Are we ready?

Going live.

In five, four, three, two, one.

We are live.

Good evening.

Welcome to the October.

Sorry, technical difficulties.

Okay, I should be fine now.

Okay, good evening.

Welcome to the October twenty-third, twenty twenty-five Rental Housing Committee regular meeting.

This meeting is called at six oh four PM.

I will proceed with roll call.

I can see everyone's in attendance.

We invite you to submit a speaker card now or raise hand on Zoom.

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

Seeing none, I will move on to public comment.

Please raise hand on Zoom.

Or if sorry, not on your phone, seeing none.

Uh, I make a motion to accept the consent calendar as written.

Second.

Motion to accept the consent calendar as written, which is the minutes.

Um, actually, you need to uh Vice Chair Cox, you need to do that.

Okay, I make a motion to uh move item three point one minutes for the September twenty-five, twenty twenty-five, and October fourth, twenty twenty-five RHC meeting on the consent calendar.

Okay, any further discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Go to vote.

Passes unanimously.

We will now move on to item four, oral communications.

We would now open this meeting up for any comments from the public.

Anything on this item for persons wishing to address the committee, this is up for us items that are not on the agenda tonight.

Please raise hand on Zoom, press starting on your phone or submit a speaker card if you're in person.

Seeing none, I will close oral communications and now we'll move on to item five, the appeal hearing.

So this is item five point one, appeal of hearing officer's decision regarding petition numbers.

C twenty-four twenty-five, thirty-six and c twenty-four twenty-five thirty-seven.

Okay.

Do we have slides up?

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

Staff will detail the appeal hearing process in their presentation.

Before we get started, RC members are required to disclose any communications that they have had with any of the parties to the petition or the party's 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 ex parte communications that need to be disclosed?

Seeing none.

Who would like to speak?

In-person public comments, we call it to speak first.

For those on Zoom, please raise hand or press star 9 on your phone.

Seeing none, we will now move on to the appeal itself.

We will move on to the staff presentation.

Just making sure you all can hear me before I get started.

Very good.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Um I will review the rental housing committee's decision process, um, followed by a schedule for the appeal hearing.

Um and finally, we'll conclude with a summary of the petition, the appeal, and the tentative appeal, I mean the yeah, the tentative appeal decision.

Um, so the rental housing committee has a number of options on appeal.

Um, you can do a review on a closed record, um, which means that you would make a decision based only on the facts in the decision written by the hearing officer.

You can choose to have a de novo hearing in which you would follow the formal hearing process to potentially accept new facts before reaching your decision.

Or lastly, you could remand all or parts of the decision to the hearing officer to re-examine, um, in which case they could potentially accept new facts.

Um, the rental housing committee must exercise its independent judgment when it comes to questions of law, such as statutory interpretation.

Um, for questions of fact, the committee must determine whether or not each appealed element of the hearing officer decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Um, and this does not mean you have to re-weigh the evidence or relitigate the issues.

However, you may come to a different conclusion, even if looking at the same record.

Um at this time, uh staff is not recommending that the committee conduct a de novo hearing.

Um simply does not require it.

There's sufficient um evidence in the record, um, and the uh existing record demonstrates adequate review and ample opportunities for the parties to present relevant evidence.

Um, so just as a reminder, um, this is partly for the parties as well as um members of the public, but the the petition that was filed by the tenant in this case um defines the scope of the hearing officer's decision.

Um, and similarly, the appeal that was filed by the landlord in this case limits the scope of the rental housing committee's review on appeal.

So this means that you should not re-litigate or reweigh, reconsider issues that are not raised by the landlord's appeal.

So summary for the appeal hearing, uh we're in number one, which is the staff presentation.

So we followed by opportunities for both the appellant and the respondent to make a presentation, followed by rebuttal, and then uh rental housing committee questions for staff and then for the parties, and finally we will conclude with um rental housing committee deliberations and your decision.

Um so starting with a quick summary of the petition, uh, there were actually two petitions that were filed in this case for the same property.

The first is an unlawful rent petition that provides that the landlord um charged excess rents or unlawful rents because they were not substantially compliant with the CSFRA, namely they failed to register the property in 2022, and during that year they imposed a rent increase, and then all subsequent rent increases following from that one were unlawful because the initial one was unlawful.

Um, and then the second part of the petition was asserted that the landlord failed to maintain in a habitable condition the rental unit and decreased housing services, um, specifically that there was an infestation of rats, an infestation of cockroaches, that there was a partially non-working stove in the rental unit, as well as an inoperable refrigerator.

Um the hearing officer's decision concluded that the petitioners met their burden of proof that the landlord was not in substantial compliance with the CSFRA.

Um, the landlord or their predecessor in interest in this case failed to register the property in 2022.

They did impose a rent increase during the time that they were not registered, and so all subsequent rent increases following from that one were also unlawful because they did not roll back the unlawfully imposed 2022 rent increase.

Um the hearing officer also concluded that there was in fact a rent infestation in the unit or in the on the property that violated the warranty of habitability, and um in that case they uh the hearing officer uh awarded a reduction in rent and found that the landlord was 100% liable for this issue.

Um, and then as to the cockroach infestation, the hearing officer concluded that the petitioners did meet their burden of proof that there was a cockroach infestation in the unit, and um that violated the warranty of habitability.

Uh however, because the petitioner's conduct contributed 70% to the to this condition, uh, namely uh the hearing officer concluded that the petitioners did not keep the unit clean, um uh or in a sanitary condition, which contributed to the cockroach infestation or the persistence of the cockroach infestation, um, and therefore uh concluded that the hear that the landlord was only 30% responsible for the infestation.

And then finally, uh the hearing officer concluded that the petitioners did not meet their burden of proof to show that there was a defective condition of the refrigerator.

Um, and sorry, I realized I have been speaking relatively fast, so I'm going to try to slow down for the interpreter.

So the landlord's appeal um raises four issues.

Um, first, that the hearing officer aired or abused her discretion in assigning 30% of the responsibility to the landlord for the cockroach infestation.

And the main argument here that the landlord makes is that the hearing officer should have applied a comparative liability analysis as she did for the cockroach infestation issue and should have considered how the petitioner's conduct contributed to the rat infestation in the unit, as it did to the cockroach infestation.

The third is that the hearing officer erred or abused her discretion in failing to consider evidence of the landlord's improvements in the affected unit.

Namely, there is evidence in the record.

And the landlord is arguing that the hearing officer should have considered this and essentially provided them with equitable relief because of the investments that they made to improve the unit that were unrelated to the cockroach infestation or the rat infestation.

And then finally, the um appeal requests clarificate clarification of the conditions for restoration of the lawful rent level, including clear benchmarks for abatement verification.

So essentially what this is asking for, it is saying that the hearing officer's decision is not clear when the landlord will be able to restore the rent to the lawful rent level.

And requests clearer um benchmarks or uh you know requirements for when they have satisfied uh the requirement to correct the infestation in the the cockroach infestation in the unit and when they can begin charging the full lawful rent for the unit.

Um the tentative appeal decision uh recommends hear uh affirming the hearing officer's decision in its entirety.

Um the issues of lawful rent are not uh were not appealed, so this is just reiterates that the lawful rent for the unit is um $2,500 and that the petitioners are entitled to a rent refund for any excess rents that they've paid above that amount.

Um as it relates to the rat infestation, um the uh decision would recommend upholding the 20% rent reduction.

Um that was ordered by the hearing officer for the period from April 20th, 2023 to September 30th, 2024.

And the reason for this is that there is simply no evidence in the record that the petitioner's conduct contributed to the rat infestation in the unit in the same way that their conduct contributed to the cockroach infestation.

Um, largely the findings around cleanliness and sanitation and hygiene were uh limited to the areas in of the kitchen, while the rat infestation was basically throughout the property and throughout the unit, um, including in the laundry rooms, um, and so there's just not evidence in the record uh to support a finding um that the petitioner's conduct contributed to the rat infestation, or and the uh and that the hearing officer should have applied some sort of comparative liability analysis as um related to the rat infestation.

Um with the cockroach infestation, the tentative appeal decision also recommends upholding the hearing officer's decision to award a 4.2% rent reduction um uh for the period from April 15th, 2023 through the date of this hearing, plus an ongoing rent reduction of 105 dollars per month until the condition is corrected, and the reason for that is um uh one of the landlord's arguments was that this issue um started before they purchased the property, um, and therefore that should have been taken into consideration, and that um their conduct uh of rehabilitating the unit um and some of the issues with the renovations that they did that the hearing officer concluded contributed to the cockroach infestation, um, should have been disregarded because this issue started before they purchased the property.

Um, the CSFRA does hold landlords liable for the um violations or omissions of their predecessors and interest, and especially in this case, the landlord um did receive disclosures from the seller of the property, the prior landlord, uh letting them know that there was an ongoing cockroach infestation, and so it's clear that they assumed responsibility for this issue, um, and so for that reason uh the decision recommends uh that the 30 70 split of responsibility between the current landlord and the tenant as to the cockroach infestation, um, is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Um, and then relatedly as it as it relate since the stove issue is related to the cockroach infestation, um, it upholds the hearing officer's uh decision that the tenant and the landlord share the cost of a replacement stove again in that 7030 split.

Um, the fiscal impact, so any decision of the rental housing committee on appeal, including adoption or modification of the tentative appeal decision could lead to litigation, which would have fiscal impacts on the program, notably one purpose of appealing a hearing decision to the rental housing committee is to ensure that the decisions are legally defensible and so the appeal process um reduces overall risk of legal liability and legal expenses.

And so uh as always, the recommendation is for the rental housing committee to consider the tentative appeal decision and either accept or modify that decision with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence in the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move on to the appellant landlord.

The appellant landlord, please raise hand on zoom if you'd like to speak, and staff will promote you to be a panelist.

You'll be given 10 minutes.

Timer should be on screen.

Hello, can everybody hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Satyvarpu family Barbu Family Trust.

Um, so first off, I just wanted to say thank you so much for taking the time to hear our appeal.

Um, I think the presentation just now did a great job of summarizing the case.

I wanted to clarify just a few things.

Um, first off, regarding the CSFRA, we did not know at all about the registration requirements, and as soon as we did find out, you know, we promptly registered within a year of even buying the property, and we fully accept liability that the rent increases that we issued while not being in registration with CSFRA were unlawful, and in our appeal, we don't um we don't appeal that at all.

Uh the fact that we did make some unlawful rent increases, and we are fully prepared to pay back all the um unlawful rent that we collected from the tenants.

Um moving on to the cockroach infestation, uh again, it was a pretty well summarized in the presentation.

We just wanted to add a few details, uh, mainly the fact that we had already gone through with some pest control services, and we had hired pest control throughout the entire um the entire lease of the tenants, and they were always coming in.

And we also note that despite this unit being the farthest away from a nearby garden, which was the source of many pests, including rats and cockroaches.

Only this unit, uh, which is in a uh fourplex, uh, experienced issues with cockroaches and rats both.

Whereas the other three units, each of which were closer to this garden, uh, kept their units more clean and experienced no issues or whatever issues there were easily mitigated by the help of the same amount of pest control that was assigned to this specific unit as well.

Um, and that's why we're moving forward to hopefully modify the 30% um ship uh the 30% assignment of blame for the cockroaches uh a little less on us because we believe that we did what we should have in our power and our responsibility as landlords to mitigate the cockroachation problem.

And regarding the rat problem, while we agree yes, there was a package that we did not fully understand that we needed at the time given the pest control, we did what we thought was best as landlords because again we were not fully aware of the situation and we had seen the same level of pest control work for the other units in the uh property, and we did not think that we needed to, you know, purchase an extra overkill for a problem that wasn't a problem at this time.

And it's also if you do a quick Google search, you can also see that rats do eat cockroaches in times of despair, which for most pest life is always times of despair.

So we also argue that if there is a cockroach infestation that it was caused mostly by the tenants, as said by the um hearing author's decision, then that can also definitely increase a risk of rat infestation.

And for the more we replace the uh brand new stool.

And furthermore, yeah, just as a motion to show our um like a move of good faith.

We have already actually replaced the stove with a fully working stove in the unit.

And for the last two months they've um uh they said pest control is not needed anymore inside the unit.

And uh, we also have written proof from the tenant that pest control is no longer needed for the unit.

Um at the same pest control service, Clark Pest Control, that which we have been in contact with for this property since the time of this issue becoming an issue, have now been able to mitigate this problem in full.

And we have it in proof of the SMS text.

Uh, yeah, that's better.

I think that's it on our side.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Excuse me, can we get both full names of the people who just presented?

Uh just for the record.

My name's I use Satyvarpu.

And my name is Srinivasativarbu.

I'm the owner, and Ayuch is my son.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we will move on to the respondent tenant.

Respondent tenant, please come to the podium if you like to speak in person.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Gustavo Garcia Perez.

My name is Gustavo Garcia Perez, and I'd like to say hello to everyone.

Can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Thank you.

Okay.

I'd like to answer back on some of the items that were um explained earlier, especially regarding the rat and cockroach cockroach infestation.

I'd like to say that what was shared is a complete lie.

We do not keep our apartment dirty.

We have one of the cleanest apartments, and we invite anybody to stop by unannounced and check for themselves.

We had did not have a roach infestation or problem when we initially moved in.

The problem started on March 25th, 2024, and it was a just controlled weeks before this whole thing started.

Um I did send a message to the owner at that time to let them know that we no longer had roaches and we no longer needed the pest control services.

We are a family with three kids in the home.

We need to cook daily.

We use all the equipment or all the appliances that we have in our apartment on a daily basis because we do have to cook for our children.

That includes a dryer, a refrigerator, I won't mention a washer because I have bought that myself at Home Depot and don't even have the funds yet to pay it off.

I'm still paying for it.

Much as a those for escucharme.

That's all I have to say for now and I'd like to say thank you for listening to me.

Gracias, thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move back to the appellant landlord.

You have five minutes to rebut any statements made by the respondent.

Please limit your comments to rebuttal rather than repeating any information you may have said earlier.

Hi just give us 20 seconds real quick.

Thank you.

No worries we have a little bit of okay first off thank you for your response we wanted to first off say that we do recognize this is a space of law and these and opinions are obviously gonna fly but we do have proof from our pest control services when we did contract them in writing with them saying that when they did go to the unit to perform the pest control servicing they did note that because of the state of the apartment that's a big reason why the infestation was being caused so we are not just saying this as landlords on our opinion we have proof from our pest control servicing of them saying this.

Second of all we want to note it that as for um feelings we sorry that we make you feel scared that was never our intention to clarify why we said that um this is there have been multiple times over the course of the lease that these appliances which are been brand new have been broken and had to been replaced at the cost of the tenant or of the landlord and we want to emphasize that it's not reasonable for us to just keep paying and paying for new appliances if they're being broken with no reasoning.

But we did not mean to scare or threaten at all and we apologize if it came off that way that's it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh respondent tenant uh you have an opportunity to rebut any statements made by the appellant landlord uh please limit your comments to rebuttal rather than repeating information already said you will have five minutes to speak as well as five minutes of translation the stuff and much of a siempre que nosotros para que this stuff uh in front of me, let you know the cucarachas meto circuito.

Yo voy a tratar pest control para comprovarte.

Tu vas a pagar.

Bueno, passaron semanas cuando el pest control.

Y ahora me está culpando nosotros.

Estoy seguro que ahora que no tenemos cucarachas, la stufa was much more.

I just want to repeat that um pest control was called, and I was told they would be called to prove that we had broken the stove.

Um as pest control came, they didn't show and explain that the stove was not working due to wires possibly being cut or broken through because of the roach infestation.

Um as they were explaining this, uh they um the owners actually left, and it was the pest control people that shared with me that that's why the stove wasn't working.

Um now that we do have a new stove and we do not have a roach infestation.

Um I'm almost sure that things will work accordingly, not only with the stove but with all appliances.

We had a different men coming in and out uh during the construction that had different material, sheet rock, paint, all of those were in our house, and we had to move our own furniture while they worked on this.

We had various uh material boxes there and couldn't sleep during that construction um while living through all this.

We feel they should have rented us a hotel room, and um possibly roaches could have been in these boxes because they were coming from various places.

Uh, one of them being Home Depot, and we had to live with all of those boxes with the material inside our home.

Thank you.

That's all.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we will bring it back to the committee.

Does any member of the committee have any questions for staff?

Seeing none, does any committee member have any questions for either the landlord or the tenant?

Seeing none, we will move on to deliberation.

Committee member Bulch.

Thank you.

So the federal government, the IRS considers, considers property ownership to be passive income.

And I've learned it is not passive.

Anyone, anyone doing this becomes an active participant or it doesn't work very well.

So there's a there are a few points here which I think are really important for everyone to understand.

And I hope that there is that there are property owners in Mountain View who do follow these proceedings because if you're on the wrong side of the law, uh it's it's very difficult.

First of all, it is important to recognize that the uh CSFRA uh is a charter amendment, which means that neither the city council nor the rental housing committee has the ability to modify any of the critical terms or um essence of how it operates.

Uh it doesn't matter if we think it's right or wrong, it is simply not an option.

Um the only way to change it is through the ballot box, and uh people will have to decide how they want to deal with that.

Um first of all, uh we do not generally re-litigate.

Uh we we are basically looking to see whether the uh the hearing officer has come to a reasonable decision under the circumstances, and I'll go through them.

Uh, I believe that the hearing officer did come to a reasonable uh decision.

Um of the really really difficult uh issues with the CSFRA from a property owner perspective is that there's no statute of limitations.

Once that rollback gets missed, uh that's it.

You have to start from scratch, you have to go all the way back.

And so the longer that that waits, uh the low the more the more liability piles up.

Um that is that is the uh term of the CSFRA.

And again, the rental housing committee or the city council have no ability to modify that.

Um in terms of uh capital improvements, which which is a point made, um, the only way I'm aware under the CSFRA to deal with that is to file a petition uh for a fair rate of return.

There is no automatic um consideration or uh uh other effect that capital improvements will have on any any type of a uh rent situation, certainly not during a um during a uh petition process.

Um the final point I'll make is that the only way I'm aware to deal with situations where a landlord believes that a tenant is not cooperative when it comes to maintenance issues or cleanliness, is to file a quit, is basically to recognize that they're in a situation that is not being remediated, they believe that they're doing the right thing, they believe that the tenant may not be cooperative, and there is a legal process for that.

Barring that, I'm not aware of any other uh way to deal with it, certainly not under the CSFRA.

So, that's why my recommendation is that we are we should approve uh the hearing officers' findings um because the the regulation is clear, the the legal obligation and processes are clear, and uh it's it's very difficult when a property owner is uh not aware of these requirements and subtleties of the law.

Member Keating.

Thank you.

So I too uh will be supporting upholding the hearing officer decision and denying the appeal.

And uh one of the things I'm noticing is that there was a shared responsibility.

And at least for the things related to the kit the items related to the kitchen.

And you know, I'm trusting the hearing officer to have done a good enough job at deciding where that responsibility lied between the landlord and the tenant.

And I do have a question for staff.

So the appealed elements looking at the PowerPoint include D request clarification of conditions for restoration of lawful rent level, including clear benchmarks for abatement verification.

And is that a request that comes to the committee or not?

Because I'm not sure if I'm clear about how we are responding and if we are to respond to that request in the appeal.

So the tentative appeal decision does find that the hearing officer's decision is clear about when the landlord is able to restore the rent to its lawful level.

Um that is the final section under the discussion.

But in addition to that, as all uh hearing decisions as well as appeal decisions state, if there is some sort of disagreement, which in this case it appears that there's not disagreement between the parties, as they've mentioned tonight, um, about when the issue is resolved, then uh either party can request a compliance hearing, in which case the decision or the request will go to a hearing officer to determine whether or not the party in this case the landlord has complied with the requirements of the hearing decision.

And just to follow up on that, then what is the timing for a annual rent increase being valid once the habitability issues are addressed?

Um I'm not sure what you mean by annual rent increase being valid.

Or are you asking when can the landlord raise the rent?

Yes, or the rollback.

Um in accordance with the decision, they have to pay back all of the funds, the overcharges, and resolve the investigation issue, which I think both parties testified seems to be resolved.

So once the funds are paid back, then they would have to give notice in accordance with state law.

Thank you.

Uh yes, I'm going to also support upholding the tentative appeal decision in its entirety, and my reasoning largely follows that of uh what's in the tentative appeal decision.

Um I I believe that the landlord is partially at fault, you know, with respect to the cockroach problem.

I mean, because of the evidence that was given.

I mean, first of all, that he tried to use even the idea of this idea as a defense that the problem was there when I got there.

Well, okay, I mean that establishes you know that the problem was there and steps weren't taken to do anything about it.

And so that's that's a key thing, okay.

Um, on the other hand, you know, there was also the testimony, you know, during the hearing that I mean, you know, the the stove was not uh being kept up, you know, and it was a new stove, and I mean, you know, that it would just fail within that short period of time, um, is a is a real that also confirms the idea that that uh you know there was part there was the preponderance of the problem was due to the not keeping the stove in working order and clean enough.

So um I agree with the hearing officer that most of the fault lies on the tenant, but that it's also the landlord's responsibility too, and the 70 30 split I think is a reasonable one.

I mean, hearing officers have you know fairly wide discretion under this uh under our current CSFRA rules, and so, you know, I'm not gonna sit here and talk about whether it should have been um 20 or 40.

I mean, I think 30 is reasonable.

So now on to the rats.

Again, I mean, you know, this comes back, and like this is has come to us multiple times.

You know, the whole point is is that you know, an attempt to cure the problem is not sufficient, and you don't even get partial credit for you have to actually cure the problem in order for it to be done.

Now, apparently something was done because both the landlord and the tenant agree that um that the problem doesn't exist now.

I wish I had heard in the hearing recording, because I know the first attempt was putting out traps, and I'd like to know what it was that cured it, but they cured it.

But again, I mean, just putting out the traps apparently wasn't sufficient, and so I mean, you know, um, as it was noted in the in the uh report, I mean, it was possible to take a more aggressive treatment, and that could have been done, and that's something the landlord has to decide when he tries to cure the problem.

Is he gonna try something that might work or something that might be more expensive and will work?

So, so again, this all goes back on the landlord as far as I can see.

And you know, the third part, you know, this idea that somehow these you know um very expensive upgrades should uh you know mitigate uh these issues and reduce how much you know the landlord is liable.

I mean, a key thing here is just that, you know, what we're talking about is the habitability conditions and what was done to address them.

I mean, you know, the whole idea of putting more money into the apartment to make it a nicer apartment is is not on point.

And so, I mean, it just doesn't come into the decision.

I mean, that's the landlord's decision, he did at his own discretion, and it's just not on point.

So those are my reasonings, and I could even make a motion now, but if somebody wants to keep talking, we can do that too.

Can I make motion and then others can still talk?

You can do so, yes.

Okay, so I'm I'm going to make the motion to uphold the tenative appeal decision in its entirety.

And um state for the record that member Brown has seconded.

Second, you get your chance.

Uh member stateslope.

Thank you.

Um, I'll be brief.

Uh I always understood the role of the rental housing committee on appeal is you were looking at did the hearing officer uh use legal reasoning reasoning and apply the evidence that was submitted and come to a conclusion that a reasonable hop hearing officer would come to.

It's we're not deciding, is that what I would have done?

Um you're just deciding, did they abuse their discretion and did they come to a reasonable conclusion?

Um I think the hearing officer did a very thorough job of weighing the um the impact of tenant actions versus uh landlord actions regarding the stove.

Um the other thing that I just also want to note with my understanding of um service reductions and housing, it's not about the good faith effort of the landlord to cure the problem.

If there's while the problem exists, that is a service reduction.

That's it's not you know whether they're being a bad landlord or something.

They're not the tenants not getting a fully habitable place, so they shouldn't be paying the full rent for that.

Um lastly, I thought this would be a good opportunity to uh tout the um available to all landlords and tenants, Mountain View mediation program, which just celebrated its 50th anniversary.

Um that program, the case managers there, it I would encourage landlords and tenants to call them.

You don't have to have a dispute, but if you're having a communication issue for a landlord who may feel like they for language barriers or or no language, just not hearing each other to utilize this free available service, and uh they uh they have case managers that speak Spanish, there's language translation available, but this is a way to get ahead of things before they become a problem and um it's free to use.

You could explain.

I just need help talking with my tenant about how they can, you know, work with the pest control to do what they need to do to prevent more roaches from coming.

So please, anybody listening, uh, landlords and tenants, it does you don't have it doesn't have to be a negative thing.

You just want some help in communicating and how to best work with your your tenant or landlord.

And I will be um affirming the decision.

Member Brown.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I did not see any evidence presented tonight that Ms.

Chandler erred or abuse of discretion in any of the decisions in the decision hearing officer decision.

Uh so I would also support affirming it.

Additionally, I think that our staff does a very thorough job of making available resources to landlords and tenants to understand their rights and responsibilities, and I think that it is incumbent on any property owners in the city to know their responsibilities and rights.

Uh and so please take advantage of what we have.

Go to the housing help center, check the website.

We have a lot of FAQs and guidance.

They're here to help to uh avoid things like this.

Mediation is also great, but knowing that what you have to do before you ever get there, but stay informed.

Uh one more thing.

I do find in these hearings that it is a little distasteful to bring up facts that are not material to the appealed elements in cases like this.

I think that I would appreciate for anyone coming before the RC to just stick with the things that you're appealing in a way that is trying to serve the goal of coming to a good decision on the facts, not attacking the other party.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

I guess it's my turn.

I agree with the thoughts of my fellow members that there has been no abuse of discretion, that the CSFR requires that the issue at hand to be fully addressed rather than attempt it to be addressed, and that we do have mechanisms to clarify if there's any situations where either party believes that the hearing decision is vague in any situation.

With that, uh the motion made by Vice Chair Cox, seconded by Member Brown to accept a tentative APO decision is now up for a vote.

Motion passes unanimously, and that ends the item.

Moving on to item 6.1.

The study session.

Oh, actually, it's not supposed to tenant and tenant anti-retaliation and anti-harassment protections.

Thank you, Rental Housing Committee members and chair.

Um this is a presentation on a um issue that the rental housing committee requested um back in March of 2025.

We held a first study session, and um as a result, um, we are have drafted um regulations for your review and feedback today.

Um at the time in March, you reviewed federal, state, and local policies of comparable jurisdictions, and um today we propose some regulations that are based on best practices from policies by other comparable jurisdictions.

So these draft regulations ban retaliation and harassment, uh, give ample examples of what might be considered retaliation or harassment and the main purpose to help landlords and tenants better understand their rights and responsibilities, and it also uh lays out some remedies and enforcement measures for potential violations.

We also added some definitions to chapter two, um, that uh for instance bad fate, harassment, and retaliation, and we also added some definitions for specific categories of individuals.

Um so we added a new chapter 14 in the CSFRE and a new chapter 13 from the uh MHRSO.

Um so the purpose as stated is to provide protections against harassment and retaliation, and um it is applicable to uh landlords and tenants that are covered under the CSFRA and the M and the MHRSO.

Um the next uh section provides some anti-retaliation examples.

Um that varies uh quite a bit from requesting repairs or maintenance uh to complaining about the condition of housing services, filing a petition, uh, or requesting reasonable accommodations and get a retaliatory action or non-action from the landlord.

Similarly, there is also a list of examples of anti-harassment uh provisions and examples of landlord behavior, uh such as violating the covenant of quiet enjoyment, uh interfere with a tenant's right of privacy, uh refuse to acknowledge receipt of a tenant's land for rent payment or other repeated acts or omissions to substantially interfere with tenants' rights, uh and the last section is about remedies and enforcements.

Um I will not go through all of them.

You can find them in the memo and in uh the actual draft regulations.

Um, these are drafted uh based on best practices and other comparable jurisdictions.

So the next steps would be uh to receive feedback from the rental housing committee, implement your recommendations, and submit the final regulations draft for approval by the rental housing committee at an upcoming meeting.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, we will now move on to questions.

This time is limited only questions from community members afterwards.

We will take any public comment.

Uh members up.

So quest can I have a few notes.

I have things I want to make comments on, but then I have a couple sections where I'm trying to understand the meaning.

Is that where I can do questions for now?

Free to ask.

Okay.

Um question in um the regulations.

Let's see, the number it's uh uh D to Court so it's on page seven.

Um this is the entry to show the rental unit to a perspective or actual purchaser, if the landlord has not notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale.

I'm trying to parse out what this means with the 120 days is the the gist of it that you like.

If three months have passed, that's kind of like your notice to the tenant has expired, and you need to you know let them know again that you're going to sell it.

Sorry, um, so this is actually a requirement that is in state law itself.

Um it comes from civil code section 1954, which provides that um if a notice is given orally to a tenant that they that a landlord will be showing a unit to prospective or actual purchasers, um then they have to follow up within 120 days of that oral notice, uh confirming to the tenant that the property is for sale.

Okay, that explains why state laws always written interestingly, so it could maybe written a little more plainly.

I know this is just a draft, but um, yes.

I'm not giving myself a whole lot of credit, but if I'm struggling to understand it.

Um, I think that's yeah, and I think um in the next in like F rent payments, so part four, um, that's another one that could be this is about like the form of payment of rent.

I'm sure it's taken from state law, which is why it's confusing to read.

So it's just one that could be kind of maybe put more in plain.

But I think I understand what that one is.

That was my question.

All right, does any of other member okay, Member Balch?

Yeah, thank you.

Um a couple questions.

Both regarding rent payment.

And the the uh point about refusing to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant's lawful rent payment.

Um how does this relate to the landlord's right to not accept a partial rent payment?

Would that be considered harassment?

Uh no, that would not be.

And I believe that that section um let me sorry, I'm scrolling to find it.

Yeah, I mean, it does say the tenants' lawful rent payment.

So I think that is intended to mean the full rent.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then the second question, I'm just trying to parse and uh F sub-4, which is um failing to allow the tenant to pay rent using at least one form of payment that is neither cash nor electronic.

Such as is this and the example given is that a check that has been returned for insufficient funds, is this saying that the landlord must continue to accept checks or cash is or like a money order?

Like, what is the actual point of this?

What is the?

Yes, yeah, so and um we can certainly try to clarify some of these.

Um, but uh essentially what this one is saying is, and again, this is a requirement in state law that a landlord does have to provide a tenant with um one other method by which to pay rent or a security deposit that is neither cash nor electronic funds transfer.

And then the IE, that is being it is intended to modify the second clause of that section, which is that except where otherwise permitted by the state law, um, because state law provides that if a tenant has previously so essentially if if they previously tried to pay with a check or uh some other manner in which, and then they're you know, they're the check bounced, in that case the landlord does not have to offer them the ability to pay with something that is neither cash nor electronic funds transfer.

Okay, thank you.

Some people brought brought evidence to say that landlords had turned uh them if they were undocumented immigrants, they were turned into ice or something.

And um, I'm just wondering, you know, there I didn't see anything in here about that as a harassment or a retaliation or anything like that.

And I'm guessing that we can't do anything about it because if you have undocumented status, you know, in a sense, you're just not here legally, okay.

But I mean, um, I'm just wondering what the thought process of was staff around this issue.

I mean, and is there anything, you know, we can do, or are we just not able to do anything?

So that is in both the retaliation and harassment sections, um, it does talk about violating state law, um, because there is a state law prohibition on um landlords reporting their tenants uh to immigration or other law enforcement based on their citizenships um or immigration status.

Um so let me point out to you uh what sections those are in.

It's G, it's the next section.

I have to go rent payments.

Yes.

Um, no, there's a more specific one.

Yes, so it's actually going to be in the privacy section.

Um so the first uh one under that one talks about that, so you can't request information about someone's citizenship status, and then two talks about releasing or threatening to release any of the information specified in one, um, and those sections, California code sections that are cited, um 1940.2A5, 1940.3, and 1940.35 are all related to these prohibitions um against retaliating or attempting to harass a tenant by um reporting them to immigration uh or other law enforcement based on their citizenship or immigration status.

Okay, thank you.

I'm glad you got that covered.

All right.

Um member Balch.

Actually, in that in that privacy section uh a little bit further down, imposing or enforcing unreasonable restrictions on overnight guests, there is a common provision in leases around um guests, uh, basically uh anyone who isn't on the lease, uh, how many days typically they can they can be in in the unit.

What is what is unreasonable in this uh phrasing?

Um yeah, I mean that is something that is in the discretion of a court to determine, but I would just remind the committee members that as you're reading this, it's important to read it in conjunction with the very first um you know paragraph of uh which is D2, uh which talks about no landlord engaging or shall in bad faith engage in any of these, and so you know it's the combination of an unreasonable imposition and it's taken in bad faith um as that is defined.

But really, you know, what is unreasonable in those types of scenarios is going to be a fact-specific determination that should be made by a court that has looked at all of the facts of the case.

Thank you.

So then two things.

So then if this if if a if a if a typical lease has restrictions on guests, and that is that is a that is prior to the tenancy being created by by definition, then that's not retaliation because that's a standard part of the lease, which is is generally considered to be lawful.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay, then the issue that the the question then about it being up to the up to the court.

So if there was a legal challenge, then it would go to a court to determine what is reasonable or unreasonable.

We're talking about the CSFRA, which gen which we uh try to uh generally speaking, um uh CFC SFRA petitions don't go to court generally.

Maybe some people have taken them to court, but generally not, and so is this basically saying that if there was an appeal of a hearing officer decision that found retaliation due to some quote unreasonable circumstance, and through whatever determination the RHC made the parties then took it to court, the court would then ultimately make a judgment on whether it was unreasonable or not.

Is that how it would go?

Uh no.

Uh so this area and in particular, um, there's some case law that limits uh the sort of administrative considerations that uh you all have um when it comes to petitions.

So you all cannot award a rent reduction um based on retaliation or harassment.

Uh that is it's a result of uh case law uh that has come out of um state appellate courts.

And so if you actually go down to the remedies section, you will see that it specifically says there's no administrative consideration of this by the RHC.

Um so, in order to enforce these provisions, people need to go directly to the courts.

So if there's been retaliation or harassment that a tenant wants to assert, um, they need to do so either in the context of their asserting it as a defense in an eviction case, or in the context of an affirmative lawsuit against their landlord for you know damages uh as a result of the retaliation or harassment that they have experienced.

Um and that is part also why the language in that D2 paragraph talks about what the court will consider.

Um it doesn't, you know, it it specifically references that the court can use these examples when it is considering retaliation and harassment issues, um, and it doesn't reference the rental housing committee or your hearing officers.

Thank you.

I I I fundamentally missed that.

So this is this is uh I'm gonna write the vocabulary.

This is law in a sense, not under the under the RHC.

This is basically to activate this, there would need to be a suit filed in a in a in a court.

Okay.

Then okay, that's really interesting.

And then I guess then I'm questioning I thought our our ability to make these types of policy decisions as the rental housing committee was under the banner of the rental uh of the CSFRA, where we have this kind of self-contained set of um policies that are that whose power comes from the charter amendment, and then hearing officers make a determination and they are appealed and they are uh voted on or judged by this committee.

But now the committee is creating uh something that is outside of our sphere.

Not necessarily.

Um so let me give you an example of something else that is in the CSFRA.

Um, so for instance, the CSFRA says that um, you know, in order for a landlord to do an owner move in eviction, they have to meet certain requirements.

Um, you know, they have and they have to do so they have to recover the unit in good faith, occupy it for a certain amount of time, um, all of that sort of thing.

So in order to enforce that provision, again, there's a state law limitation, you all can't have a process, an administrative process before the rental housing committee to determine whether or not, you know, a landlord has actually done the owner-move and eviction in good faith.

The tenant needs to go to court to do that.

Um, and again, that arises out of case law that is well established.

Um, but you all can still adopt regulations related to owner move-in in order to try to enforce those provisions, even though it will never come to you as a rent petition.

Um, so you know, you can establish, for instance, that a landlord can do certain certifications to uh certify that they have actually met those thresholds for how long they've occupied the property and so on and so forth.

Um, so similarly here, there's language in the CSFRA as well as the MHRSO that specifically bans uh uh bars retaliation, and um there's an it there's also language in both laws that talks about um limiting arbitrary evictions or taking unlawful actions to terminate um a uh tenancy that is covered by the CSFRA, and that is where your authority and your ability to impose regulations or adopt regulations arises from in this context.

So while you you won't be the judge in this case, um you can still it is still within the scope of the CSFRA to talk about her uh, you know, to address tenant harassment and retaliation, um, because those issues are addressed within the CSFRA and MHRSO.

Thank you.

So, is it is it then reasonable to say then as you just explained it, we are in effect acting like the city council would act in adopting a regulation and then a court enforces or rules on that regulation.

That is within your authority under the CSFRA to adopt regulations to implement the CSFRA.

As an elected official wouldn't under the council, right?

As the city council would.

I mean, you have a limited jurisdiction.

Right, right, but that is within your jurisdiction.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, you do have legislative functions as well as your you know the quasi-judicial functions of considering petitions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh so to staff, have we gotten questions from landlords about like retaliation harassment and any of the meeting any of the meetings we've had with the landlords where we're educating them about their rights and responsibilities.

For clarification to see what is considered retaliation.

Uh no.

No.

But tenants have asked questions.

And so for the tenants with this, would this serve as a good resource to be able to provide tenants when they're I think it would be a good resource for both landlords and tenants uh to educate them on certain types of behaviors?

Um they can learn from especially the examples that we've been given.

And to add to that, I don't necessarily think landlords ask about it, but um, they may come to us with a situation and we we might see something and then we educate them on what they should and should not be doing.

All right, thank you.

Remember Satzla?

Keeping it to a question.

Um the part, let's see, part E, remedies enforcement for the complaint mechanism.

Yes, got a lot of concerns here, but my questions are um would the would it be verified if um the if it the tenants complaining that they live in the unit, like on the like would they supply a lease or some proof of payment that they're the one impacted in in this unit?

Um other question is would a landlord be able to submit a response uh in connection with which part of the process?

So a tenant or their representative can submit a complaint on a complaint form and it gets served on the landlord.

Is there a mechanism for a landlord?

I I I think the purpose I'm uh and you can clarify is just so you have on file because there's no action taken.

So as would, you know, if if something's being accused of and a landlord's getting, I mean, their question is going to be can I respond to this?

Of course.

Okay.

Um and I think the only thing I I it needs to be abundantly clear.

Would this could the city or the program take any action on those complaints?

Um that depends uh completely on the type of complaints we're getting.

And I think if there is a very severe um complaint coming maybe from multiple tenants about the same issues, we could the rental housing committee uh or staff could um think about uh forwarding it to the city attorney's office for further um investigation.

Okay, maybe that needs to be in here because what wasn't clear was what's going to happen with this or what's the purpose of this.

So um I know if I were a landlord I'd want to know.

I believe that is now moving out of the domain of a question, so is there any further questions?

Okay, moving on to member Keating.

Um, when I was uh reviewing this agenda item, it was helpful to me when another committee member reminded me that there are only um four types of petitions allowed under the CSFRA, and that helped me to understand that anti-harassment was not in that list, so that we couldn't ourselves in-house fine and uh manage this.

But move moving on then, seeing no other questions, we'll move on to public comment.

In-person public comments will be called to speak first.

For members of the public online, please raise your hand now or press start on your phone to get in queue.

Everyone will have their three minutes.

Good evening.

A noble bar with the California Apartment Association.

Um as it should come to no surprise, we're opposed to adding uh duplicative and unsafe regulations that already exist under state law.

State law makes it legal to retaliate against tenants for exercising their rights.

There isn't a need to add these regulations that can be addressed through simply educating both owners and tenants about what they are allowed and not allowed to do.

These duplicative rules only add confusion for both tenants and owners, and ultimately these regulations will add costs and administrative burden to property owners.

Um, you should focus instead on education, not duplication, instead of creating redundant regulations, educate tenants.

And the last thing I want to say is I I under I don't understand the need for these regulations mostly because there hasn't been any evidence presented that there would that this regulations are needed.

There hasn't been any evidence presented that these regulations that tenants uh aren't able to file the same complaints under state law.

So I see a lack of nexus between the need for these regulations because frankly there has been any um data to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we move on to members of the public on Zoom.

Andrea, do you want to call people?

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and ask Madonna Franklin to unmute yourself, you can unmute yourself.

Madonna, are you there?

Hello?

Yes.

I think it's a mistake.

I actually bumped out I'm not really one to speak.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

In that case, seeing no one else on line who would like to give comment, we will bring it back to the committee for deliberations and feedback.

Uh member Satz is up.

Sorry.

Um first uh because of people who are might be listening, I want to make clear that I'm here in my capacity as a rental housing committee with the city of Mountain View and a citizen of Mountain View, and everything I say is from that perspective and not um in my role with the city of San Jose.

Um overall, just to address Mr.

Bebar's comment, I think it's not clearly written anywhere what exactly harassment or retaliation is, and uh staff is not in a position if a tenant comes forth and says my landlord's harassing me to make some legal conclusion about whether what the tenants describing is harassment or retaliation.

So I think there is some value to defining it in regulations so it's staff member could say, okay, are they doing any of these things?

Um because I've talked to many tenants who make just like a statements like that, and they may perceive things as retaliation harassment that may not really rise to that, but rather relate to miscommunication.

Um also for some of these things address um things that are already in state law, like the right to access, what and under what circumstances.

I've talked to more than one landlord in the past 10 years that thinks it's okay to do monthly inspections.

So even though those laws are out there, being able to define this is what's okay, this is what's not, um, would be an education tool.

Okay.

Um I can I have like comments on a few things.

Would it be best if I split them?

Asking the chair, just get them.

Okay.

Um the first one I'll go through is it's in the uh D, anti-harassment provisions under example of harassment.

Um, a quiet enjoyment, the first uh little letter I, this is page five.

Um this is interrupt reduced, terminate, eliminate, or fail to provide housing services as required in the rental agreement or by law.

Um I believe it needs to say without a corresponding reduction in rent because a housing service could be removed, but that's not wasn't intended to harass or anything.

But maybe there was a washer and there's no longer a washer, so there needs to be a reduction in rent.

So just opening the door for there's legal, you know, there's ways to do that where you're compliant with the law.

Can I might I address that very quickly?

Um so I I think you know saying in bad faith is intended to address any situations where a landlord is doing things legally.

Um, you know, it's it's supposed to basically rule out all the scenarios where a landlord is taking legal actions.

So yes, okay.

Then that probably addressed I think that's what um and that was a the crux of some of my other comments about habitability is that it and I I had to go all I kept reading all the way, going all the way back to two the first paragraph, like trying to make sure I understood this, but I think bad faith needs to be uh like maybe it just needs to be clearer because it's a laundry list of things, and it looks like I can see somebody reading this saying like I failed to perform necessary repairs.

I'm gonna be is that retaliation?

Um I'm sure staff will have materials that'll make it more clear, but um that was my since I missed that, and I'm not a very good reader apparently.

Um just about that one.

Uh okay, then a particular um on the access portion, so C.

Um, sub part two, or it's VII seven.

The providing a notice of entry that fails to provide the approximate time window for the entry and provides a time window that is unreasonably excessive in duration.

I think that needs to be qualified, like given the reason for the access, because you could be doing a whole bunch of balcony inspections in a building and you don't know when the inspector's going to get to that unit.

So if you're saying this is happening that day, is that unreasonable?

I just it seems too broad when it says unreusably excessive.

I think you need to just pair it with um given the reason for the access um let's see oh under the forced vacation e misrepresentation um II three repeatedly mistreating an occupant of the rental unit through in-person conversations social media postings or messages or other communications with language that a reasonable person would consider likely to cause fear or provoke violence I would add um would be for likely to cause fear provoke violence also offensive language so I've seen that happen too so just adding that to like offensive language and language likely to cause fear violence.

Again that's the bad faith thing going back to because we're so many pages away from where it says bad faith um the which section is this forced vacation misrepresentation the last one eight VIII remove or eliminate one or more housing services to cause the tenant to vacate rental unit I I feel more comfortable if it said induce or with intent like so it's not entered but again I think that's it's supposed to be captured in bad faith but I didn't see that.

Okay.

Okay now um wait oh I think um other acts I page 11 um v force a tenant to vacate a rental unit in a hotel motel in or other transient facility before they have occupied the rental unit for 30 days consecutive days and re-register I think it just needs to be like require them to re-register so it's you get and maybe that's just cleaning up making the language a little more simply of you're told to move out and uh and you have to re-register so you're not triggering the tenancy um okay my last going back to the complaints I have a lot of concerns about this because I could see it being abused um and that what if how long would these um complaints be held there's been not all like not all landlords not all tenants I can think of some a couple tenants that are probably known to this group that might file a complaint every week about harassment um and you know or you know are mad about and I could just see it being abused and that there doesn't seem to be any limits with the substance of the complaint how long will it be kept um I think you know like I said all the other parts um about the I think how long it will be kept and then making it very clear that you know you're not doing anything with them it doesn't mean anything if there's enough there might be referral to city attorney's office and the ability to provide a response but I if it's if the purpose of this is to try to get some substance to all the things you hear about.

I think that's helpful but this seems like a way that could almost be harmful you know used to harm.

Question what would you like to propose instead?

I don't so I've only been on the rental housing committee since April so I wasn't here for the discussions of what the direction was.

If there is a way, I mean you log interactions, I imagine, with um tenants.

If you have this laundry list, you can log your interaction and tick the box of which what they're saying is retaliation.

And then that you get enough of those over time and you start seeing patterns.

That's when you can say, hey, let's refer this to the city attorney's office.

But making this whole complaint thing, I think is gonna give the wrong impression to tenants that the city's gonna do something for me.

Um that's gonna be frustrating to landlords who feel like they're you know, there's another thing that can be filed against them.

They may not understand, but I think having a cleaner, you know, a way of tracking those types of interactions and having specific, I think that would achieve the okay, there's a lot happening here, let's refer it to the city attorney, without it being a formal process.

And what as I said before, would there be proof?

You know, would a tenant have to say, yes, I you know, here's my lease, I live there because if somebody is, you know, there's bad actors out there who might use the process to poke at someone's reputation or harm them in some way.

Okay, I'm done.

I'll let other people talk.

Uh is there anything at the further staff would like to say, or we can continue on discussion then?

Okay.

Go ahead, Nas.

No, I I was just gonna say, I mean, it does have language and and the goal would be to include language um on the form itself, making clear that this doesn't mean that you know, the acceptance of this does not mean that it has been determined that this has actually occurred, or that the city is going to actually do anything on behalf of the tenant that is uh 4A in that section.

So that language is there, and and I, you know, I think it would be included on a forum as well.

I also think that there are other actions or uh things that the city could do that are not something uh so formal as uh you know referring to the city's city attorney's office, even going back to your own uh comment uh committee member islop about you know if you're getting a number of these, um, if the program is receiving a number of these, is this an opportunity to send people to mediation so that they can talk about the communication issues or whatever they're having that is being perceived as harassment or retaliation, um, or you know, is it an opportunity to educate a landlord um and reach out to them specifically and say, hey, we're getting complaints from multiple tenants about something that you did that they are perceiving in this way, we just want to share this information with you.

Um so I think it doesn't have to be so extreme as, you know, we're gonna the city is gonna suddenly sue this person.

Um it could be a softer touch.

Um, but yeah, I just just want to share that there were additional reasons for getting that kind of information.

Okay, go ahead, Vice Chair Cox.

Uh yeah, I just um I'm thinking a lot about committee member stats lops and comments.

I mean, the one that that I'll echo is is that I, you know, I, and you know, I also want to thank committee member Balch, okay, for asking questions about this whole idea of the complaint because, you know, it wasn't even I did throw in a question about this uh to the staff, and I also want to thank you.

I threw about eight or nine questions there and you answered all of them.

So thanks for taking the time to do that.

Um, but I mean, so it gave me a lot more clarity of what's going on here.

Um I do agree that uh with regards to the complaints, a little bit more explanation would be in order when you draft this up, and in particular, you know, what uh, you know, what ex I think there was a good effort to make it clear what the purpose of the complaint was and and what you know status it has, and it doesn't have the status of bringing something to court, that has to come later, okay.

But I do agree that it should be in there something about how the landlord can respond, you know, once he's gotten this complaint, and I think that there's value there in having whatever he responds to on the record.

Um, I'm wondering when it comes to filing the complaint, whether a person who's doing this is expected to come to uh the housing staff, okay, and to ask, you know, talk it through with them before they do that, or they can just file it and like somebody brought up with example, you know, they can file it every other day, you know, without even any intervention from you know RHC staff.

Uh what do you say?

Well, I think when a complaint is filed, of course, we're going to follow up with the tenant and discuss what is actually happening, and then um educate the tenant from whatever it is that he feels is an issue, whether that needs to be categorized as harassment, retaliation, or totally something else.

Okay, okay, that reassures me, you know, about you know, this the process that it I think it's it can be an effective one.

Um the most important thing I think this brings through is I really like the example that the idea that we have examples of specific things that can happen so that I mean we can I mean you know many the idea of taking something to court is just you know so mind-blowing for so many people, right?

That I mean, you know, they you know, I mean, like they wouldn't even envision taking a step toward it, you know, knowing how much they know and and how tough it is to get through, you know, court action.

And so I think the value of this is is that if we codify something, you know, in these uh regulations, I mean it makes it more accessible to a person to reason through whether or not he has a case to go to court, and it also opens it up for either staff or mediation or somebody that they can talk to ahead of time before they have to take that big plunge.

And that's that's really what I see happening here as a very good thing, and that's why I want to in general support this.

Beyond that, I mean, I'm gonna call out, you know, some specific ones.

In particular, I mean, you know, I was really happy to see the statement that if a rental units vacancy caused by a violation of the CSFRA or MHRSO, or its regulations can only be re-rented at the lawful rent in effective time of the vacancy.

Because I mean that makes it very clear that you know, I mean, um, that no one can, you know, try to use slight of hand, you know, in order to get a rent increase, you know, by getting a new tenant.

So I mean, having that said explicitly is is of great value.

And the other thing I think that is also of great value is the statement you said protection is provided by CSFRAMHRSO or its regulations cannot be waived by the tenant in any written oral agreement or in any other type of agreement, such as settlement agreement.

And why I think that's key is because, you know, so many times these days, you know, you know, even online, right?

You know, they they put up several pages of stuff and and it says, you know, I mean, like, have you read all this and check?

Okay, and you know, in reality, we all legally should have read all of that stuff.

But I mean, this ensures that somebody can't put something in a lease that that I mean, you know, somebody might check off and wave, you know, and and you know, I I wish everybody, you know, when they can it came time to release, because a lease is like really important, that they would actually, you know, read all of it and even understand all of it, okay, before they sign the lease.

But I think the common practices is that people looking at it I want to rent this apartment, and here's the lease, and if I don't sign it, I don't get the apartment, okay.

And so, you know, they just figure like maybe there's no point in reading it.

So this kind of language is very, very important too.

And so I want to thank you for that as well.

But yeah, in general, I'm just saying that, you know, I think the key thing is to make it clear to people by common examples that cover the vast majority of cases of what this could be.

You know, really helps people understand, and it also helps them get back to um you know getting contact with the people that they need before they go to court okay to understand do they really have a case and is there something else they can do before going to court so yeah those are my comments.

So understanding that what we're talking about is creating regulation that is not under the rental housing committee quasi judicial status but we're talking about a uh traditional court process of adjudication I don't understand then then it sounds like then the the the practical effect of this proposed regulation is to would be to provide guidance to look down the list and see does the city of Mountain View believe that you have a case you're not yet I also think it's an educational document.

Yes.

It is a um document that we can use to guide tenants and landlords when they have questions.

And so the main purpose of it of this is to prevent harassment and retaliation from happening so that that's what we hope is the major effect of these regulations.

Okay.

Then what I'm struggling with then is that I'm looking at the at the California Civil Code or several sections of it on current anti-harassment rules and I see that there is a difference the the proposal for for the city of Mountain View enumerates many examples whereas the California Civil Code has more general high level statements but that's what a court of law is for in a court you you bring your claim and through the legal process that claim is either validated or invalidated.

So this I'm I'm trying to it feels to me like this is a very heavy-handed process merely for education.

This is actually not about waiving rights uh because I I did check and it is it is already illegal it it it is simply invalid to have a lease that that waives these rights uh that would not be enforceable if the landlord said well you know tenant you you signed this hundred page lease that you didn't care about because you were trying to get an apartment you're so desperate for housing you know I got you no uh that would be invalidated so I would think that if if if we could if if if reasonable people could agree that we could agree that um there's a whole bunch of things which are not good like for example I'm just gonna pick out one I read you can't effectively like sexually uh assault or or harass the tenant I mean goodness I I think we would all agree that that is not appropriate right I mean so we don't need legislation or statute to make a list of really bad things that people shouldn't do and that and then hold on and then the uh staff when someone comes in and says I have a problem with my landlord I mean look at the things they they did to me like yeah I mean we can look at the California statute and and and and look at this all of look at these uh terms and say yeah you you probably have a strong case but we're not attorneys we can't we're not gonna represent you in court but there are these legal resources in in the community that could help you that that seems doable today that there's nothing preventing that and so I'm struggling to understand since we're not defining something that's going to be acted on by a hearing officer or the rental housing committee we're talking about a court of law a court of law already has a process to I hope validate that sexual assault is a very serious form of harassment.

So what is the actual effect here?

If I might um so I will I'll start with um retaliation and harassment cases um are extremely difficult for tenants to prevail on specifically because oftentimes the courts say there's no specific guidance that what this item is retaliation or harassment.

So there's there's not really anything for tenants to hang their hat on and say look it is because the retaliation the state retaliation laws are written so broadly and so not specifically that oftentimes it is difficult for tenants to prove that.

So this does provide guidance that a tenant can share with a court um in making its decision.

Another thing that this does as well that state law does not do is that the regulations provide for a certain number or certain amount of damages um for tenants and that is oftentimes you know a way to prevent harassment from happening if someone is looking at oh wow I could be in a lot of trouble monetarily if I do one of these things um versus it's not so clear in state law what those necessarily are um and then you know I think we talked about this at the study session but uh state law actually does not define harassment it defines only retaliation um so it only talks about a scenario where a tenant has exercised their right and then their landlord retaliates against them.

It doesn't talk about a scenario where the landlord's motive for instance is merely I want to charge a higher rent for this unit and so I'm gonna make my tenant's life really difficult in order to get them out of this unit.

So that is you know another thing that state law really doesn't address that this is intended to explain and define.

So I would say that those are additional functions besides just like education that the that adopting local harassment and retaliation rules is intended to do.

And then the last thing is a state law talks about exercising your rights under state law it does not talk about exercising your rights under the CSFRA and then your landlord taking some adverse action against you.

So you know it does also add that and clarify that for the purposes of the CRA CSFRA if I do XY and Z under the CSFRA then and then my landlord takes a certain adverse action against me that constitutes retaliation under the CSFRA or the MHRSO.

Yeah can I also add that this does clarify that is also an affirmative defense to an eviction which is really important when you're in the eviction court to have that specified.

Yeah and I'm I'm trying to parse this in real time and so I'm I may not be doing the best job but I mean like for example I'm I'm just reading this in um 1942.5 whatever whatever I'm looking at here um you know causing the lessee to quit involuntarily right so if the lesser retaliates become etc etc so quitting involuntarily right so basically forcing the try forcing the uh tenant out by um adverse actions, right and and I I'm just trying to process how that would not be the basis for a court to find in favor of the tenant plaintiff if the landlord is trying to for i i i is forcing them out to raise the rent and they're and they're doing taking some action, yeah.

Go ahead.

That section you're talking about starts off though by saying if the lesser retaliates the t against the lessee because of the exercise of their rights by causing the lessee to involuntarily to quit involuntarily, right?

So it's only after the tenant has exercised some sort of right, not just because they're merely existing in their unit and their landlord wants to get them out or doesn't like them or whatever it is.

Uh it's only after they have actually exercised a right under state law, such as one of the example that's in there, um, you know, complaining about tenant ability to uh an appropriate agency.

So they've complained to some state agency about, or even local agency about habitability issues, and then their landlord causes them to quit involuntarily.

But what if they're just they haven't done that?

They haven't exercised any sort of right.

They're just living in their unit, and their landlord is like, I don't I can't make money based on the fact that your unit is rent controlled, so I just want to get you out.

So I'm gonna do everything in my power to cause you to quit involuntarily, and even the even the phrase cause the lessee to quit involuntarily, you know, what are the sorts of behaviors, harassing behaviors in which a landlord engages in order to cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, right?

Because a landlord in some scenarios, landlords, and this goes back to education, but also to clarifying for a court or providing guidance to a court, a landlord might think that the behavior that they're engaging in is perfectly appropriate, um, because they simply don't know the laws or they don't know, you know, what is okay, and so defining that and having a place where if they come to staff, where the tenant comes to staff, staff can say, no, what you're doing is actually the type of behavior, the type of harassing behavior that we have seen that will result in your tenant leaving their unit um, you know, involuntarily.

Yeah, if I can just follow up on a couple things there, because I think you you raised a couple of of good points with this specific example.

So one is the which we've talked about a moment ago, the the guidance of what of what is what is probably harassment or retaliation, and that's where we get into the education component, which may be achieved through other means, because I would imagine if I if I had a concern and I went to an attorney to say, hey, um I think I'm not being treated well, do you think I have a case?

The attorney would be able to look through the history of case law references and say, Well, are they doing XY or Z to you?

If they are, then I think you have a case.

So in a our staff could do something similar to that, but even though not being attorneys, I would imagine the second point is around, so yeah, in in this uh in this civil code here, complaint to an appropriate agency.

So in the case, let's say, for example, that the rental housing committee did approve some type of regulation as being proposed, would the would our staff in effect be that the uh a substitute or a or a local appropriate agency.

I think the answer is yes, you you're the agency, right?

In that case.

Well, this specifically talks only about tenantability of the unit, which is habitability issues, so it's going to be the RHC, it's gonna be, you know, this would this would cover the petition process, um, because you're making a complaint to the RHC, you're filing a petition.

Yeah, and maybe maybe my vocabulary wasn't wasn't right.

What I was saying is that in in this particular statute 1942.5, there is a like let's say the trigger is making a complaint to the government some some government representative you're making a I'm making a complaint to the government so if we were to uh approve something like what we're talking about here our staff here is the government is that true or is that not a good comparison yes but it it that section is specifically limited to complaints about tenantability not about nothing about harassment anything else that's it's habitability issues okay so have ability versus harassment right okay thank you.

And wouldn't we also say uh for retaliation that if you're feel like you're getting retaliated because you file a petition that is more like a local law and not under state law.

Right.

Yes yeah you know like I said before it there are some specifics about the rights that a tenant has under the CSFRA that are not necessarily covered by 1942 point five because it talks about exercising their rights under state law it says this chapter um which refers to the civil code chapter that we're that we're in um and not CSFRA and so you know defining that but I and you know committee member bulles you you make a good point that some of this is re- I mean things like sexual harassment I think we are clear on I think there are certain other behaviors that are less clear like for instance sending your tenant tons of text messages after they've after you've told you know they've told you I don't want you to communicate with me by text message at 10 p.m.

You know that is harassing behavior and that's that's not clearly you know I think a lot of people might not because of cultural norms and things like that might not necessarily think that that is harassing behavior.

And so it's defining those sorts of things that will help landlords and tenants understand their relationship, their responsibilities and their rights.

Well that'd be all member bulge yeah member Brown.

Thank you chair uh this this is the kind of thing that I really appreciate that we can do is serve as a resource to landlords and tenants to be able to collate all the information from state law match it to the local things and be able to have a concrete resource just because someone can look up each word in a dictionary doesn't mean it's not nice to have a glossary of terms that are like helpful in a given scenario or like a case.

So all respect to member status off I would like to disagree with most of the the mine item changes for the wording because I do think the bad faith and it does encompass a lot of the things in there and that oh I backed up.

Oh yeah no and well like things like excessive I feel like excessive implies that there is a reasonable thing.

So saying excessive in context is redundant because it implies the context that would mean there is a not excessive form of it.

Also the offensive language I think the the reference in the text to language is intended to cause like fear or harm uh fear provoke and harmful behavior is the the defensible way to place any speech and that otherwise just declaring something offensive is difficult to defend because a lot of things I say are offensive to someone.

Uh oh oh please I mean offensive language I that's uh that doesn't that like using swear words repetitively that some people get very offended and it's it feels like harassment and it's just somebody using a lot of expletives so we have no problem in uh in tweaking the language here and there I wrote everything down that uh was um set and discussed here tonight so we have no problem tweaking the language in certain ways that was uh brought up in front of us.

Oh yeah no I I know I I was objecting to tweaking the language yeah because I liked I like the cleanliness of the existing language I do think this is this is something that has come up uh to me from tenants and people in the city before who are concerned with harassment and think who have assume that they're being harassed and want to know what we can do about it and having a resource to be able to point them to to say if it is one of these things definitely you should reach out if it's not one of these things still reach out because that's why we have the city staff that are dedicated to helping tenants but being able to have this as a shorthand is something that we can point landlords or tenants to I feel like is going to be fantastic and uh also it something that would save a court a lot of time in trying to figure out was someone informed or did they have the information available to them to know in advance that the behavior that they were doing could constitute harassment in this context.

I think it's going to be very helpful so thank you.

Member Keating Thank you thanks to my fellow committee members I have multiple comments um so when I guess I'll start with a question so harassment how is that not uh loss of quiet enjoyment and then how is that not a habitability petition there may be instances that it could be but generally um it is not considered something that is subject to a petition based on the case law.

Thank you.

My next comment was you know inspired by uh committee member Balsch saying you know of course sexual harass or sexual assault is you know inappropriate and wrong and all these things but it can be subtle and I think it's wonderful to have a way to record and then it has to go to the landlord to say when you do this it doesn't work for me.

I feel harassed I feel uh whatever and you know to give a sample sentence looking good honey I mean that is not always harassment but day after day in certain contexts that could be harassment and I think it will be appropriate and it could be through the extent of someone wanting to leave their rent controlled unit and that would be a shame and I think that allowing documentation of what is reducing the enjoyment of their unit for the tenant is a wonderful thing that we can give um you know related to that if this language is already in the document thank you and if it's not I'd just like to suggest it um that one of the things that could be considered harassment would be unwelcome unwelcome or hostile comments.

And you know to cover my previous example and maybe also you know the text messages at night would be pretty unwelcome.

Maybe it should say unwelcome communications.

So one thing I'm wondering about is I know I read somewhere in this about the uh idea of uh tenant bad faith is that in the document or was that just in the staff report is that in the draft regulations.

It is in the draft regulations.

It is namely um provides that if a landlord wins um after a tenant has filed a lawsuit against them and shows that the tenant, you know, brought the lawsuit in bad faith, then they can recover their attorneys's fees um from the tenant because the tenant has brought this in bad faith, um, and they lost because of that reason, um, their case against their landlord.

Thank you.

And thanks to committee member Hislop.

Uh, I'm thinking of specific instances of tenants who might, you know, engage in such behavior.

And um, you know, I think a preponderance of uh submitting uh this form to document uh I'm being harassed would be a helpful in a sense to the landlord to say, you know, isn't this ridiculous?

And to have, you know, in a sense, they would the tenant would be uh indicting themselves as an inappropriate, you know, behavior tenant.

Um so I'm also thinking of one of the appeals we had that involved cameras and tenant to tenant difficulties that the landlord didn't mediate, and so I'm wondering if somewhere in this, and maybe it's not even in the document, but is just to remind the landlord of their responsibility to intervene when a tenant is harassing another tenant.

Um so I'm not sure where that fits, but it seems relevant to this discussion.

And oh, I wonder if we could add language that says, you know, where we identify harassment or we identify um retaliation, if we could have maybe it's in there already.

Language that says includes but is not limited to because there will be something that we don't think of that will definitely fit.

Yes, it does both both the retaliation and harassment sections talk about this being a non-exhaustive list, and so they're thank you.

I think I'm almost done, but I have one more comment.

Um I mean, I too um not terribly concerned by the possible overuse of this process, and I think there's value in the formality of submitting a form, and that form going uh to the landlord, and um I think that might get some good results from the landlord who doesn't like things so well documented and thinks they're flying under the radar with being a little sketchy.

Um and then I also just wanted to point out that tonight we're talking about, and when it comes back to us, we will pass, presumably, um, this ordinance, this regular ordinance or regulation regulation, thank you adopt it, okay.

But then that's not the end of the story.

Then there's an FAQ that goes on the website that summarizes it that's much more friendly and uh that we can tweak.

And so I think we're heading towards a good result when I think about the whole process.

Thank you.

My turn.

I will begin with a very hypothetical question, maybe a little premature, about regarding the vacancy control section in case of a situation where a person was uh unlawfully vacated their unit and another person comes in.

Can the person come in?

If they had a different rent set, can they file a petition on that as being unlawful rent?

And is that a way that the RHC actually can't?

Yeah, uh that's an unlawful rent, it's under state law as well.

Yeah, but wouldn't that require the hearing officer to make a determination about that if it did not go to court or is that just it can only be done?

Uh they may have to bring in the court proceedings.

Okay, sounds fine.

Just checking.

Um, so yeah, I'll give my broad stance.

I believe the it is true that we're not really creating a new cause of action, right?

We are in the state in a sense re restating the protections under state law as well as resetting the protections on the discussive array.

We're just compiling it into a single location.

And M HRSO does not forget the other one.

Um we're here to kind of collate them for the purposes of educating both tenant and landlord, what we expected them to do, the given courts and us in general.

We don't like we don't like vagueness.

We want things to be more concrete, more defensible, and more actionable.

Um notes that the complaint procedure, our staff does not make any determinations on it.

We pretty much just passively accept it, correct?

Yeah, so that means we don't we don't really act.

We maybe we can refer them to mediation, maybe we can refer them for other reasons, but at the end of the day, we just accept it.

It's pretty much used as a notice requirement because like everything else we do with the CSFRA, we provide notice, even though just technically speaking, if you're following the other state laws without CSFA, you could choose to sue immediately.

You know, some tenants have done that.

Um but by opting into this complaint process, we do give the ability for landlord to react for a period of time, you know, make adjustments before if it ever comes up into a court of law.

Um because again, CSFRA is meant to try to harmonize that kind of relationship between the two sides rather than, you know, push things further.

Um I do like the fact that as kind of the carrot side of that things, we do provide a set of minimum damages, as well as maximum in the sense to at least give an incentives for people to opt into the process, and uh that that is I believe all my comments at the point.

A member Waltram.

Thank you.

So I have one comment and then and and then a question.

Um, the comment is I'm I'm continuing to hear dissonant language, multiple committee members are talking about documents in education, but we're we're actually talking about a regulation.

And I don't consider a regulation to be merely a document or education, I consider it to be an attempt at law at setting a and and in fact it is.

It is it is basically uh talking about setting up a uh the basis for the court to operate.

So I I really don't think we should be using um casual terms like document or education when this is regulation because they they have much different weight.

Documents and education do not require regulation.

That can be done in many ways.

Um okay, that's my comment.

My question is this is that so I understand the distinction of harassment and retaliation, or I think I understand it anyway.

I'm sure there's a technical thing.

So the thing which is really hard for me to understand, when I search for California anti-harassment for tenants, first of all, voluminous results come up, public sector and private sector, and and let me tell you what I mean because I am not naive.

I know that there's hyperbole, I know that there's marketing, I know that there is manipulation in advertising.

So law firms, you know, there are lots of examples of law firms who basically give all sorts of information referencing all the codes that we've talked about, 1940.2 and the others, they're all here, and they all have the same basic information.

You know, yes, harassment is illegal, and basically hire us and we're gonna and we're gonna help you fight that guy, right?

So every law firm is saying that harassment is illegal in California.

We will we will we will uh fight your case, but I'm not naive.

I realize that they're trying to make a buck like we all are, and they're and they're basically using this as a way to collect uh people that they can you know use for their business as they're right.

I don't mean anything negative about that.

Okay, but now let's go to government.

Government is not making money off of people having lawsuits, I don't believe.

So the association of Bay Area governments, California State, a civil rights department, they state explicitly anti-harassment.

Uh, multiple locations, it is very easy to find.

So I'm I'm trying to understand what nuance what legal nuance am I missing?

I I I understand the concept that the current state statute has language which is general, and the proposal is to be more specific.

I I totally understand that.

But again, courts routinely, my understanding is their part of their job is to find does a particular example fall under a statute.

That's a regular part of the process.

So how is it I I'm not understanding the not to forget the law firms, because they're just trying to make business.

I get it, but the but the state agencies are being loud and clear that tenant harassment is illegal.

Where what is what is what is the disconnect there?

Or do we not know?

Maybe this is an answer.

No, we did we okay.

I mean, I think Nas is gonna answer, don't worry.

Thank you.

Okay.

I mean, I was actually going to ask a question of like what what do you know, what are you pulling up that says that harassment is.

Sure.

I mean, so just a couple.

I've seen so many searches, a couple of examples.

So calig department, state of California housing.

So Cal Civil Rights, CA gov housing.

California law protects individuals from illegal discrimination harassment by housing dwellers based on certain protected characteristics.

Uh whether or not someone is actually perceived.

The law also protects against discrimination harassment based on more than one or or intersecting characteristics.

Um all sorts of things.

There, that's that's an example.

Then there's just limited to discrimination.

In that particular that's the only instance that the CRD, but it's just harassment though.

Harassment based on discrimination.

Yes.

That the civil rights division has limited jurisdiction, and it is based on discrimination based on uh being a member of a protected class.

Okay, understood.

Uh so then there is a uh the association of Bay Area governments has a PDF on their website from September 2025, so within a month.

September 24th, 2025, so 30 days ago, and it says.

Yeah, that's it.

So 1940.2 prohibits a landowner from using force, willful threats, menacing conduct to influence a tenant to vacate a dwelling.

The law also prohibits a landlord from threatening to disclose information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, unless otherwise required by federal law.

Um there's something that there's a similar uh paragraph below for 1942.5.

There's um so those are that's an example.

I'm just trying to understand what the Association of Bay Area Government site is actually recommending that local governments adopt a tenant anti-harassment protections because the state laws don't go far enough.

It is part of their sort of package of um good government practices that they recommend.

Right.

I think they may even have a model ordinance, although Nas would know better.

If they do, I drafted it.

Yes, so it is quite literally almost it's very similar to the regulations that you all have, except that yours is tailored to the fact that you have the CSFRA and the MHRSO, right?

So this is part of um so California law requires affirmatively furthering fair housing, it's part of the housing elements, and part of uh cities getting their housing elements approved.

A lot of cities have included programs to include tenant protections to uh deter displacement and affirmatively further fair housing.

So ABAG has put together a packet of sample provisions that local government can adopt, and that includes a local anti-harassment ordinance.

So the the uh pivotal point then is that they're saying that the civil code already prevents it, but it's non-it isn't they're saying it's not specific enough, and so they recommend cities get more specific because even though it's already against the law for whatever legal reason, it's not adequately enforced.

Right.

I mean, what they're saying reading from their website is local anti harassment ordinances can reduce displacement pressures and informal evictions by clarifying what constitutes harassment and retaliation and empowering tenants to stop it.

Yeah, and that document that you're specifically looking at under how can jurisdictions implement programs that go beyond state law.

It says state law lacks specific language defining harassing behavior, which can make violations difficult to prove in court.

So, you know, the sentence before what Karen said.

So that and that is, you know, as we mentioned one of the policy decisions to adopt something that is more specific that helps in court, but also even hopes to prevent these things by making it clear to both landlords and tenants what their rights and responsibilities are.

I will grant Emily a direct response.

I just wanted to provide uh an example to a committee member Balch.

Uh there's anti-discrip there's anti-discrimination laws or harassment laws on with respect to employment and you know, generally speaking.

I still have to sign at the City of San Jose like the policy.

We have a policy manual that lists out all the examples and what everything, you know, what can constitute harassment, and and it goes even further.

And we have to sign that, we have to do trainings every two years.

But it's it's it's caught.

I mean, it's like a r our regulations for being employees of the city.

So it there's some analogy there.

Like even though there's laws on the books, they still gotta flush it out a little more so people understand.

All right, moving on to member Brown.

Thank you, Chair.

This is a good find.

Uh I think there's something we should probably link to in our webpage if we do adopt this.

Uh I forgot in my earlier comments that I also wanted to voice support for the complaint process to have a formal thing.

Uh just I because right now any tenant could email the housing department with their complaints in any way, and that does become a public record because they're communicating with uh the city.

And so there already is a process that is undefined of just emailing your complaints to the city and landlords, but having some guidance there and a formal thing that helps us to parse it and add structure, I think is gonna be nice.

Yeah, exactly.

So they they can already do that.

So having having a form for it would be simpler.

You now have a defined structure.

So it's not just yeah, a three paragraph long or sixteen paragraph long email about how you've been aggrieved in all these ways that you send every day because no one's listening to you.

So thank you all for your feedback.

Um I we heard all the proposed maybe language tweaks.

Um the only thing I want to have feedback on is do we want the complaint process or not?

I I need to maybe a straw vote or something.

Well, first we'll go with EDA, who's last in the queue, and then we can go into the discussion with a strapple.

So if I'm living in a uh fully exempt unit, do I not get to file a complaint?

Correct.

Thank you.

We will still talk to the tenant, but uh we have to then refer them to the general resources, not specific to the CFRE or the MHR as well.

Yeah, that's a reminder that you know the regulations we're doing tonight are only done under the power of the CSFR and MHR.

So there are powers that council can take, but we're not counsel.

Okay, so uh direction of staff, we are going to make some direction.

Actually, before that, can staff currently summarize what has been staff's uh uh summary of what direction has been so far.

Um I like to confirm uh from what I heard is the majority at least wants to move forward with the regulations, maybe some word tweaking, and I would like to get more clarification if the complaint part needs to stay in here.

All right, we can do that.

Um that's okay.

For now, we will limit discussion to any discussion regarding the complaint process, but I am open to a straw motion if anyone wants to make a straw motion.

Uh member Satz is up.

I'm I've listened to my fellow committee members, and I see I see the the advantages and the positives from the complaint process.

So I just want there to be some balance and some consideration for unintended consequences, but I think I raised those that there could be a response that there's some time limit to how long these are kept on file.

So just want to share that member Brown.

Okay, so for straw poll, I'd move that we do include the complaint process in any.

Oh sorry, step the gun.

I would like to move that we do bring back regulations to adopt at a future meeting.

I think we can we can skip that particular motion again.

Focus can we?

What just focus on the complaint right now?

I think I heard the majority at least in favor of uh moving forward with uh adopting regulations, but please take a strong word if you like straw poll and moving ahead with the regulations.

Raise hands if I okay, raise hands if nay.

Okay, raise hands if abstain, seeing none.

Okay, so that straw poll passes.

Oh right.

Okay, now I'd like to include within that the complaint process as defined in the proposed draft regulations.

All right, any discussion on that straw poll.

Hi, Shercox.

No, I mean, I I listened to what uh committee member Stats Hisop said, and I do think that additional clarity, okay, in terms of like when you make the complaint, I mean, you know, that it would say explicitly the landlord would have the opportunity to respond.

And I don't understand why she wants these documents to disappear after a certain point because I mean I think that there's some value, you know, statistically at least, with respect to a particular landlord, if there's a recurrent behavior going on, or just in the city in general, so that we can I, you know, you can use those statistics to motivate whether or not we have a future study session item about a recurring problem.

And if you disappear the stuff, I mean you lose that.

So maybe I'm missing the point, but I'm I don't see why disappearing.

Sure.

Um really I'm t I have I'm trying to get into the head of how landlords make take this.

And it I think some people just wouldn't want what if I had one begrudged tenant and they said all these terrible things about me, and that's gonna live in the city files forever.

Um these are just things that what I'm reading through that struck me.

That doesn't mean I have to have that.

They're just questions I had, and I could, you know, I see your point too.

But that was really the reason was that, you know, thinking thinking about that those one-off things, but I can see for a long time landlord.

Okay.

I should I respond to that or you want to meet waiting?

Actually, can I that's a question of counsel?

Uh under the public records act, is it are we allowed to dispose of records and yeah?

I mean, I assume the city has records retention policy, the rent stabilization division could have a records retention policy specific to these complaints.

Thank you.

I also wanted to add that um we had a similar discussion in the rental housing committee.

We in the beginning when we started up about frivolous petitions being filed, we have not seen any.

So yeah.

Go ahead, but yeah, I'm just wondering.

I mean, I understand the scenario you're talking about, but I mean, you know, I'm just wondering if that could be remedied by having staff like review the complaints as to whether they view them as a nuisance.

And you know, I mean, like, you know, and then kind of like when we ask for, we try to decide whether or not something's a persistent problem, you know.

I mean, if if it looks like it's an, you know, these things have been given up as nuisance complaints that they be excluded from the data.

I mean, you know, it would be a judgment, but I mean, I really just see the value of trying to uh look at trends over time, okay, and with respect to particular landlords, we have some landlords that own like large percentages of units within this city, okay.

And so I mean, uh, that can be a useful thing.

I mean, yeah, can I just say I don't think that staff can make a judgment call on the complaints without doing an investigation, which is explicitly not part of the these regulations.

Um, I mean, uh what I could suggest is that staff can go back and look at a reasonable time duration for records retention for these specific types of materials if there's a concern that they would, you know, forever haunt a landlord.

So I was also going to suggest another thing that the committee might consider, um, you know, if if it's just a concern about someone filing this on a weekly basis is you certainly can set a limitation.

You can, you know, as you do with petitions, like you can't file a petition on the same topic within six months or whatever it is, and you could certainly do that here and say, like, you know, you can't file a petition on this.

I mean, you can't file this complaint if it's on the same topic within three months, like 90 days or something like that, um, unless uh yeah, or and if you do, then you know that just it will not be retained by staff or um when the records are sent to the landlord or anything like that.

Is that my Sherk Cox?

All right, member Keating.

So, you know, being a public document and being able to be requested, I think they're different ways of handling that.

Like, I one of the things when I would describe as self-serve, like right now, is my unit covered under the CSFRA?

I don't have to call staff.

I can look up my unit or anybody's unit, and I get the answer of uh, you know, is it or is it not covered under the CSFRA?

And I could see a quick level of um of summary information um saying, you know, at this property uh does this landlord you know have any complaints, and um and just to give a count.

And you know, that wouldn't be, you know, there would still be public records, you could still, you know, do a request and get the detail of the records, but self-serve to just see how many complaints.

And if we were going to do that, um I think we should also do how many unique individuals complained, because that might, you know, if there were 40 complaints when there was one individual, that might ease your mind a bit.

Um as far as limiting, I don't oppose that.

Um if a landlord is behaving poorly repeatedly, I wonder if we shouldn't allow that to be as documented as the uh the tenant would choose to do.

Um, yeah, I mean on on the point of uh uh retention, I mean it depends what the goal is.

Uh I think uh uh Vice Chairman Cox uh the it's a it's a valid desire uh you've articulated for statistics, um, retention is not all or nothing.

You could basically uh expunge the uh details of the of the document, but still track the uh whether the landlord has something against them.

So I think depending on the stats desired, the retention policy could be adjusted.

Um, so what is the goal, and then the retention could be figured out.

There is a really interesting point about retention.

One of one of my ongoing uh disagreements with the CSFRA is the lack of of the concept of statute of of limitations.

I've brought that up in many time many many times when it gets to rent rollbacks.

There's just no way to undo that.

You know, in let's let's look at uh bankruptcy filings.

Typically, uh you uh agencies will only go back 10 years.

At some point, there's a reset in society, right?

Except like murder where it's life prison.

Basically, our my understanding of our of our government and judicial system is that at some point there's a reset, right?

We all get an opportunity to uh restart.

Um years is a number that sticks in my mind from a bankruptcy standpoint.

I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but something on that order.

So uh if we do uh it seems like some kind of retention policy is necessary.

It's it it is conceptually mainstream across all aspects of society and government and uh law, as I can see as a layperson.

Um it's interesting though that this point about retention, all the commentary is about whether whether it's you know good for the tenant or not.

I mean, it could be good for the landlord having uh the the landlord having having a paper trail to go back to to defend themselves in court, um, right, is a real issue.

And so it is worth noting that there's a really strong bias in this conversation that it's always the landlord who's the bad guy, and that it's the tenant who's always going to benefit from this.

And there are many examples where either party is gonna benefit by having a paper trail.

So I don't actually view it, I don't view retention as as good or bad biasing for landlord or tenant.

I think it is it is a uh it it is an objective data source, and and people could look at it and make make a determination if it is frivolous or not, because I certainly agree with what with what uh counsel said that certainly we can't put staff in the position of making a judgment on whether something is valid or not without an investigation, and then not snowballs into a whole you know process and and and cost.

So that seems uh inappropriate.

Um so yeah, I I I think some kind of a retention policy would be important.

I really urge everyone to please not look at everything from the perspective of the evil landlord and the uh sanely tenant.

Uh it's it's um, you know, uh sooner or later everyone gets sued, or sooner or later everyone gets an insurance claim.

Um I remember once talking to a doctor uh and and she was talking about why she has malpractice insurance, and she said, trust me, every single doctor has been sued for malpractice.

So uh yeah, let's not let's not go into the uh good versus evil.

Thank you.

Before I move on to the next speakers, let's remind that the current straw poll, which was still on the floor technically, is just about whether we want to do a complaint based on the complaint procedure as document as right now.

So try to keep your comments to either swaying for or against that proposal.

Member Keating.

I'm not sure I will comply, but I'll be brief.

Um I just wonder if as we consider having a form for uh a complaint form.

Should we have a response form available to landlords?

Uh yes, so on the direct question, I mean, do I like what is been written up in the staff report so far about what uh constitutes the complaint process?

I think more needs to be added on to it.

Um and so I'm just I'll be brief too in terms of additional comments.

I want to also thank committee member Balch for raising some important points in terms of retention policy.

Um what I want to say back to that is is that you know the the examples he gives are good ones, and I'll add another one like one's driving record in terms of how it affects your insurance you know if you got a good driving record for seven years that's as good as forever okay at least in the insurance companies I've talked to and and the point of it is is that but the issue is the retention policy for all of for these things like bankruptcy and other kinds of things it's a matter of years not months okay and so that's why I think you know that's that's the kind of uh time frame we should be thinking of all right member stats up for question would this would the complaint um process be would staff find that helpful sorry could you repeat the question would having this complaint structure process I don't want to say process because nothing really happens with it is would that be helpful to staff I think it would give us an idea of what is playing in the community and give us a better insight on what types of behaviors are out there whether you believe it or not it's just an interesting um almost like a survey maybe for us to understand what is playing out in the survey in the in the community and also right now people have no outlet to kind of put that out on a survey I mean the only option they right now have to file a lawsuit which I think Mr Cox said that is really really really the last resort for a tenant at this point so we felt it was a good good tool to kind of evaluate what is happening in our community.

Member Brown thank you chair I would like to call the question.

All right, raise hands if you would like to move ahead with the staff proposal for the complaint process raise hands for I raise hands for no raise hands from stand okay so that's a majority of the committee is there any is there any further direction your staff would like thank you now is there any other direction that any members of the committee would like your cox you have something yes I'm trying to understand what just happened so does it mean that we've ended discussion about how to amend or improve the complaint process or okay and it's back to you for approval.

Okay.

So you will have another opportunity if you want to refine all right fair enough.

In that case can staff please summarize what they think our direction is in the big lines um move forward with um providing um regulations for rental housing committee adoption tweak a couple of passages with added language and let's see how we can improve the complaint process.

Can you clarify what you mean by your direction on improve the process we'll just take a look and take in all the comments that we've heard tonight.

Yeah.

Sounds fine any other direction any member of the committee would like to give staff seeing none I'll close item okay go go ahead member Keating.

I'm truly interested in having a self-serve aspect to querying the this um information that's collected I think we will need to do a little bit of research on whether that's appropriate because there might be some due process and public records uh you know privacy issues that we need to consider but if it was only number of complaints at a property, would that be still possibly problemsome?

Um maybe not, but we I think we want to can think about that.

We'll take that suggestion and come back.

All right, a reminder that this is not the only time we're going to be talking about this topic, so every regulation we discuss can be discussed in the future, whether enacted or not.

All right.

Moving on to item seven, committee staff announcements and updates.

I'll hand that back for staff.

Thank you.

Can we make the PowerPoint larger?

That's okay.

I'll read it.

I'll I'll read it.

Okay, thank you.

So we'll next, we'll next talk about.

There we go.

Thank you.

All right.

So we'll talk about upcoming office hours and workshops.

And before I get into that, I would like to mention as committee member Hislop reminded me that we did have the wonderful 50th anniversary of the Mountain View mediation program last Thursday.

Um we had a really nice ceremony celebration uh at City Hall, and there was a proclamation that the week of October 13th will be um mediation week for the City of Mountain V, so it's very exciting.

All right, now back to regular business.

Uh we continue to do our virtual office hours every Tuesday from 10 a.m.

to noon.

Uh those are online only at the link here on the screen.

Um we did have a workshop today at the senior center.

It was rent stabilization 101.

We held that after their lunch hour, and that was nice.

Um, and coming up in November, we have a couple workshops as well.

On the 18th at 2 p.m., we have a landlord virtual workshop about how to comply with tenant eviction protections in Mountain View.

And then in December, we are focusing on the utility um adjustment petitions as December will be the next upcoming deadline.

So on the 9th, we have a tenant focused workshop at 6 30, which will be virtual.

And on December 11th at 2 p.m.

We have a landlord focused virtual workshop.

Any questions or comments from committee members?

Okay.

Perfect.

All right, and then we continue to happy birthday.

Yeah, thank you.

Happy birthday.

Happy birthday.

Bless you.

All right, so we do still have our landlord help center every Thursday from 2 to 3 p.m.

at our office and online where any landlord can come and get uh assistance with any rent stabilization issues they have.

And we still have our tenant housing help center the first and third Thursdays of the month from 6 to 8 p.m.

Um and we have our partners here as well as city staff.

So we have CSA, Project Sentinel, and CLESPA available for the community.

That concludes 7.1.

All right, moving on to 7.2 expected future agenda items for RT meetings.

Our next agenda item is an appeal hearing on November 20th, 2025.

Are there any additional comments or announcements from community members or staff?

I do have a question for staff, slash a referral, which is that I know that Trayo is up at City Council next meeting, so we would like some notice of what happened at the Treo.

It'll be nice to know what happened.

Seeing no other comments or announcements, I will adjourn this meeting at 8:49 p.m.

The next round of housing committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Thursdays, November 20th at 6 p.m.