Hi Naz.

Hello.

Good evening.

Welcome to the July 24th, 2025 Rental Housing Committee special meeting.

This meeting will be called to order at 602 PM.

Now I will proceed with roll call.

Okay, okay, sure.

All committee members present except for member Hislip.

Moving on to item three, consent calendar.

These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the committee wishes to remove an item for discussion.

The purpose of the consent calendar is for the committee to efficiently and quickly consider routine or administrative business items with one motion.

Public comment will occur after discussion.

We advise you to submit a speaker card now if you would like to speak on this item during public comment.

Would any member of the committee would like to pull an item?

Seeing none, I now invite public comment.

In person public comments would be called to speak first.

Any member of the public wishing to provide a virtual comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Seeing none, I would now bring the item back for committee action.

A motion to approve the consent calendar should include reading the title of the agenda item.

Uh, yes, I make a motion to approve the can all of the items on the consent calendar, including the minutes for the June twelfth, twenty twenty-five RHC meeting.

Seconded by Member Balch.

Vote.

Motion passes five zero.

Not on the agenda.

Speakers allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during the section.

State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items.

Would any member of the public like to provide comments on non-agenda items?

Michael Meredith.

Hi, I'm Mike Meredith.

I've been complaining to the city for nearly 18 months.

Yeah.

Better now?

Good.

Yeah, I've been complaining about registered STRs being allowed in my condo association where there are clearly prohibited by the CC and Rs or the affected units have been cited by the city for building code violations, and there's no liability insurance.

And there is a concern that tenants are pressured or induced to pose as STR hosts so as to allow short-term rentals for more than 60 days a year.

Now, looking at the city uh business license spreadsheet and the rent stabilization portal, it appears there are 144 registered STRs, and 30 of them are at addresses covered by rent stabilization program.

Now, is it that great a burden on multi-tenant residents to have virtual hotel operations going on around them?

Well, my honest experience is that with STRs rather than normal or long-term resident neighbors, I'm much more often facing the question of whether or not to call the police, which I don't want to do.

My housemates not quite as tolerant.

But at this point, I'm concerned that when STRs are registered, no one is checking to see if they're permitted under the lease, if the operator's actually the owner, if the HOA accepts it, if there are citations on the property, or uh is it rent stabilized building, or in my case, uh is there a property uh proper liability insurance in place?

So I I hope that I've encouraged some discussion of these issues.

I'm concerned that the lack of meaningful regulation of STRs is causing needless tension and and uh disorder.

I believe there is a willingness among city council members to improve the process, and I I'm hope I I can reach the other people who will help do this.

So thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you.

Any other speakers online or in person?

Seeing none, moving on to item 5.1, appeal of hearing officers decision regarding petitions number 2425, 22 and 2425-23.

The rental housing committee in hearing appeal is acting in a quasi-judicial fashion and will conduct the hearing in accordance with those standards.

Staff will detail the appeal hearing process in their presentation.

Before I get started, RC members are request required to disclose any communication that they have had with any of the parties to the petition or the parties' representatives and the substance of those communications since the date that the petition was filed.

The decision of the RC is to be based on the record presented to the hearing officer.

Information disclosed to an RC member that is not part of the record is not to be considered in the hearing.

Do any RC members have an ex parte communications that need to be disclosed?

Seeing none, we will now proceed with public comment for agenda item 5.1.

Are there any members of the public who are not parties to the petition who would like to speak in person public comments?

We call it to speak first.

Any member with public wishing to provide virtual comment on the item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom.

Seeing none, we will now move on to agenda item 5.1, appeal of hearing officers decision regarding petitions number 24, 25, 22, and 24, 25, 23.

We will now proceed with the hearing.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Um, so the purpose of this item is to consider the tentative appeal decision uh that was issued, and either accept the tentative appeal decision or modify the tentative appeal decision with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence in the record.

Um, so as the chair indicated, I will first review the rental housing committee's decision process, including your role, the scope of the decision that you're to make, um, and then discuss the schedule for this appeal hearing, and then finally conclude with a summary of the petition and the appeal and the tentative appeal decision.

Um so the rental housing committee has some options when hearing and deciding an appeal.

Um, you can do so on a closed record, which would require uh deciding uh based only on the facts in this decision written by the hearing officer.

Um you could also do a de novo hearing where you would follow the formal hearing process to potentially accept new facts before deciding on the appeal.

And finally, um you could remand, in which case you would follow the closed record procedures, but uh then identify issues for the hearing officer to reexamine, including potentially accepting new facts upon a remand hearing.

Um, the rental housing committee must exercise its independent judgment for questions of law, such as statutory interpretation.

For questions of fact, the rental housing committee must determine whether or not each appealed element of the hearing officer's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

This doesn't mean re-weighing the evidence or re-litigating the issues.

Rather, the appeal is based on the record submitted to the hearing officer with no new evidence.

Um this does not mean that you have to come to the same conclusions as the hearing officer did.

Um, so uh tonight uh staff is not recommending a de novo hearing, which would, as I mentioned, require a new formal hearing.

Uh, this would require significant time to prepare and uh upon staff's review, we've determined that the existing evidence is sufficient, and um, except for the item that we the tentative appeal decision uh recommends remanding, which we will discuss shortly.

Um, so the decision on appeal should be based on the hearing record, and the committee should not hear or find facts in addition to those presented to the hearing officer.

Um, so as far as the scope of the decision, so the petition that's filed um defines the scope of the hearing officer's decision, and then appeals of the hearing officer's decision basically limit the scope of the rental housing committee's review on appeal.

That means that uh you should not be looking or examining at issue any issues that were not raised by the appeal that was filed in this case by the landlord respondent.

Um schedule for the appeal hearing.

Uh we already taken public comment, and then currently a number one staff presentation.

This will be followed by uh presentations by the appellant and respondent in turn of 10 minutes, followed by any rebuttal by the appellant and respondent.

They'll each have five minutes for that, and then followed by questions for staff from the committee, and then questions for the appellant and respondent, and finally concluding with the rental housing committee's deliberations and decision.

Um, there are actually two petitions here, which is why you saw two petition numbers listed.

The first petition was a petition for downward adjustment of rent, um, based on a failure to maintain the property and habitable condition, and decrease in housing services.

Uh, there were a number of issues, infestation, cockroaches and spiders, flooding and water encroachment from uh from the bathtub to the map in the master bedroom, um, repeated clogging of both toilets in the unit, damage from a flooded bathroom above the affected unit, sewer overflows on the walkways directly outside of the unit, damaged baseboards throughout the unit, large gaps uh around the front door, uh leaking dining room window, broken shelving and doors of kitchen cabinets, lack of a secure area to hold residence packages, and a change in the resident portal.

And then the second petition for downward adjustment of rent was based on unlawful uh demand or retention of rent, um uh based on the fact that the respondent was not substantially compliant with the CSFRA in 2021, 2022, and 2023 due to habitability issues, so any rent increases that were imposed during that time were invalid, as well as overcharges for gas and electricity prior to July 8th, 2014.

Um so the hearing decision determined that the petitioners met their burden of proof with uh regard to persistent clogging of the toilets in the unit.

Uh, the petitioners were entitled to uh rent reduction of 4% for this issue from September 1st, 2021 through January 31st, 2025, um, as well as a continuing rent reduction of 117.98 cents per month until the crash uh issues corrected by the respondent, and then the second is a leaky dining room window.

Um they met their burden of proof that that was a reduction in housing services and maintenance, and the hearing officer ordered a 2% rent reduction from January 1st, 2017 to January 31st, 2025, as well as an ongoing rent reduction of fifty-eight dollars and ninety-nine cents per month until the condition is corrected.

Um a petitioner, the hearing officer concluded petitioners did not meet their burden of proof with regard to any of the other habitability or reduction in housing services maintenance issues.

Um, they also did not meet their burden of proof that the respondent was out of substantial compliance with the CSFRA between 2021, 2022, and 2023, and therefore did not invalidate any of the rent increases imposed during that time, um, that the hearing officer is not authorized to make decisions regarding housing discrimination under state and federal law, and finally that the hearing officer was not authorized to make decisions regarding claims prior to the date that the CRC variety took effect on December 23rd, 2016.

Um, so the appeal raises three issues.

Uh, the first is that the hearing officer aired or appe abused her discretion in awarding a rent refund and ongoing rent reduction based on the clogging of toilets.

Uh second that the hearing officer aired or rused her discretion in awarding a rent reduction and ongoing rent reduction.

Oh, sorry, a rent refund and an ongoing rent reduction uh based on the leaky dining room window, and finally that the indefinite nature of the awarded rent reductions was excessive.

Um so uh the tentative appeal decision recommends affirming part of um the hearing officer's decision.

Um so uh the following parts are fully affirmed.

First that the hearing officer did not error abuse her discretion by granting petitioners a rent reduction for the repeatedly clogged toilets.

There was substantial evidence in the record, including work orders submitted by petitioner over the period of four years and testimony from respondents on witness to support the conclusion that the toilet clogging was a recurring issue in the unit.

Um the CSFRA does not require uh landlord's failed attempts to correct, does not require um the hearing officer to consider uh a landlord's failed attempts to correct a condition and does not require a tenant to continue to notify their landlord of a recurring condition each and every time that the condition recurs.

And uh finally, the 4% rent reduction over the course of 41 months was not unreasonable because the evidence in the record showed that the petitioner and her co-tenant had to plunge the toilets one to two times per day in order for them to work during that time period.

Um, as far as the uh leaky dining room window, the uh tentative appeal decision recommends uh affirming part of this decision, um, namely that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's conclusion that the respondents' failure to correct the leaky dining room window constitute a decrease in housing services.

Um there was substantial evidence in the record, including testimony from the petitioner, a letter from the petitioner's counsel to respondent, as well as testimony from the respondents' maintenance lead that supports the conclusion that was that there was a recurring window leak that was not timely or adequately heared by the respondent.

Um, however, uh the tentative appeal decision uh recommends remanding part of the hearing officer's decision with regard to the award for the leaky dining room window, um, because the rent reduction awarded is not supported by the hearing uh record.

The decision to award a 97-month rent reduction is was not supported, where the record demonstrates that the leaking window was only an issue during the rainy month of the year, and therefore uh this issue should be remanded to the hearing officer to revise the award accordingly, um, and then finally um as to the ongoing nature of the rent reductions, uh the tentative appeal decision recommends affirming these.

Um, the hearing officers' rent reductions were not arbitrary or excessive because she applied a consistent methodology throughout her decision.

Um there's nothing in the CSFRA or the regulations that limit a hearing officer's authority to order an ongoing rent reduction where the record shows that the issue remains unresolved at the time of the hearing.

And in fact, the rent reductions that were awarded were not indefinite because the hearing officer provided that they would end when the conditions were corrected by the respondent.

Um the uh tenant or petitioner uh did submit a reply to the tentative decision um uh Monday, the uh 21st.

Uh the petitioner's reply um uh request that the rental housing committee adopt the tentative appeal decision as it relates to the toilet clogging and the consistency of the hearing officers' methodology for calculating the awards in the decision and uh uh as to B, that means the ongoing rent reductions.

Um, however, it uh requests that the hearing that the committee reconsider the tentative appeal decision regarding the period for which the rent reduction for the leaky dining room window was awarded.

Um the arguments that are made in support of this are that the breach of the warranty of habitability exists from the time of notice, and the CSFRA does not require a tenant to continue notifying and continue providing a landlord with an opportunity to correct.

Um, that the petitioner first notified the respondent about the leaking window in 2004, and therefore the respondent had knowledge of this issue predating the CSFRA, so the beginning date of January 1, 2017 for the rent reduction is appropriate given the knowledge uh that the hearing that the respondent had of the issue before um the CSFRA went into effect, and that the monthly rent uh reduction awarded by the hearing officer is reasonable considering the condition of the window remained the same year round, regardless of the weather, and that the tenant does not need to be aware of the exact type of defect in order to determine that there has been a breach of the warranty of habitability.

Um so just uh responding and turn to the petitioner's reply.

Um, so while the hearing record does establish that the petitioner first notified the respondent of the leaky window in 2004, uh the record does not establish that the respondent had knowledge of the recurring nature of the issue in the 13 year period between 2004 and 2017.

So basically the record establishes that the petitioner first notified uh the petition uh the respondent of the leaking window in 2004, but it's unclear what happened between 2004 and 2017 when the CSFRA went into effect.

Um, however, we do know that the uh respondent was after the CSFRI went into effect, notified of the issue again.

Um, and therefore that is why the tentative appeal decision recommends starting the award from the date after the CSFRA went into effect when the petitioner first notified the respondent of um the recurring nature of the leaky window.

Second, um, while hearing officers do have broad discretion to determine the methodology for rent reductions, um, the CSFRA states that any adjustment to the rent must be based on a loss in the rental value attributable to the decrease in housing services or maintenance or deterioration of the rental unit.

Um, so no rent reduction is authorized if there's no impact on the rental value, meaning the tenant's use and occupancy of the rental value of the rental unit is not impacted in any way by the condition.

So on remand, the hearing officer may choose to award a monthly reduction if further explanation is provided for the basis of that monthly reduction.

Otherwise, the decision should be um revised accordingly to only um uh provide a rent reduction for those months when the leaking window was an issue because of the rainy weather.

Um fiscal impact, any decision by the rental housing committee on a plea on appeal, including adoption or modification of the tentative appeal decision could potentially lead to litigation, which would have fiscal impacts.

Um, notably one purpose of appealing a hearing decision to the rental housing committee is to ensure that hearing decisions are legally defensible.

So the appeal process to the rental housing committee uh reduces overall risk of legal liability and legal expenses.

So the recommendation again is to consider the tentative appeal decision, either accept the tentative appeal decision or modify the tentative appeal decision with instructions to staff setting appropriate evidence and the record for any modifications that are to be made.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we would now move on to addresses from the appellant representative for the appellant landlord.

Uh please raise your hand in Zoom if you'd like to be promoted to a panelist.

You will be given 10 minutes with a timer on screen.

Uh thank you.

Um, okay.

Uh so these two awards largely the issues can be boiled down to to the same the same factor here, which is that both the leaking window and the toilet were reported but then resolved and addressed by the landlord.

However, the award covers essentially the entire period of time where they were allegedly present.

The problem with the leaky window to start with that one is that the petitioner or the tenant uh addresses the fact that management would come to the property or come to the apartment and attempt to fix the window, potentially would fix the window, and then later it would start leaking again.

So it's not that it was leaking continuously the entire period of time, it would leak, or really the the testimony I think is not entirely clear, so I actually support the remand on this issue, but it would leak for a period of time, it would be resolved, management staff would come out, they would attempt to do a repair, potentially would complete a repair, and then at some unknown point in the future it would start leaking again.

So really on two components of this first, uh the entire reduction shouldn't apply for this whole period of time.

It should, as the city's attorney mentioned, only apply when the leak is actually present.

But also, second, there were periods of time where management believed that it had been repaired, and so then would not have any further duty to complete these repairs.

Similarly, with the toilet clogs, the we uh urge the council to also remand that for more information, as the it's unclear from the record, at least from the respondent management's position in their testimony that the toilet toilets were in fact clogged for this entire period of time where this award was was provided.

The testimony was that they there were clogs, they were having to fix them every day, but these weren't always reported to management.

In many cases, they were not reported to management, and so they had no duty to create to do these repairs.

Uh specifically, management believed that these issues were fixed, and then when they didn't hear about it, they just thought they were continuously fixed.

I understand that if a tenant reports an issue and then management does nothing, they aren't required to keep reporting the issue every day in order to keep it present.

But here the tenant would report an issue, management would come out, they would attempt a repair, um, potentially that repair was effective for some amount of time, and then the toilets would clog again.

Um, the next time the toilets were clogged, that wouldn't be reported uh to management, and so then they wouldn't have an opportunity to repair.

So the issue that we have with the unbroken uh nature of the award for for years is that there should have been periods of time when the issue was not present and management would have had no notice to fix it.

Um I understand that it would it would take more testimony on specific issue to determine exactly when these toilet clogs started or stopped.

Um, our petition our position would be that there was periods of times where they were not present.

It hasn't been necessary for plunging to take place every single day for that whole period of time.

Um but I understand that the uh the petitioners may have a different opinion on that, but either way I think that more information is necessary.

Um, and then generally we also appealed on the issue that it these types of awards create an uncertain nature where it's unclear if the conditions existed as of the date of the award.

Um it's unclear if they're existing now in many situations, and in this situation, the the award or the hearing happens, and then months later we have this award.

It's unclear if either of these conditions existed at the time of the hearing or at the time the award came out.

So management is never, and this is more broadly an issue, not just for this specific petition, but just generally, where it's unclear for management if these conditions still exist.

They're not necessarily being reported by the tenants to management.

So they'd like to go in and make these fixes, but again, they don't know what's going on in the inside of the unit, and the rent decrease is tied explicitly to whether or not these conditions are present or not, but management's unable to really tell if those conditions have remained.

Um, and that's it once they get the award, they or the the decision by the uh the hearing officer, they could always serve a 24-hour notice and go in.

Hopefully they will be provided access, and then they can determine whether or not it you know is still present, but it places them in a more difficult situation where they don't necessarily know what to do or when the rent can necessarily be decreased, or when the decrease stops and it can now be increased.

So that is really the the underlying issue with the indefinite nature of the award.

For the specifically the toilet clocks, we request that the uh rent board uh reverse the tentative decision and remand that back as well with the the leaky window issue, so more testimony can be provided on both of those, and we can show that these were not continuous issues, but rather they were starting and stopping over time.

And that uh covers it for me.

Um I have nothing further on this.

Thank you.

All right, uh representatives for the respondent tenant, please come to the podium if you're speaking in person or raise hand on Zoom if you'd like to speak online.

The speech timer will be on screen.

You will have 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Members of the committee, my name is Alison Martinez, counsel for the tenant petitioner Mary Ann Washington.

This appeal today is merely an attempt to diminish the well-considered findings of the hearing officer.

As such, Ms.

Washington respectfully requests that the committee deny the appeal in its entirety and a form the hearing officer's decision in its entirety for three reasons.

First, regarding the clogging toilet, the hearing officer's decision appropriately considered the reoccurring clog as an ongoing issue that remains unaddressed to date.

Second, regarding the leaky dining room window, the hearing officer's decision accurately calculated the award based on the landlord's notice of the issue well before the CSFRA was enacted, and because the award adequately contemplates the condition of the window balanced against the frequency of the leaks and the inconvenience imposed on the petitioner.

Third, the hearing officers' continuing awards were appropriately determined for both outstanding issues.

Holding in Ms.

Washington's favor will preserve the administration of the CSFRA and the hearing offer's role as the final decision maker on the merits of these petitions.

Turning to the issue of the clogged toilets, the hearing officer's decision should be affirmed as she properly considered the reoccurring clogs as an ongoing issue that remains unaddressed.

The toilet's clocking every day cannot be considered merely an intermittent and temporary condition rather than appreciating this as a larger issue that remains unaddressed.

It cannot reasonably be understood that having to unclog toilets every day, sometimes multiple times a day, as the testimony was provided, that this is not a large concern, but rather the landlord posits that each unclogging has been adequately fixing the problem.

The CSFRA does not require a tenant to repeatedly notify a landlord about a reoccurring issue each and every time it resurfaces.

On page 27 of the decision, the hearing officer explained that the landlord's quote duty to cure the problem, that the landlord has a duty to cure the problem, so it does not recur frequently, end quote.

The petitioner repeatedly requested that management come out to address the issue and unclog the toilet.

She and her sister also testified to having to plunge that toilet constantly, at least once a day and sometimes twice.

These were certainly not isolated incidents, but rather indicative of a bigger plumbing problem.

Given that this is a daily ongoing issue of 4% reduction was not excessive.

None of the efforts that the landlord has undertaken thus far have resolved the plumbing issue, and Ms.

Washington and her family have continued to experience this problem.

Accordingly, the hearing officer's decision as related to the clogging toilet should be adopted.

Turning next to the issue of the leaking window, the hearing officer's decision should be affirmed in its entirety for two reasons.

First, because the hearing officer's award accurately calculated the time period the landlord was on notice of the issue with the appropriate award considering the CSFRA's enactment.

And second, because the hearing officer's decision adequately contemplated the unresolved condition of the window balanced against the frequency of the leaks and the inconvenience imposed upon the petitioner.

First, the hearing officer's decision did reasonably calculate the applicable time period for the award.

The CSFRA provides that a petition for downward adjustment for failure to maintain a habitable premises must quote demonstrate that the landlord was provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to correct.

I do acknowledge that before at the beginning of this presentation that this was briefly addressed, the CSFRA has no provision stating uh that notice to a landlord of a habitability concern will only be considered after the CSFRA has taken to effect.

Further, it is well established that when the landlord has notice of the defect, the breach of the warranty of habitability exists from the time of the original notice.

It is certainly reasonable that an award for an outstanding issue under the CSFRA can only date back to the time period when the CSFRA was in effect, but this is separate apart separate and apart from the consideration of what a landlord's notice period ought to be for a particular issue.

The hearing officer's decision to consider the landlord's notice of the leaking window over the entire time span the issue existed while limiting the award to the time period when the CSFRA went into effect, adequately calculates a reasonable award to the petitioner within the confines of the CSFRA.

The petitioner has experienced the leaking dining room window for over a decade, nearly two.

She has reported the issue to the landlord repeatedly, and efforts were made at different points to address the leak to no avail.

It was reasonable for the hearing officer to consider the landlord's notice of the issue over the entire period that this has been an ongoing habitability issue, while also limiting the award to only the time period after the enactment of the CSFRA.

Second, the hearing officer's uh decision adequately contemplated the condition of the window balanced against the frequency of the leaks and the inconvenience imposed on the petitioner.

While the lindo window leaks during the periods of rain, it's not clear exactly why it does this.

The entry point for the water is not readily visible to the petitioner, and she does not otherwise have the skill or expertise to determine what the exact condition is that causes the water to swell around the window.

It is therefore clear that there's a larger issue here with the construction of the window that remains unaddressed, given that the window has continued to leak even after it was replaced.

While this larger habitability issue may not be readily apparent to the tenant, it is reasonable to determine that a habitability breach exists even when water is now actively leaking from the window.

The California Supreme Court has stated that the fact that the tenant was or was not aware of the specific defect is not determinative of the duty of a landlord to maintain the premises which are habitable.

Here the landlord has been on notice of this reoccurring leak for years, but has not adequately investigated the issue to determine its cause.

The hearing officer on page 29 of the decision contemplated the uncertainty about why the issue has persisted, writing, quote, the respondent was initially responsive to the problem and replaced the entire window.

However, the caulking or something about the installation did not remedy the problem.

Additionally, the hearing officer took into account the frequency of the leaks appearing and the imposition on the petitioner, writing on page 29 and 30 of the decision that, quote, the dining room is not always leaking and the severity depends greatly on the amount of rain in any given window, winter.

Petitioner was frustrated but was not very inconvenienced by the leak as she testified that it had not rained often, even during some winters, and therefore the leak was not a frequent problem.

Therefore, the hearing officer did adequately consider all limiting factors in calculating the ultimate award.

Therefore, the hearing officer's decision as related to the leaking window should be adopted.

And lastly, as related to the hearing officer's continuing awards, her methodologies are consistent and appropriate in determining the wards in this decision.

Is within the hearing officer's discretion to render a final decision on the merits of the petition subject to the CSFRA, and nothing in the decision is out of line with her authority.

The landlord's argument that there is an indefinite opening for reimbursement any time there is a clogged toilet or water intrusion through a window fails to acknowledge that the these conditions remain outstanding.

The hearing officer's decision is clear on pages 27 and 30 that the rewards remain open ended because these issues remain unaddressed.

It is clear from the record and from the hearing officer's decision that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate both the clogged toilet and the leaky dining room window are continuing issues warranting continued reimbursement.

As such, the hearing officer's methodology applied in calculating the wards is well supported by the principals of the CSFRA.

In conclusion, Ms.

Washington respectfully requests that this committee deny the appeal in its entirety and infirm the hearing officer's decision in its entirety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative for the appellate landlord, you have five minutes to rebut any statements made by the respondents' representative.

Please limit your comments to rebuttal.

Thank you.

The one moment.

Let me just set the timer.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

My apologies.

The only point I had on rebuttal is that with the leaking dining room window, it was mentioned that it began in 2006, but then it was limited through the enactment of the CSFRA.

The decision itself limited the award to January 2017 just because the damages may only commence uh once the CSFRA was in effect.

It wasn't in an effort to reduce the damages partially for that period of time.

Um it's just that they were limited by the law itself.

So the hearing officer actually took the first date that the damages could be awarded and then awarded them entirely through the data decision.

And that was my only point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh representative for the respondent tenant.

Do you have five minutes to rebut any statements made by the uh representative of the hello?

Please let me your comments to rebuttal rather than repeating information for the.

Sure.

I'll just respond briefly to that point.

Um so there's no disagreement that the reason that the um award began in January 2017 was because that was after the CSFRA went into effect, and there was no argument against that.

Um, the only point was simply that the notice period started before then, so it was reasonable to begin at the start of January 2017.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we're bringing it back to RC members.

Does any member of the RC have a question for staff?

So please.

Okay.

Member Balch.

Yeah, thank you.

I have three questions for staff.

Um the first one, just to confirm my understanding, the recommendation to partially remand means that when if it were to go back to the hearing officer, the hearing officer would not be able to reopen other elements of the decision.

They would only be able to focus on the element that is being remanded.

Is that a true understanding?

Yes.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um second question is there seems to be a uh a discussion about the intermittent leaking of the window, rainy season versus dry season.

Oh, so sorry.

Not during the dry season because there's no rain in the dry season, is the uh a substance of the uh recommendation from staff, but is there anything uh did the hearing officer or could the hearing officer take into account anything around intermittent leakage?

Because I also heard some some comments uh just now around whether it was a wet or a dry winter, the leaking might be more or less severe.

I'm just I'm trying to understand is that to what extent uh is that able to be uh considered by the hearing officer?

That is that can be considered by the hearing officer and is in fact the reason for the recommendation to remand because it did not appear, at least from what is written, uh it might have been taken into account in the actual amount of the rent reduction that was awarded, but that is not explained in the hearing decision, so it needs to be remanded to the hearing officer either to take it into account or if it was taken into account, explain how it was taken into account.

Thank you.

And then my last question.

Arguments or appeals about the frequency of notification.

This has something, this has been a a topic which comes up periodically in front of this committee.

And just for again, for my understanding, if there was a uh a claim, a concern that somehow frequency was being improperly judged uh by the hearing officer, is that something that that a party to this uh appeal would would conceivably take to court to to argue that this was a uh a matter of fact that was discounted, or i is that even an argument that they would make?

I mean, they certainly could try to make the same sort of argument that is being made here, which is that it was some sort of abuse of discretion, um, an or or an error um to take in to account or not take into account the frequency of the notification.

I will say here um what the hearing officer uh decided, for instance, in the um in the issue with the clogging toilet, um, and the reason why the recommendation is that it was supported by substantial evidence, is that the recurring nature of this issue should have prompted the um the landlord to do something other than just unclog the toilet.

It should have indicated to them that there was some larger issue that needed to be taken into account and addressed in that way.

Um so they were just kind of like putting a mandate on the issue by unclogging when there might have there it seemed that there might be something else bigger that was going on with plumbing or whatever it was, and that is explained in the decision.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Member Brown.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh regarding the uncertain nature of the ongoing uh competition.

After a compliance hearing, if there is a finding that the issue has been resolved, that would clear the initial petitions and require a new set of petitions, right?

That's correct.

So the uncertainty would be ended at the point that a compliance hearing is held and it's found the issue is found to be corrected?

So it is there is a definite end or potential definite endpoint that can be triggered by the landlord?

Okay.

Yes.

Um there's nothing that limits the hearing officer from retroactively.

So saying this issue actually ended, you know, in the pen during the pendency of when the decision is issued to say it was corrected in that interim time, and therefore the rent um reduction should have stopped at X point during that.

Thank you.

Uh yes, this question back for uh staff.

Um on the issue of remanding back the uh the issue with the leaky window, um, what I'm trying to get my head around is are you wanting to remand it because you don't believe that the hearing officer uh considered carefully enough whether or not the intermittent nature of the problem due to you know rainy and non-ready seasons was taken to account, or because um you're just not sure whether that um hearing officer took it into account and you just want to hear it explicitly on the record.

It is not clear from the decision whether that was taken into account.

It is it's very or how it was taken into account um so you know how what it was taken into account and make in reaching their conclusion, because the fact that the decision says it's an intermittent issue, but then goes on to provide um a rent reduction for all 97 months, despite acknowledging that it was an intermittent issue, that the award is not supported by what the evidence establishes and that what the decision itself acknowledges, which is that it was an intermittent issue.

Or not an intermittent issue, but rather that it intermittently affected the tenant's use of the unit.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from committee members?

Don't be shy.

Um go for again, okay.

Uh I'd have a one question for staff.

This is just more for uh procedural questions.

Um how soon can a compliance hearing be scheduled if someone requests it?

Pretty quick.

One or two weeks, depending on the availability of the parties and the hearing officer.

Okay, just checking.

All right.

Moving on to questions for either the representative of the landlord or representative of the tenant.

Does anyone have any questions for either party?

Member Keating.

Um to the tenant, I'm just curious if we know uh the situation with the toilet now.

Yeah, the toilet is continuing to be an issue, so the tenants are continuing to plunge it um at the same frequency, daily or you know, very close to daily.

Thank you.

Clarification from legal staff is that's considered on the record or cannot be considered part of it.

It cannot be considered as part of your record.

Yeah, you should that is new information after the hearing.

So I understand.

Thank you for that clarification.

Anyone else have any questions?

Seeing none, the RC would now deliberate.

It would be appropriate at this time to entertain a motion to adopt the tentative decision, after which such a motion can be discussed by the RC.

Does anyone want to make the motion?

I see.

Well, a little bit of um actually Andrea, since member his has arrived, does that mean Member Balch cannot be a member of the motion or um I would suggest that member Balch continue through this hearing since uh Member Hislop arrived in the middle.

Okay.

And so didn't hear all of the testimony and argument.

Can I participate in deliberations?

Uh yes, but you cannot vote yes, I take it.

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion made by member Balch, seconded by Member Brown.

Um, is there any discussion?

Um actually, Member Balch, can you say the motion?

Yeah, I move to uh to approve the uh the tentative appeal decision uh including the uh remand as as indicated back to the hearing officer.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Member Vice Chair Cox.

Yeah, so I'll go through my normal reasoning on this.

You know, I also support the motion um for the following reasons.

First of all, you know, the toilet problem, to me it's it's clearly a recurrent problem.

I think that while I don't believe that the landlord is, you know uh disregarding, you know, the need to fix the problems.

I think what there's a uh there's a real problem in the landlord's process in that you know that this issue was brought up seven times, and yet this effectively the same uh fix was put into place all of those times.

There was a lack of recognition that this is an overriding problem and that some other approach is needed, and so um, you know, I'm completely on board with that.

On the excessiveness of the charges, I don't think um, I don't think they're excessive.

I mean, you know, I mean that I would put these things in, you know, below single digit ranges, and I would put the uh toilet as a much more serious problem than the leaky window, and so I think that lines up.

I mean, actually, um I think the one for the toilet could have been higher if there had been brought substantial proof to indicate that you know the tenant was at some point, you know, not able to use any tenant any um toilet in the unit and had no work around to unclog it.

But I mean, I think the persistence of this problem over a long period of time, you know, warrants the amounts that were given.

So that's my comment on that.

You know, on the remand, I mean, I really struggled with it a lot.

Um, but I I think that what we heard since I came in here today, you know, helped clarify my support for it.

And the reason is that I think that this is an important enough issue to remand it back to get the reasoning at least.

Okay, because I mean it's not clear to me either whether or not you know the intermittent nature of the problem, particularly doing whether it was factored into the decision or not.

So I think it's important to have that clear and on the record.

But I mean, it may even come back that you know the two percent amount was was was reasonable given that, but we I think we need a clearer explanation for this because you know, even though we don't have any legal requirement to make precedent from one decision to another, I personally you know hold it in high regard to be uh consistent and I try to be consistent through from hearing to hearing and I just really want that on the record.

So that's why I'm supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Member Balch.

Yeah those are good points uh committee member cox uh vice chaircox excuse me um I think it it comes down as it often does to the to the reasonableness of the hearing officer and our direction thank you our direction as the committee is to is to affirm uh based on whether we believe the hearing officer came to a reasonable conclusion we're not here gathering new facts we're not kind of saying well what else could they have been done doing in my view the hearing officer came to reasonable conclusions uh if there are some uh you know dramatic concerns and miscarriage of justice that would have to be addressed through through the uh the other appeal process um but I think we are seeing a lot of consistency here in what we've seen in other in other uh matters brought before us um I I also agree with the remand again specifically because the hearing officer has the discretion to maintain the award to change it based on reasoning within the confines of the remand so uh we're not actually telling the hearing officer to raise or lower we're telling the hearing officer to uh make sure to consider and then document uh what their reasoning is within these boundaries uh the the the final point I'll make is that I I am uh often sympathetic to uh concerns about how the CSFRA operates uh and in these cases I have to go back to the CSFRA and to the nature of the of the of the charter amendment that was approved by the voters of the city of Mountain View uh this body and in fact the city council lacks the ability to make any substantive changes in terms of the broad outline of how the CSFRA works that was the will of the voters that's where we are if there is a uh a really strong view that that something is manifestly unfair and isn't appropriate it has to go back to the voters that is that is simply a fact and um it it it the the committee isn't in a position to start kind of uh changing the uh manner of the CSFRA uh and neither is the city council so these are the reasons uh why I am uh uh in favor of the uh motion that I made thank you member his lip thank you um I want to concur that I agree with uh remanding the the rent reduction with respect to the leaky window in the hearing officer's own decision in section eight she even notes that the damage of frequency appears to be low so there's kind of a disconnect between awarding it continually over um all the months of the year when it they seem to only be an issue when there was um rain so hopefully that's sufficient enough um just using our own reasoning and judgment about what those months are um otherwise it it does kind of strike me as a little bit punitive because it's not causing any other issues like dust coming in or some other problem during the rest of the year um and I also agree uh to affirm the decision regarding the leaky toilet like everybody else has said this is clearly a to you know gives the impression of a larger problem and um every land uh I especially agree with it because this is a very large complex with the lar with the uh owner that owns many or it's a corporation so I would think that their resources are a little deeper than say um an individual owner who owns like a fourplex or an eight plus and you know there might be an inclination to to sort of sympathize a little bit with a problem like that but um it went on for so long that I think it's appropriate to um hold the owner accountable um because it's clearly an ongoing issue and that's it.

Member Brown.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I also agree and I seconded, so I would hope I agree with the tentative appeal decision.

I think that giving the hearing officer the opportunity to clarify a reasoning and uh is good.

I don't think we can speculate about things that might not have been gotten made their way into the final decision, but I do think the information is there, the rationale is there, that if there is any more investigation needs to be done, I trust asking nicely will we'll get us that information.

Regarding the toilet, I think that if you see an issue repeatedly and assume every time that you like fix it, that it's fixed that you have an issue with object permanence.

I think that at some point you do need to recognize when there is an underlying issue that needs to be fixed, just saying uh it it's good because I turned around and I don't see the problem anymore.

The seventh time uh strikes me as bad faith.

And I do think that that having a functioning toilet that you don't have to plunge every day.

I expect that to be a part of most habitable residences, including this one.

So yeah, I would I I would agree with like upholding the hearing officer decision there.

Thanks.

And that returns to me.

I agree with the thoughts of my fellow committee members regarding the need for the remand to just clarify between what it means to be intermittent versus how the decision is done by basically a constant amount for period of time.

So I think that's fine.

Uh, related to the question I asked to staff that uh regarding the when the awards were finished, it was based on the compliance hearing and given that the compliance hearing seems to be timely and should be done from our side in good faith.

I think that is acceptable uh termination for such a petition.

Any other okay, seeing none, we'll go on to the vote.

The vote is five yes and one recusal.

Thank you.

Agreement amendment with project sentinel for fiscal year 24-25, public common worker after the presentation item and committee questions.

We invite you to submit a speaker card now if you'd like to speak on this item during public comment.

We will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you.

All right, we'll begin with agenda item 6.1.

Um, and the purpose of this item is to review and amend an agreement with Project Sentinel for fiscal year 2024-25 to provide administrative and hearing process services for fiscal year 2024-25, and add $18,000 for a total amount not to exceed 198,000 instead of what was previously approved of 18, uh 180,000 to pay for services related to higher than expected volume of petitions.

And for background, the rental housing committee authorized fiscal year 2024-25 agreement with Project Sentinel for a total amount not to exceed 180,000 dollars, and that was broken up into three buckets.

The first one being administrative support services and up to $10,000, the next being facilitators up to $10,000, and the final and largest bucket of hearing officers up to 160,000 dollars.

And for the analysis, the division experienced a significant increase in petition filings for fiscal year 2023-24, which many of those petitions were actually completed, and the hearing officers billed in fiscal year 2024-25.

Um, that is why uh towards the end of 2024-25, um, there was a higher level of hearing officer invoices that were submitted than originally accounted for, and that's why we require an additional amount of eighteen thousand dollars.

And to that regard, the fiscal year 2024-25 agreement with Project Sentinel needs to be amended to add funding.

And just as a reminder, any contract over $50,000 requires rental housing committee approval for the rent stabilization division manager, or does it need to execute the agreement?

The fiscal impact would be that uh if the rental housing committee approves this amendment, the additional eighteen thousand dollars will come out of the current fiscal year 2025-26 budget.

Um because the previous fiscal year 2024-25 financials are closed.

Uh however, the remaining budget for fiscal year 2025-26, which would be uh 162,000, is expected to sufficiently cover the expenses for our petition and hearing officers due to the tapering off of submitted petitions that we received in 2023-24.

So the recommendation here is to authorize the rent stabilization division manager, or does it need to amend the agreement with project Sentinel for fiscal year 2024-25 to provide administrative and hearing process services for uh fiscal year 2024-25, and to add $18,000 for a total amount not to exceed $198,000 to pay for services related to the higher than expected volume of petitions?

And that concludes the presentation.

Uh any questions.

Um, member Keating.

So uh I'm curious.

Another way of looking at this is that we have um adequate reserves to, you know, as well as uh um potential reduction in other expenses we expect, but that also our reserves are part of uh what makes this not a problem.

Is that a correct way to look at it?

Um that is ultimately correct, but as a first, uh first we're uh paying this year's and this portion of last year's from the line item for hearing officers, and we hope that we don't have to go to the reserves for that.

Thank you.

Um given I work in this area.

Do you anticipate higher costs associated with hearing officers in the coming year?

That is a good question.

Um overall, in um comparable jurisdictions, there is a shortage of hearing officers, and we also see certain organizations popping up that um provide hearing officers on demand, they are larger organizations that set uh an hourly price uh and not have the payment schedule like we currently have.

So we might have to um uh put a new RFP out.

Some of our hearing officers are retiring.

So if needed, we need to go find new hearing officers, and they might come with a different uh payment request, but we'll bring that back to you once if that needs to happen.

Any other questions from the committee?

Seeing none?

I'll now invite public comment in person.

Public comments would be called to speak first.

Any member of the public wishing to provide virtual comment on this item, please quickly raise hand button and zoom or press star nine on your phone.

Seeing none, we will move into committee deliberation and feedback.

If uh would it uh um a motion to approve should include reading the uh text of the recommendation?

Vice Chair Cox.

Yes, okay.

Um I make a motion to authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to amend the agreement with Project Sentinel to provide administrative and hearing process services for fiscal year 2024-25 and add $18,000 for an amount not to exceed $198,000 instead of $180,000 to pay for services related to a higher than expected volume of petitions.

And I just want to thank the staff for indulging me by uh giving you know the more information about how the curve is going so that I can determine by a preponderance of the evidence that I agree with you.

And that was seconded by member Keating.

Any other further discussion on the motion on the floor?

Seeing none vote.

Okay, that that was approved.

Five years.

We will now move on to agenda item 6.2 agreement amendment with the Gold Farb and Lipman LLP for fiscal year 2425.

Public comment occur after the presentation item and committee questions.

We invite you to submit a speaker card now.

If you'd like to speak on this item or public comment in person, we will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you again.

All right, so we'll begin with the purpose.

Um again uh to review and amend agreement, um, this time with goldfarb and litman for fiscal year 2024-25 to provide legal services and add $8,600 for a total amount not to exceed $208,600 instead of the originally approved $200,000 to pay for the cost of legal services performed in fiscal year 2024 and 25 related to rent adjustment petition appeals.

In the background for this is the rental housing committee authorized fiscal year 2024-25 agreement with gold farm and litman for a total amount not to exceed $200,000.

And this includes reviewing submitted petitions and drafting tentative appeal decisions when the submitter of a petition appeals the decision of the hearing officer to the rental housing committee.

The analysis here in 2024-25, Gold Farb and Litman provided services totaling two hundred and eight thousand six hundred dollars exceeding the budgeted amount by $8,600.

And this was caused by higher than expected levels of petition, uh appeals filed in previous years, um, resulting in an increased number of appeals.

Um, and again, in that regard, the fiscal year 2024-25 agreement with gold carbon litman also needs to be amended to add funding, and any contract that is over $50,000 requires the rental housing committee approval.

And the fiscal impact here, if the rental housing committee approves this amendment to add the $8,600, it will come out of the budget for the current fiscal year 2025-26 budget because the fiscal year 2024 and 25 financials are closed.

And uh again, the remaining budget for the current fiscal year is expected to be sufficient to cover the exped expenses due to the petitions tapering off.

So the recommendation here is to authorize the rent stabilization division manager or designee to amend the agreement with gold farm and limitmit for fiscal year 2024-25 to provide legal services and add the $8,600 for a total amount not to exceed 208,600 to pay for legal services related to the higher than expected volume of petition appeals.

Any questions there?

Alright, we will bring it back to the committee for questions.

Yeah, thank you very much.

So observing that the um the added cost for uh Project Sentinel is about 10% of the previous year's number.

But the uh the added cost for gold parb and litman is about 4%.

Uh so that is a those are not the same proportions, obviously.

I'm just curious.

Is it is it uh uh valid interpretation looking at the numbers here that the reason that there's a let's say lower percentage for uh our our legal fees is that we're seeing many fewer appeals, and so the uh the legal team gets involved more so when there are appeals than than not.

Is that a fair way to look at it?

That's correct.

Okay.

Any other questions from the committee?

Seeing no questions, move on to public comment.

Uh if any member of the public would like to comment on this item, please raise your hand on Zoom or press star not on your phone.

Seeing none, we'll move back to committee deliberations and feedback.

Would any member of the committee like to propose a motion?

If you do please read the recommendation, member bulch.

Member Keating.

Thank you.

I move that we authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to amend the fiscal year 2024 25 agreement with Goldfarb and Lipman LOP and add 8,600 for a total amount not to exceed 208,600 instead of 200,000 to pay for the cost of legal services performed in fiscal year 24-25 related to rent adjustment petition appeals.

Motion was made by member Keating, seconded by Member Hislop.

Any discussion on the motion on the floor?

Seeing none vote.

Now we will move on to committee staff announcements and updates.

Alright, so we'll look now at upcoming workshops and help center dates.

And we continue to do our once a week virtual office hours.

Those are every Tuesday from 10 a.m.

to noon, and they are well attended.

Um for August, we have a couple workshops coming up.

So the first one is well, the first two are both August 12th.

However, the first one is at 2 p.m., which is landlord focused and virtual only, and we're looking at filing capital improvement petitions, and then in that same evening, we'll have a hybrid tenant focused workshop online and at the community center.

Um, again, looking at uh filing petitions so tenants can uh know their rights and how to get lawful rent, and then we have a workshop on August 21st at 2 p.m.

This is also a landlord-focused virtual only workshop, and we're looking at submitting the utility adjustment petitions.

And we are continuing to have our landlord focused housing help center every Thursday, and we are sort of can planning to have that continue through the future during the time of this one-time utility adjustment petition, just so that our staff is available for landlords with questions regarding that.

And we are having our tenant focused housing help center every first and third Thursday at our office on Esquella or online, and that's from 6 to 8 p.m.

We have rent stabilization staff there.

We also have staff from CLESPA and staff from CSA to provide community resources.

Any questions about upcoming events?

Thank you.

Moving on to item 7.2, expected future agenda items for RC meetings.

The next meeting on August 28th will have a potential CSFRA MHRSO regulation amendments, as well as an update about the utility's transition petition process.

Any comments from the committee or any questions?

The next rental housing committee meeting is scheduled to be held on August 28th at 6 p.m.