so So that ordinance is already in place and would apply as long as it qualifies. There's various reasons that it can apply, and if it's triggered then that would apply already.

This new urgency ordinance is adding additional requirements for just cause as well as adding additional protections Depending on the circumstance. So, for instance, if it's in the case of a substantial remodel then we're adding additional protections and additional steps that an owner would need to take.

But this is prospectively not retrospective.

Supervisor Nelson members of the board? Yes, that's correct.

And my last question as far as these permits that are concerned these are just building permits. These would be Ministerial permits or over-the-counter permits, or would these be discretionary permits that would be needed for substantial improvement?

Supervisor Nelson, members of the board. Again it depends on the type of work that an owner is proposing but typically these would be building permits but it's possible that an owner could seek different types of permits for the work.

They'd be building permits that would not be subject to appeal.

Mr Chair and Supervisor Nelson, members of the board, I believe what you said is that it would be permits that were not subject to appeal? Is that correct?

Yes.

We would need a double check. I believe that a building permit although its ministerial is appealable Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

I do have one Chair Williams. I just, I do want to put out there that part of the perhaps it's a supervisor Nelson's questions part of the lay of the land here is that in this current situation different notifications are being given out on different days to different tenants and so there's confusion I believe as to how this could potentially apply today if we were to take action today because again that there is changing scenarios literally as we were meeting on Tuesday different notifications were being sent out. So I'm hopeful that what we do here today will have an impact.

One last question, Chair Williams? Yes,

Supervisor Nelson.

And I probably should know this off the top of my head but an urgency ordinance, how long does that last? Is it 12 months 18 months?

Members of the board and supervisor Nelson. So there's multiple types of urgency ordinances, so there is a type of urgency ordinance which is zoning ordinance, which does have time limits, which I think is what you're referring to initially, there's a period of time and then it gets renewed and extended Does that answer your question, Supervisor Nelson?

Yeah, and again as I mentioned before, I'm not sure if I'm going to get to the point to be able to support. There's the ordinance, but if we do go down that route. Um, I just want to put out there that I would need to see an end date so that we could actually have a hearing on. Potential impacts of this long term and look at some of those things here from other stakeholders on this. You know, this is obviously rushed and I understand why? And I'm very sympathetic to why.

So. You know, I'm just putting that out there. I would not be okay with it being indefinite. I think you need to hear from economists and other parties that there's potential impacts of these types of ordinances that might have unintended consequences. And I'm not today prepared to adopt something that would be indefinite And I think I would need some more time and I hope that we would go down that route if, in fact, I can be there. For the public's benefit, I do have a limited time that I'll be here today and I will try to hang on as long as I can but I had previous commitments prior to this special meeting being called.

So I will try to be here to the better end if necessary but I may have to depart.

Thank you, Supervisor Nelson. And then I'll try to get to public comment quickly so we can make sure that people can stay. To reinforce the points made by Supervisor Capps it is our intention today to do more than just make a We have a symbolic statement in support of the tenants of the of the sweeps. we want to make sure that you know that Defenses, tools within the unfortunate confines of established law. Those defenses are not perfect but would be a substantial benefit over and above our current ordinance.

Let's go to public comment.

Supervisor and members of the board. I just wanted to clarify one thing in response to super a not supervisor Nelson's comments And that is that your board has discretion although the urgency is Ordinance is currently set up to be indefinite The board does have discretion to set a date that which would end when we and the board has done that before with urgency ordinances

Thank you Let's move to public comment. I won't put limits on it above the three minutes, but I'll just ask you to try to do two minutes or as close to two minutes as possible because we do have supervisors that have some time constraints and we will not be able to pass this if more than one leaves so I just will Ask you to make your own judgments with that in mind.

So this does require a four-fifths vote, correct? Emergency.

Supervisor Labadino, yes to pass the urgency ordinance it requires a four-fifths vote. You're also agendized alternatively to consider a standard ordinance and that's a majority vote.

Please proceed with public comment.

Chair Williams and members of the board, we have 48 requests to speak on this item.

So I will close the roll so to speak for further public comment.

And we will begin on Zoom with Connie Alexander to be followed by Krista Conroy. Connie?

Ah, good morning supervisors Connie Alexander with the Santa Barbara NAACP. And I want to thank you for this hearing this morning so that we could have a little more time to hear the background which i think is essential but I want to address why sometimes people would say what premise are you the board acting on because sometimes it is those premises of what lays behind everything That we just need to make sure are forward. And so I want to encourage you that you are in effect, addressing something that is systemic racism because if you think about what that is it happens systemic racism happens when institutions and government support oppression and discrimination through policies. And so I appreciate the fact that this is an opportunity for you to address that directly.

This phrase in here, just cause has become an active loophole obviously which does lend itself towards past things that have happened to people of color. Redlining has been a horrible part of the history of things that have happened in Santa Barbara County. I'm encouraging you to send a very clear message here, that in this county we're not going to support and actively support the discrimination of a group of people. In this case it is overwhelmingly going to impact communities of color and families when you think about the fact that they would have to come up with between eight and $10,000 to relocate, that reinforces what is systemic racism? So thank you this morning and I'll end my comments there. Thank you.

We will now go to Krista Conroy, to be followed by Shondell Malcolm. Krista?

Thank you, Supervisors. And thank you for the opportunity to be heard today. My name is Krista Conry. I'm an attorney with Housing & Economic Rights Advocates. We're a California statewide nonprofit that assists and advocates for residential tenants And I'm here to call on the supervisors to make any urgency ordinance requiring additional steps of an owner before recovering possession for a substantial remodel that any ordinance such as this apply to each stage of the eviction process, including to the recovery of possession through an unlawful detainer.

Right now and without applying the ordinance, an urgency ordinance in such a way to any stage of the recovery of possession process, including the unlawful detainer. Most of the 800 plus tenants at CBC in the sweeps will not be protected because many of them, in fact all of them have already received notices and it's very likely that this ordinance will not assist them without applying to again all the stages of a landlord's attempt to recover possession of a property.

And I will just share an echo Some colleagues who will speak today and who have already spoken that in working with some of these tenants and beginning to assist them, a huge group of them are families with children, persons with disabilities, persons of color, low-income individuals. Many are Section 8 voucher holders who will face unique systemic discrimination in finding any other housing options despite the fact that it's already very difficult to find any affordable housing In the county, these tenants will face a uniquely challenging prospect of finding anything that could replace the homes that they already have.

It will be a potentially insurmountable hurdle that could lead many of them to homelessness. So I echo the calls that the county should take action today to protect not just prospectively all future tenants in Santa Barbara County who might Receive substantial remodel eviction notices, but to those who've already received them. Otherwise there's a humanitarian crisis that could occur in the county. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.

We will now excuse me we will now go to Shondell Malcolm to be followed by Leanna DeSerato.

Good morning, and thank

you County Board of Supervisors. I am a tenant who recently received an eviction notice. My landlord gave me the eviction notice with the intent of doing a substantial remodel in my case. The contractor said that the work can be done with me being in the house. However, the owner is not going to allow me to return to the house. So the impact this has had on me Is that my rent was $1,800 and I now had to rent a place for 3000. That's a 62% increase in my rental fees that I'm going to experience.

So there's a couple of things that I want to talk about and it's the. The rental in our county most places will not rent to you if the rent is over 30% of your income. And I live in Lompoc, so our income, the median income is $75,000. That means that most people in Lompoc can only afford to rent up to 800 or $1,875. So a $3,000 rent is way out of people's range for renting and what it's done is it's essentially taken a single family household and turned it into a multifamily household because that's the only way people can survive.

One of the other things how this has impacted me is, and I think Supervisor Nelson touched on this. I think it was him. The amount of money it takes to move into a place. So me moving into this new place that I'm living in, I had to come up with $8500 to move in. I do not have that money in my account so I had to borrow against my retirement In order to accomplish that, and it's a $10,000 loan at 8.75% for a 5 year term.

But my lease is only for a 1 year term. So if I have to move within that after that 1 year. I now have to come up with another. Moving costs and I'm already behind the curve ball on this. And this is what a lot of the residents in Santa Barbara County are facing. So I appreciate the fact that you guys are looking at this and you're taking it serious, and I support an emergency ordinance that will protect the Santa Barbara County residents. Thank you.

We will now go to Leanne, excuse me, Leanna Deserato to be followed by Elliot Hammond Leanna? Leanna, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can unmute to provide your comments. We will now go to Elliot Hammond to be followed by Kevin Goodwin.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Elliot please proceed. Okay great

good morning supervisors my name is Elliott Hammond I'm here today as a member of the Santa Barbara Tenants Union and also as a tenant in District 2 where I was born and raised and have resided most of my life. I want to thank you for recognizing the urgency of the situation that course but excuse me core spaces residents and thousands of other tenants all over the county are facing with regard to these rent evictions and for acting swiftly to protect them from losing their homes.

As a tenant response team lead for the Santa Barbara Tenants Union, I co-facilitate a tenant help desk meeting every week on Zoom for our members and almost every week for the past two years we have new people on our call who are facing rent evictions and the rate at which we're seeing these cases has skyrocketed over the past six to 12 months As you know, landlords are taking advantage of the loophole and the California Tenant Protection Act and our Just Cause Ordinance to push out their long-term tenants to double or triple the rents.

All because they've learned that they will not be held accountable or face any repercussions for their actions. I urge you to pass this urgency ordinance today but only having incorporated the amendments that were suggested by Legal Aid Foundation so that there's protection for the CBC and the SWEAPS residents. An urgency ordinance that does not protect the residents in IV would be a failure of what you set out to do by having this meeting today is unacceptable to them.

That's all I have for now, thank you so much.

We will now go to Kevin Goodwin to be followed by Diana Collins-Puente. And Kevin, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute yourself to provide your comments?

Thank you board. I appreciate the time to speak to you. My concern is for the smaller property owners not necessarily institutional property owners and the effects it will have on them in providing housing for our local community. I work with several people that own duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes This ordinance will make it difficult for them to continue to own those properties. I think both sides of this need to be looked at, and also the county needs to provide housing or other non-profits rather than pushing this on to private property owners.

I think a full analysis of this needs to be made prior to just enacting the rule to solve a specific problem, and it is a real problem that exists But it can't be made with sweeping action.

Thank you for the time.

My apologies, Diana is not here we will now go to Mayra Jimenez to be followed by Rochelle Sim. Mayra? We can hear you

please

proceed.

Oh hi, yes. So right now at the time we're having problems with the owner of Sandpiper property he actually wants to rebuild some more apartments and wants to take out 28 spots for tenants and there's no parking in the west side so it's really hard for us to come home and not find parking and we just have till the 23rd

of this month where he's going to make those changes We

will now go to Rachel Sim followed by Lawanda Lyons-Pruitt. Rachel? Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rachel Sim I'm a tenant in Santa Barbara and I'm calling to support passing the urgency ordinance with these suggested changes by the Legal Aid Foundation that are being circulated Uh, in order to protect tenants in and also tenants throughout the county that are facing or will face this kind of displacement which as Elliot mentioned is becoming increasingly common.

And I also add you urge you to add further amendments to strengthen the ordinance to ensure that it actually effectively protects tenants and other tenants in our community. Firstly landlords should not be allowed to remove tenants for cosmetic remodels. Tenants should only be required to leave their homes to remedy habitability concerns, which are already a landlord's responsibility. And I'd like to point out that that's one of the oft touted benefits of being a renter is that it is not supposed to be my responsibility to maintain the upkeep of my unit tenants also need to be provided with temporary alternative housing during the renovation and they deserve the right to return to the unit With the same lease terms, once the work is actually complete.

Anything else is just allowing landlords to neglect the units while continuing to collect our rent before evicting us and then raising the rent without any limits. Unscrupulous landlords will find any and all loopholes that they can to evict tenants and to raise the rent beyond what is sustainable? What is manageable? What is justifiable? And even what is in my opinion ethical I urge you to follow the lead of other jurisdictions and pass stronger protections for our community. In fact, five jurisdictions already do not allow for substantial remodel justified evictions at all. They only allow a landlord to evict in order to comply with the government order to vacate, abate or similar and we need these protections in Santa Barbara County to keep us safe and to keep our community vibrant.

Thank you.

We will now go to Lawanda Lyons-Pruitt, to be followed by Ana Rosa Rizzo Centeno. Lawanda?

Good morning Chair Williams and Supervisors. And I apologize for my phone ringing. Lawanda Lyons Pruitt representing the Santa Maria Lombok branch of the NAACP. We want to thank you for taking the steps that you're taking today to protect the tenants in our county. If you do not take the steps that you're taking, we know that it harms our communities and so we really appreciate and families and will appreciate you taking that step. I was actually going to read the email that I received from Ms.

Shandell Macomb. But he appeared before you and spoke. But we think that the steps that you're taking, get paid early notice, obtaining permits prior to serving the unnoticed, those are all important. Thank you again and have a good day.

I just want to use Lawanda's testimony as proof that you can get your ideas across in abbreviated form so just remember We need four of us to be able to stay here, to be able to vote on the ordinance today. Please proceed.

Hello Board of Supervisors. I want to support the emergency ordinance and make sure that it actually applies to the residents that are currently being evicted. I represent the Central Coast Climate Justice Network, and just like we care about animals being able to stay in their environment, we should care about Black Indigenous people of color who are human beings staying in their environment because we are part of the environment. And this continues to happen All the time, there's been mass evictions that have happened before where we've come to the County Board of Supervisors and you all have done nothing in the past. So please take this as your opportunity to step up and actually stand against racism and stand for people being able to stay with their families in their communities Because as we know, currently people keep getting pushed out of these communities.

And when you talk about the Chicago Latino population specifically I believe it's a very high number, I think 70 over 70%. that have already been pushed out of this area. So do your job, represent the residents and make sure that this will actually help the people that are currently being faced with displacement. And I just want to thank the Santa Barbara Tenants Union so much for your work because I know it's not easy and I know that it's very heart-wrenching work when you see people being ripped from their communities, children that are used to playing in the places that they currently play with their friends that they currently play and to have to imagine a future without that. So thank you so much for your time and I do want to make sure that you all are able to get to a vote so I'll yield the rest of my time.

We will now go to John Tyne to be followed by Linda Honigman.

Okay, good morning everybody. Thank you for the opportunity. I am an attorney here in town. I'm a real estate broker on the front lines that represent landlords and tenants in lawful detainer actions all the time. And I deal with the tenant Protection Act constantly. I echo my partner's comments earlier that I'm concerned about the effect that this has on smaller landlords. The owners of units one to four, and there are many examples throughout the law in California that treat owners of one to four properties differently from owners of properties that have more than four units. And I would encourage you to consider if not in this emergency action then at least in the ongoing ordinance an exemption for owners of 1-4 units that it not apply to the 1- 4 units because we're creating a disincentive to improving properties And quite honestly, the unintended consequences are removing properties from the rental stock and increasing rents.

And so I applaud you for making sure that this particular exemption is exercised in good faith by requiring the production permits. I think that's prescient and wise. But I do think that it would be also wise to exempt 1, 2, 4 units and to allow those smaller landlords. To continue to update their properties and keep them safe for tenants in the future. Thank you.

We will now go to Linda Honigman to be followed by C. M. Linda.

Thank you Supervisors. I'm Linda Honickman speaking as an individual resident of Nolita. On Tuesday, I spoke of the need to move the welcome mat from the investment companies with no ties to the community to local workers and families who contribute to our social fabric resiliency and economic vitality. What you do today can be the important 1st step of getting the word out across the country that we are no longer a place where easy money can be made at the expense of our residents.

Unless a new strong ordinance is adopted, there are likely to be many more apartment buildings coming to the area like those bought by Core Places and the company that sold the buildings to them, Essex Property Trust. They both highlight high investor returns on their website. Essex, which also offers a 4% dividend to stockholders Still owns a property in our area, according to their website. You can rent a 1 bedroom and hope ranch for 2748 but it is actually located north of the 101 and I would not be surprised to see that being renovated soon so those rents can be doubled.

For a more permanent solution, we also need a rental database to track this and many other problems related to rent increases illegal short term rentals and fraud. We hope you'll act boldly enough today to get Wall Street Journal coverage. Thank you.