Good evening.

Welcome to the February 26, 2026 Rental Housing Committee regular meeting.

This meeting will be called to order at 6 01 p.m.

I will proceed with roll call.

All members are present with the exception of Emily Stad Sislop.

Moving on to item three, consent calendar.

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

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

Public common worker after discussion.

We invite you to submit a speaker card now.

If you'd like to speak on this item or public comment, would any member like to pull an item?

Seeing none.

Oh.

Hi, Chair Cox.

Uh, yes, I just want to make my customary comments on item three point three.

Okay.

And uh, oh.

This is for uh this is just for polling.

We have to do comments for then we can do all right if no one pulls.

Um, and I'll now invite public comments.

In person public comments will be called first.

Seeing none, we'll move on back to this item back for committee action.

Uh, go back to Vice Chair Cox.

All right.

I just wanted to make, as I said, my customary comments on 3.3, the uh rental housing committee report, and um on market conditions.

And I wanted to note that it uh appears that rents.

Um rents on newly constructed units, meaning since the CSSRA has been passed, um, are up and uh up at an annual rate of greater than six percent, which is about twice inflation.

And it seems that that may have had a tendency to pull up on the vacancies as well, which uh I mean make them go down uh another 2% to 8.5%.

So it means that the vacancies are getting filled and uh at higher rental rates.

Um on rent control departments, uh, it's pretty close to being stable with a.3% increase in the vacancies and a slight $25 decrease in the rents.

So one of the things that I did to try to understand the basis for this, I went into the California Department of Finance and checked the population figure estimates for our city over the last 15 years, and they claim that our city grew by 2,978 people last year, which was the highest increase in 15 years.

So that's kind of an interesting thing.

Anyway, that's what I just wanted to mention.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have any comments?

Otherwise, a motion is in order.

Member Brown.

I move to approve all items in the content calendar.

Motion made by member Brown, seconded by Vice Chair Cox.

So, seeing no discussion on the item, we'll go to a vote.

Motion passes unanimously and for the record, Emily Stat Sislop is now in the us with us.

Moving on to item four, oral communications.

We will now open this meeting for oral communications for the public.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda.

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

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

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

Please raise hand on Zoom.

Press star nine on your phone or submit a blue speaker card.

Seeing none, we will now move on to item 5.1.

This agenda item will include in-person interpretation.

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

Staff will detail the hearing process in their presentation.

Before we get started, RC members are required to disclose any communication 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 RHC is to be based on the record presented to the hearing officer.

Information disclosed to an RHC 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, we will now proceed with public comment on agenda item 5.1.

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

Please raise hand or press start on your phone or submit a blue speaker card.

Seeing none, we will now move to agenda item 5.1 appeal of hearing officer's decision regarding petitions number 25262 and C25263.

We start with a staff presentation.

And can I just say before we start, we do have translations, if you can please speak slowly to allow time for translation.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So the purpose of this item is to consider the tentative appeal decision and either accept the tentative appeal decision or modify it with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence in the record to support any changes that are made.

Alright, so just a summary of staff presentation.

I will review the rental housing committee's decision process.

I'll discuss the schedule for the appeal hearing, and then I will do a summary of the petition and the appeal.

So the rental housing committee's options for this appeal are to uh decide the appeal on a closed record, which means based only on the facts and the evidence in the decision written by the hearing officer, an open record, in which case you would follow formal hearing proceed procedures and potentially accept new facts before arriving at a decision.

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

Um, so the rental housing committee for questions of law, such as statutory interpretation, must exercise its independent judgment and for questions of fact must determine whether each appealed element of the hearing officer's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

This does not mean that you re-weigh the evidence or relitigate the issues, and the appeal is still based on the record submitted to the hearing officer, so no new evidence or that was not put forth at the original hearing, maybe put forth on appeal, but that does not mean that you have to come to the same conclusions as the hearing officer.

So staff is not recommending a de novo hearing this evening for this appear appeal.

Not only would it require significant time to prepare, but the existing evidence in the hearing record is sufficient and it demonstrates adequate review and ample opportunities for the parties to have presented the relevant evidence.

So just as a reminder, the petition, uh meaning the issues that were raised by the petitioners in their petition to find the scope of the hearing officer's decision.

And similarly, the issues that were raised by the appellant limit your review on appeal, your scope of review.

So you don't need to go outside or consider additional questions beyond those that are raised by the appellant in this case.

So the schedule for the appeal hearing in this case, the appellant is the landlord.

They will start off with a 10-minute presentation.

In this case, it's uh double the time to allow for translation, so up to 20 minutes, followed by similarly 20 minutes for uh the petitioners or the respondent tenants in this case, because they also require translation, followed by 10 minutes each for rebuttal for the parties.

Following their presentations, the RHC can ask questions to staff, followed by questions for I should say appellant landlord and the respondent tenant, and then finally conclude with uh deliberations and your decision.

Um, so just a before I get to the appeal elements, I'll uh note that this uh appeal included two petitions.

The first is um for this case involved two petitions.

The first is for unlawful rent, based on the based on two things the uh landlord's failure to register the property in 2021 and 2020 2022, as well as the uh landlord's unlawful addition of a fee for that is comprised of a lateral fee, renter's insurance, and service fee.

Um, and the second uh petition raised both habitability uh issues as well as decreases in housing services, and there were a number of those, um, but the issues on appeal do touch on both of those, so uh it's worth mentioning that it does uh go to both aspects of the petitioners' uh original petitions.

So on appeal, um, the landlord uh raises two issues.

The first is that the hearing officer erred or abused her discretion in holding that the respondent landlord in that case uh was liable for unlawful rents resulting from the prior owner's failure to register the property in 2021 and 2022, and the second issue is that the hearing officer aired or abused her discretion by concluding that petitioners were entitled to a rent reduction for the mold and moisture conditions in the affected unit, um, because uh the landlord took um timely steps to correct the issue.

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

Um, so the hearing officer did not err by concluding that the landlord was liable for the predecessor's substantial noncompliance with the CSFRA.

Um, the language of the CSFRA expressly imposes liability on landlords for violations that started with a prior owner and continued with the landlord uh when the landlord assumed ownership.

Um, so that was not an error in statutory interpretation or application by the hearing officer.

In addition, the hearing officer did not err or abuse her discretion in holding that the landlord was liable for moisture and mold conditions in the affected unit.

Um, the hearing record clearly reflects significant delays of between 14 and 30 months in correcting the moisture and mold conditions throughout the various rooms in the unit, and those delays are not reasonable and are not excused by any of the factors that were identified by the landlord, such as the scope of the issue or um you know the um lack of funds or um any of the other or weather delays, um, any of the other explanations that are provided by the landlord.

Um, so after the tentative was issued, um, the appellant landlord did submit a reply.

Um, in the reply, the landlord uh to summarize um raised the following facts and additional issues.

First, that the property was registered on December 11th, 2022, by the property management company that was hired by the landlord, not the predecessor in interest, but the one who is the current owner.

And therefore, you know, they did come into substantial compliance with the CSFRA at the time that the 2022 rent increase was imposed.

The second issue that's raised is that the closet door was not a habitability issue, and also that petitioners were responsible for breaking said doors.

The third is that larger trash bins were eventually replaced or put back.

And that the con that the landlord's contractor observed petitioner dumping landscape debris into the larger bins, and that was part of the reason why they moved to smaller bins for the period of time that they did.

And then finally, that the landlord should not be liable for the moisture and mold because there were six people living in the affected unit, which exceeds the state occupancy limits.

So the additional facts and issues raised by the appellant's reply do not change staff recommend staff's recommendation as far as the tenant goes.

Generally, several of the arguments that are raised in the reply and the information provided by appellant in the reply should have been raised at the hearing.

For instance, if they believe that the petitioners had some culpability in any of these issues, then they should have raised that at the hearing and provided evidence of that at the hearing, but did not do so.

So that does not change the analysis that based on the record that was before the hearing officer at the hearing officer at the hearing, she did not error or abuse her discretion and her findings of fact and law were supported by substantial evidence.

Even if the appellant had presented evidence to the hearing officer to show that the property was registered on December December 11th, 2022, the property was still out of compliance at the time that the November 1st, 2022 rent increase was both noticed back in October of 2022 and as at the time that it went into effect.

So it was still invalid, it could not have been issued until after they came into compliance with the CSFRA.

In addition, um both state landlord tenant law and the CSFRA follow section 503B of the Uniform Housing Code for occupancy limits, not the two plus one rule, which for those who don't know means that you take the number of bedrooms, you multiply by two, and then you add one person to that.

So in a two-bedroom, based on that limit, you could have a max of five people.

However, under the uniform housing code, the occupancy limit is calculated differently based on square footage, and you know, none of that evidence was provided at the hearing, so there's no way to determine if they did in fact exceed the occupancy limits, and moreover, even if the six people in the two bedroom did exceed the occupancy limits, the landlord has not demonstrated any causation between the number of occupants and the moisture and mold conditions in the unit.

Finally, any arguments regarding the broken closet door and the trash bins were not raised in the tentative appeal decision and cannot raise new issues.

So fiscal impact, any decision by the committee on appeal, could potentially lead to litigation, which would have fiscal impacts.

But one of the purposes of having an appeal process is to ensure that hearing decisions are legally defensible, and so the appeal process to the committee uh reduces overall risk of legal liability and legal expenses.

So again, staff's recommendation is to um consider the tentative appeal decision.

Either accept the decision or modify the decision with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence in the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appellate landlord, please come to the podium if you are choosing to speak.

There will be a timer right here.

You would have 20 minutes.

Okay.

Thank you so much for the time.

Allow me for the opportunity, allow me to speak at um about my case.

So um I purchased this six-unit apartment building in June 20th 2022.

Um I'm a very small landlord.

I was excited to invest in amazing city of Mountain View, but I have no idea how complicated the rental law is.

So uh shortly after that I engaged, signed up a property management company, and then they um doesn't look like they registered the moment I signed the contract with them.

It seems they waited a couple months.

I don't know why.

Then they registered the property in December, December 11th, 2022.

Uh in the meantime, um we did have a rent increase because uh two of the units, the renter moved out.

We had to do some major repairs.

Uh so we had a um raised the rent rate increase.

Um the hearing officer said the whole time from uh the rent was increased to um uh end of uh 2025, the whole time the rent increase was unlawful.

Um I thought that's not fair, and because a month later we registered the property.

So after registration, the rent increase should be um should be legal, uh lawful.

Um so I'm first time landlord.

I really don't know how this um I think the um the ruling of returning eight thousand five hundred twenty dollars is uh is not fair, it's it's a lot because we did register the property.

So the second issue is the um habitability issue.

Okay, first I want to go with the easy items.

Uh broken closet door, it shouldn't be a habitability issue.

Uh the tenant continues to stay there, enjoys the premises.

Um actually um all the units the rent is actually below the market.

Um, I feel I'm really contributing to affordable housing.

But anyway, the broken closet door due to the older configuration of the closet, it takes long time to figure out how to address the issue.

Eventually we have to burn down the wall, uh um burn down the drywall so we can buy the kind of closet we can get from Home Depot because the old closet door is all the way to the ceiling.

Um but in any way the closet door shouldn't be considered a habitability issue.

Um then the other uh problem is the inadequate trash, because the tenant or outside people, they come in the complex, throw all kinds of uh trash couch near the dumpster.

We have a big dumpster, and then I thought we also have lots of recycling beings, so I thought, oh, let me replace into smaller trash can, just like a single family house.

We can pull it out, each family have their own can, and then they um objected the change.

Not only uh this um unit too, also other people complained.

So I brought the large container back.

That was that doesn't affect in uh habitability, shouldn't be uh um, shouldn't be um ordered to return money back to the um tenant.

Um then the uh more um bigger issue is the moist and the mold.

Um that's an ongoing issue with this unit.

We have a six unit.

Somehow nobody else had this issue.

Um but started from what they tell me.

I continuously made lots of effort to try to fix the problem.

First is they have a they have some mold on the wall.

We don't know they are cooking too much when they shower, they don't want it out.

Um we just keep on addressing the issues one by one from small to bigger.

Eventually we replace the floor with L VT hard floor.

Uh we uh change the brand new window, double pane window.

Um also we um replace the whole bathroom.

Um, they are all big ticket items.

Uh eventually we even rip out the outside wall to check what's going on and put added more um insulation in the wall.

Um, so all this large items I spent over $20,000, and then now the um ruling to return to the tenant is excessive, creates huge burden to a landlord who wanted to improve the property.

Um so I ask um the committee, honorable committee to adjust the um ruling.

I do take some responsibility and not fast enough to fix some issues, but um I um want to ask you to uh reconsider and adjust the ruling.

So can you see something?

Okay, do you do you guys understand what I said?

Very well.

Okay.

Um how much time I have?

Only two minutes past left.

Okay.

Okay.

Do you have any questions?

Questions are we done after the speaking portion, so if you have nothing further, you don't have to get other questions.

So the other point I want to make is um so I am a small landlord.

I'm making all the efforts to actually improving the properties.

Uh we um completely remodel the two units.

Uh the rent, actual rent I get is minimal.

If I don't remodel, I get maybe twenty-eight hundred, but I remodel I got three thousand due to the location of the units.

We can't it the rent would not be super high.

So I invest thirty thousand dollars in improving the unit.

The rent increase is one hundred, two hundred per month.

So that takes more than ten years to get the investment back, but I do it anyway, even though some people said landlord you don't need to anything, just rent it out.

I'm not that kind of landlord, only want charge because I care about my property.

Um I did honestly did all the um improvement, especially for this unit.

All the problem they mentioned is all resolved.

So that's all my marks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You'll come back a little bit.

You can um adjust my um the amount.

All right, respondent tenant, please come to the lecture.

You will have 20 minutes if you are including a translation.

Hello, my name is Blanca Zomara, and I live at 207 Evondale.

Hello, my name is Herbert Roles, and I also live at 207 Evondale.

Um, sobre lo que se le ado muy poco importance, para mí is lo más importante que es la salud de mis hijos.

I'm going to start by saying that the most important thing to me is the health of my children.

Are you unantis and después de esta situation?

There is a before and after to this situation.

First I waited two years, nine months to have the mold situation in my child's uh room taken care of.

Durante todo ese tiempo, tratar de mantener la unidad lo más habitable possible.

During this whole time I tried to keep the unit as habitable as possible.

During this time I had to replace mattresses and pillows and blankets.

I also had to buy an air purifier and a dehumidifier and a respirator just so that my children could have a decent life.

During this time my children developed allergies which they didn't have before, and the worst because of the mold.

Stoy nerviosa, lo siente.

I'm nervous, I apologize.

Um, esperado um desel 14 April um astala fecha a que se reemplace a refrigerador que se descopuso y ya lo reemplazo por uno más pequeño, el cual este pues no es suficiente para my familia.

We've been waiting uh since the fourteenth of April for a new refrigerator that was malfunctioning, and when we got a new one, it was a lot smaller than the original, and um the refrigerator that she replaced it with isn't enough for my family.

It's too small.

And when my husband said that this refrigerator is not big enough for us, she said buy another one, and when you do then I'll uh give you the money back for it.

Durant el tempo de process of cambiar um la carpet piso, duramos three years, my family sin acceso la cocina y a los dormitorios.

In the time that it was taken to replace the carpet, which was three days, my family didn't have access to the kitchen or the bedrooms.

And when I asked for her to put us up in a hotel, she never answered uh she never answered me.

Um access all the regadera.

In the time that it took for her to fix the bathroom, uh we didn't have access to the shower, and my children play sports, so they need to shower, and also my husband, you know, he works, so he needs to shower too.

Um and she said, Well, I'll give you two hundred dollars for the inconvenience, which she never she never gave it to us.

Um, three sanos y six meses para que la lavadora pueda funcionar para me la varena lavanderia publica fue difficile and mas costoso.

Nunca antes aviamos um de How de Tenelavanderia.

We had to wait three years and six months for her to fix the washing machines, and during that time we had to use the um public washing machines, which was difficult and very expensive.

Then you de la agencia que la señora proprietaria contratto para manejar la propiedad.

We also felt um under scrutiny and accused by the rental management company that the landlord had hired to maintain the property.

Um just the maintenance of the property.

Even though the rental agreement never stated anything about an additional payment, uh they insisted that we had to pay the sh additional fee and also threatened to um make us pay an additional fee for non-compliance with the payment additional of the seventy-two dollars and fifty cents.

In reference to the trash containers, um they were too small for a really long time, and so the garbage was overflowing out of them, falling onto the ground, which um made rats and other animals uh come and start uh eating the garbage and you know it was a health hazard.

Um la cerca kestaporaparte los parque, la cambio, uh gente que no era de I entrava robar, lo qual nunca antes había pasado.

Pero uh not all the responsibilidades cae sobre nosotros.

And uh there was a fence that was replaced, but the fence was a lot smaller than the previous one, which allowed people to jump over it and come and steal things.

Um, Testarle sobre lo que dice que me sposo Leavia dicho constructor que Mesposo había tirado in el contenedor de Los Apartamentos Boyacontestarle.

Um I also want to say something about her saying that my husband who's um a contractor, she was saying that he was dumping uh garbage into the garbage cans.

Um, Steperson, and she is unconstructor, no lo es porque notary una licenza.

Probablement ya lo sabe porque nunca se la pedido.

I belie con él no sé qué tanto legal, no sé por qué le cree que nosotros tiramos or Mesposo Basurai.

It's una persona muy poco confiable, muy poco professional cuando eran professionales.

The person that she hired to do the work in in the house, um I don't know understand why she trusted him.

He seemed like a very untrustworthy person uh and he did things that were very unprofessional, and when I asked him to show me his license, he said, No, no, I don't have to show you my license and was upset about it.

Uh the landlord has her number and can contact us whenever she wants.

Okay, thank you.

I'm I'm finished for now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appellate landlord, you have ten minutes to rebut any statements made by this respondent.

Please limit your comments to rebuttal rather than repeating information.

Yeah, 10 10 with translation, five otherwise.

Everybody's time.

So first she um tenant said takes three years to fix the laundry room.

So the situation of the laundry room is it's a small room.

The previous landlord leased the two uh one uh old dryer and one washer.

Sometimes they break, so then we call the company who leased us the equipment to repair.

It's on and off, so it doesn't take three years to repair it.

It did have times that's not working.

That's that's a fact.

Um and then uh she said um three days carpent replacement, um, interrupted her normal livings, and also one day um we replaced the shower.

I hired a um company called the American showers to replace it because they're really quick, they're really fast.

So I think for those uh my property manager told me I shouldn't charge the rent for those days.

So that's not a problem.

We can waive those days for the for the rent, wave the rent for those days.

Um and then she uh said uh scrutinized um uh watched uh over the shoulder by the property management company because we need to bring order to the property, like we just had a fire inspection.

The fire extinguisher was blocked.

We have to send out notices to tenant do not leave shoes, toys, random stuff on the door doorway, um to make sure everybody is safe.

Um I think that's just normal management.

Um, but those are not important stuff.

The most important thing still go back to the habitability issue, the mode.

Um the tenant described a their situation that her kids' life was a fa threatened.

Then I'm just thinking, oh my god, why don't they move out if the kids are health are affected so big?

There was mode.

I take responsibility.

Um but I I don't know the severity of the um house that's affected their family.

Um I think that's all.

Thank you.

Respondent tenant, you will have five minutes to speak with five minutes allowance for translations to rebut any statement that was made by the appellant.

Please limit your comments to rebuttal, then introducing or repeating other information.

Ella for lo que el mismo que le trabaja mucho a ella que dice que es constructory no lo es, dice que tiene apartamentos alrededor de aquí de la bahía anda negocios, entonces no tengo las possibilidades que ya tiene para mudarme nada más así I'd like to address the fact that she said that if I was my children were lives were being threatened by the health conditions, well, why don't I just move?

Well, I didn't have the opportunities that she has.

You know, I can't just take my family and move.

I don't have, you know, the the wealthy she might have.

I don't have a, you know, an apartment building like she has.

She says that she's got, you know, other properties, other stores, she has different opportunities than than I do.

I I can't just leave and find another place like that.

It wasn't me that made the decision on how much that she needed to pay back.

Um, uh all I did was uh mention you know the damage that had been done and how long it took her for take to take care of the situation.

Okay, that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

All right, we will now bring this back to the RC for questions.

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

Uh yes uh just a few.

So um I'm wondering, um, does the RHC staff uh notify um uh landlords who come before you know this uh hearing officer uh decision on what previous decisions have been made that may uh influence um you know what will happen to them when they come up here for an appeal hearing?

Um staff does not give opinions on the validity of the cases or the comparison with others.

Oh, I didn't ask about opinions.

I asked if you uh talk about pre-give the facts of previous decisions that have been made.

I understand they don't set a precedent, but I'm just wondering what they're the information is.

We don't okay, thank you.

Um one thing that concerns me about what was in the hearing officers' report is that there was no information on the exact date when the registration was completed, and so I'm asking that if the committee were to remand uh this back to the hearing officer to get that information and consider it in her opinion, would that be a legal action for the RHC to do?

Can you um expand a little bit on what you mean that there was information in?

No, I said there was not information.

Oh, you said there was not.

There was not information about the date of the registration, and so I'm asking if it would be a legal action for the RHC to remand the decision back to the hearing officer to get that information in the record so that she could consider it, you know, I as to whether she would modify her decision.

Um you certainly can remand um and ask her to get more information.

Okay.

Um let me see.

Okay, I think those are my own two questions.

Thanks.

Member Keating.

So uh there was a text in the hearing, a text message about the washing machine um being not working on October 18, 2022, and does a washing machine uh there being no washing machine working on the premises, is that substantial non compliance or not?

So I'll answer your question, but the washing machine issue was not raised in the appeal, and so it's not a part of what you all are deciding.

Um any decrease in housing services without a corresponding decrease in um rent or any habitability issues may arise to the level of the landlord being out of substantial compliance with the CSFRA.

So, even if there was a question about the registration dates, wouldn't the washing machine also speak to if there was compliance?

Yes, but that was not the basis of the hearing officer's decision.

Okay.

Was there ever anything in the hearing that mentioned the intermittent nature of the washing machine not working?

I do believe that that was raised as an issue.

And I and I do believe that the award for the washing machine is limited because of that.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Also Nerd Bulch.

Yeah, thank you.

I wanted to follow up on Vice Chair Cox's question because I'm I'm not remembering the actual uh facts.

What would what was the hearing officer's basis for determining that the property was out of was still out of compliance at the time of November 1st, 2022 if there wasn't a date for registration?

Um the hearing officer checked the rent stabilization divisions portal, and at the time that she checked it, and it is in the hearing record, it demonstrated that the property was not registered in 2021 or 2022.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for staff?

Moving on.

Are there any questions?

Member Keating?

Thank you.

Um did we uh receive any documentation that the property was registered earlier?

No.

And it in the responses to committee member Cox's questions, or sorry, you vice chair, um, which were included.

Um, in fact, staff did end up checking, and this should not factor into your decision, but the staff did end up checking when the property was first registered, and it was in December of 2023.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Otherwise, we move on to does anyone have any questions for either the appellant or the petitioner?

Uh member Stats' little.

I have um a couple questions for the appellant, landlord.

I invite you up to please stop me if I'm doing anything outside of records, my first time doing an appeal.

No problem, I will do.

Um thank you for coming today.

Um I just have a couple of questions about when you first uh purchased or sold the property.

Did you inspect the units or have them inspected?

Um, I did inspect the unit, but I didn't have a professional um inspector through the inspection.

That's my fault.

Um the other question I had is um, when did you first learn about uh rent registration requirements or any other requirements?

I only learned uh last year in November when this whole thing came up.

I have no clue.

Um you mentioned, and it's in the record that you had hired a property management company.

Yeah, they didn't inform me um I need to register the property.

Um so I I wasn't aware.

Also, in order to even though I hired a property uh management company, but I myself manage lots of the repairs, because it's faster.

I have some trusted contractors and handymans.

I pay them um the second day after they finish the work really fast, and they trust me, they come fast.

If we repair things through the property management company, they have to send a ticket or call, and then they would find a contractor, the contractor will do the work.

Um they get owner's approval, then two weeks later they or a month later they get paid.

That's how the business goes.

So I end up managing um all lots of the repairs myself.

So I don't know the registration.

I was more just um I also why did you choose this property management company?

Is it because they managed other properties in Mountain View?

Uh yeah, they when I did a Google search, it seems they manage other properties in Mountain View.

And what were your expectations from the property?

So they charge 5% instead of 10%.

So I felt since they only charge 5%, I should do some of the work myself.

So I I understand I want to get more to what I'm understanding about when you what were your expectations for a property management company to do aside from repairs that okay, yeah.

The legal aspect of it.

Um because in terms of um rent uh also collecting rent on time.

If I collect the rent, sometimes they go late.

Um tenant have difficulty, it's hard for me to just go get the rent.

So the main expectation for property management company is to collect a rent on time, also uh be compliant, but I don't know Mountain View has rent stabilization office.

I don't know we have to register.

Uh so to go back to uh Mr.

Cox's question.

I acquired the property in the middle of 2022.

I think three, four months later, I engaged the property management company, let's say October, and then somehow take them two months to register.

Okay, but they did register.

I I appreciate you adding more information.

I just um what do you own any other rental rental properties?

No, this is the sixth unit.

Okay.

Do you when you were purchasing a rental property?

Did you look into any kind of laws that might govern renting property in California?

Um I uh not really.

I know California have lots of laws, but I I don't realize Mountain View have uh more strict laws.

Okay, I'm no further questions.

All right, does any other member of the committee have any other questions for either the the respondent or the appellant?

See none.

We'll move back to deliberation.

Please limit your comments to the items that are appealed as well as the potential motion that can be made at this time.

Uh yes, Share Cox.

Yes.

Okay, so I'll give you my initial um take on all of this.

As far as the uh have the second petition, the habitability issues, um I'm on board with what's in the tentative appeal decision because I mean the great length of time that was taken to address the issue with the mold is uh is not appropriate.

Mold is a issue that you know is a very serious one that can affect people's health.

And so I agree with the hearing officer and the staff that that should have been remediated within a month of it being reported, and since it wasn't, I stand with the hearing officer's decision and the tentative appeal decision on that issue.

Where I'm having a bigger concern is the fact that there's been so much uh lack of information and questions around the idea of when the property was registered.

Um, and so I mean, you know, my preference would be to remand that back to the hearing officer so that we can get that into the record, since we cannot make a decision about information that was not in the record.

I mean, I think that is something that is material to the amount of the decision, because it seems to me that once the property was registered, then um, you know, rent increases that were made after that time, you know, uh, should not be unlawful rental increases, unless you know the staff can point out whether there's still outstanding issues with respect to the registration that the landlord hasn't complied with yet.

So, I mean, I think that um I'm uncomfortable with uh charging the landlord um in the case where she has after for penalties after the time that she's completed the registration per the CSFRA in its completion, and so I I would like to understand that better and get that information into the record.

So I'm not gonna make a motion right now, but I want to hear what other people have to say.

Alternate Bulch.

Yeah, thank you.

I wanted to first make a make a statement about fact and then just talk about um uh operating uh whether you're a tenant or a landlord.

But I I am a little confused though about this uh registration question because when I asked staff a few moments ago, I thought I got a clear answer, so I'm not really sure what the discrepancy is there.

Um let me let me just so first of all, I think it is important for everyone in attendance here to understand how this committee operates, uh, to understand uh why the committee comes to the decision that it that it made tonight.

Um, the CSFRA uh grants this committee a extremely narrow scope and discretion.

And if you remember the introduction um that you heard, we are really judging whether the hearing officer came to a reasonable conclusion based on the facts provided.

We are not uh bringing up new facts, we're not uh relitigating.

Uh so things, for example, a small landlord versus big corporation.

Honestly, the CSFRA is neutral on that.

Uh and to the extent that there's a disagreement about how the law works, the law would have to be changed.

Uh, because the law is very clear on how the rental housing committee operates, what it can and cannot do.

Um whether you're a tenant or a landlord, it is super important.

Uh I think everyone sees that tonight, to do diligence and to understand what your rights are under the law.

And this applies to both sides of the lease.

And um, to uh to just kind of build on what uh uh my my colleague was asking about earlier.

Um I can only say, you know, please moving forward, please be, please do your diligence on what the law is.

The law is uh highly unforgiving in in uh many scenarios, and uh it is really, you know, for for the tenant, this is where the tenant lives, and that's the roof over their head.

For the landlord, it represents a substantial amount of their money and their personal livelihood.

In both cases, there are substantial stakes involved.

And please, for both of your protection, please understand the law.

It's super important.

That's my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Keating.

I don't find a need to further research the date of the uh when the property was registered.

Um I think that uh staff has already done that, and I'm satisfied that it was registered later for the first time.

So there may have been misunderstanding around that, but uh I don't find a need to research that further.

And uh just to echo some of uh committee member uh Balch's comments, um we are doing arithmetic here and uh validating the arithmetic about uh how habitable uh the property was or was not at various points in time, and uh so that is you know what we can consider tonight.

And uh, you know, the hearing officer does the heavy lifting, and we're here to review the issues that are listed on the appeal.

I have a question for counsel.

Uh can you remind me in the hearing officer procedure what the burden of proof is on each party?

If if in anything is raised by the petitioner, like who is responsible for disproving that?

Yeah, so uh the initial burden of proof to demonstrate that uh condition exists or that unlawful rent was charged, um, is on the petitioner tenant.

Um, and then once the tenant has established that the burden shifts to the landlord to disprove that, and it's a substantial evidence standard.

Um, and it it's also uh preponderance of the evidence standard, which means that it's more likely true than not true, um, which means that it just needs to be like a 51% likelihood that something is true versus 49% non-true in order for um the tenant to have met their burden of proof, or once it shifts to the landlord, for the landlord to have met their burden of proof of undemonstrating essentially.

Um, and where there's an there's equality between the two sides, then the tenant has not met their burden of proof.

So in the instant case, the landlord had an opportunity to provide like the case the claim that the rent increases in 2022 were unlawful by demonstrating that they had registered prior to the rent increase.

That's correct.

The landlord um had an opportunity to provide evidence of the exact date on when the property was first registered.

Um she did testify at the hearing that she believed that it had been registered at some time at the end of December 2022, but she did not provide specific evidence, and so basically what tipped the the hearing officer's decision was checking the rent stabilization portal and concluding that it had not been registered in 2022.

Thank you.

So for the deliberation portion, uh I do not believe that the hearing officer aired or abused your discretion in holding respondent liable for unlawful rents resulting from the prior owner's failure to register the property in 2021 in 2022.

And I also do not believe that the hearing officer aired or abuse their discretion by concluding that petitioners were entitled to a rent reduction for the mold and moisture conditions in the affected unit.

So I would move to accept the tentative in its entirety.

Okay, a motion has been made by member brown, seconded by member Keating, but moving on to the next on the list.

Member Stats.

I just want to note that the not knowing about a law that's in place that governs a business is it doesn't mean you can be excused from it.

You can make good faith attempts to comply with it once you learn.

But there's also a duty to investigate the business you're buying.

And buying any property in Mountain View is not cheap.

And it didn't sound like that uh in the course of purchasing that there was any end of this investigation either into the condition of the property that you're purchasing or the laws that might govern the business you're about to enter into.

Um and any business, it's uh uh a purchaser should be held responsible for doing even the bare minimum of due diligence or reasons.

We say caveat empt or buyer beware.

Um, and I asked questions about the property management company, because I believe it's a property management company that manages other properties in Mountain View, and they would be aware of the requirements under not only state law but Mountain View.

This law had been around for five years at that point.

They should have been well aware and they should have advised you accordingly, or at least their questions should be asked.

Are there any laws that I should be aware of?

You said you had expectations that uh they would make sure you're in compliance with the the laws, but that's also uh your responsibility as well under the law.

Um I putting that forth, uh, that it's it's not a defense in this case.

If it's the property's not in substantial compliance, that's what the law says that the rent increase is not, you can't lawfully increase the rent.

So I um I don't not believe the hearing officer abused her discretion or did not consider other evidence.

So let me ask this.

Um do you believe does staff believe that there are still outstanding registration issues with respect to the landlord uh with the city of Mountain View with respect to their property?

Is there something something left that they still need to do as far as registration goes, other than the periodic registration that all landlords need to do?

So I I mean, I don't believe that they have any other issues.

I believe they've done their registration and paid their fees, but the issue at this point and is that when you've charged unlawful rents in order to come into compliance with the CSFRA, you need to roll back any unlawful rent increases and refund any unlawful rents that were paid.

So even if it was just for a month, let's just say that the rent increase went into effect, they came into compliance a month later, even if they charged unlawful rent for one month, they would still need to roll back the rent, refund any unlawful amounts above the lawful rent, and then reimpose the rent increase in order to be in compliance with the CSFRA.

And so that is where they are now they continue to be out of substantial compliance with the CSFRAs because even though they registered, they never rolled back the rent and refunded the unlawful amounts and then reissued the rent increases.

So how what was the mechanism for them to know that they needed that they had imposed an unlawful rent increase and that they needed to roll back the rent?

Is it they the only way that they, I mean, is it that the uh RSD staff doesn't owe them any notice on this, and that the only way that they can find out about it is to have a petition filed against them?

I mean, I I will note that the CSFRA is a complaint-based system, so the primary method for enforcing it is tenants complaining about an issue, but beyond that, it is the fact that they as member slats mentioned, could have looked into the regulations and could have inquired with staff as to what they needed to do to comply with the CSFRA, and that never took place.

So, if they had simply reached out to staff, staff would have informed them of all of these things, including and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but when someone comes to them and they ask, have you imposed a rent increase during the time that you've were not registered?

If you have, then we're letting you know that you charged unlawful rents and you need to roll back the rents and refund any amounts before you can reimpose that.

I'm pretty sure staff provides that information and they can confirm.

Okay, so I'm just gonna make an additional comment then, and just say that you know, I wish there were some mechanism that when somebody buys a property in Mountain View, that they would be notified of non-compliance of the person that they're buying the property from.

I understand that we don't have that now, and I understand from the questions in the staff that the rental housing committee is not empowered to make that happen.

But I'm just making a comment on the record that it there must be some legislative body that in the future could cure that problem to make it so that whoever is selling the property needs to make those disclosures.

Um, but it I get it that it doesn't apply to the instant case.

Okay.

So given what you've told me, even though I find it very unfortunate how this is all played out, I will support the motion.

It is an interesting situation when a property has changed hands of how do you get the notice to the new landlord because though you have a prior landlord who receives the notice and crumples it up and throws it away, presumably.

Um I think it'd also be interesting to see, you know, to look at how to reach new landlords, but uh in this, you know, that's for the future, and it is the landlord's responsibility to know the rules of the jurisdiction.

Yeah, um, couple comments, and in no way am I defending the CSFRA when I make these comments.

I just want to explain something, like just facts for the for the committee here.

We've had numerous examples exactly like this, where there were issues of failure to register, and therefore over many years rent increases rolled back.

This is not the first time.

I don't remember the count, but I know for sure we've encountered this numerous times before.

Uh this is an issue.

I knew I've made multiple speeches from the seat talking about the fact that the CRS CSFRA has no concept of statute of limitations to your point.

It could have been a month, 10 years later, you have to roll back 10 years for that single month of noncompliance.

I mean, that is a really unfortunate, in my opinion, part of the CSFRA, but that is the law.

And um, I'm also gonna say that there are all sorts of ways for property purchasers to limit or or discover their their liability in terms of uh notices of estoppel when you are uh discovering leases and lease terms that may be in effect.

Uh there's a whole bunch of them.

So I'm just saying this is a really, really intricate arcane bit of law in general uh and it's it's incumbent upon anyone uh spending all this money to uh educate because the um unfortunately the cost of non-compliance is very high.

Um, I won't call it private, but I in a discussion uh that I had with uh Ms.

Van Derson.

Um she mentioned the following fact, and I'd just like to read it into the record and have you confirm it, or tell me what if I did not say it correctly.

Anyway, no, no, it has to do with bank rent increases.

Okay, and so it's my understanding that after all of the problems with you know how this has been handled have been cured by the landlord, that she would be able to in the future apply for banked rent increases.

And so, you know, instead of having to follow, say next year, you know, the annual general adjustment, she would be able to apply for a banked rent increase of up to 10%, you know, until she reached the point of taking credit for the previous um annual general adjustments, and therefore should be able to recover money at least.

I think a substantial amount of the money that she might lose in the short term by having to fulfill the rights of the tentative appeal decision if it's adopted.

Is that correct?

Or would you like to say more about that?

Uh I'm just gonna say that that is not a um secret.

It is actually in the language of the hearing officer's decision in the decision portion.

It informs the parties that once the landlord has come into compliance, they can take rent increases, including banked increases.

It's part of the template language that's included in there.

So thank you.

I just want to make sure the landlord heard it from us.

All right, I will speak then.

Uh agree with aspects of uh comments made by my fellow committee members that um I believe there is enough evidence in the hearing regarding the issue on the registration or failure to registration.

And as mentioned from Member Brown's comments, it is a duty for both sides to nitpick each other's arguments to figure out the truth.

If you do not correctly argue, then you have ceded that aspect of the discussion.

As regarding the discussion about the mold and moisture units, as mentioned, a lot of our discussions come down to what are the facts that can be brought to the table and whether the issue has been corrected.

It is not enough to say it is being addressed, it must be corrected in its full.

And as such, I too would agree with the tentative and therefore the motion.

Does anyone else have any comments or discussion on the motion?

Otherwise, we will go to the vote vote.

Motion passes 5-0.

All right, we will now move on to item 6.1 charter modernization proposed amendment to the CSFRA.

Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions.

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

We will get begin with staff.

Good evening, Vice Chair, Chair, and RHC board members.

Can you hear me okay?

This is City Attorney Jennifer Logue.

Very good.

Great.

Um The Mountain View City Council's 2527 work plan includes a project to place a measure on the November 2026 ballot proposing amendments to the city charter to modernize its provisions.

The amendments, however, contemplated for the 2026 ballot are intended to be non-controversial in nature and limited to technical and clarifying changes, including correcting typographical errors, clarifying existing language, revising outdated terminology and improving internal consistency, etc.

On February 10th, 2026, the city council reviewed and discussed many proposed amendments.

One of which was a revision to section 17020 of the community stabilization fair rent act to update references in that section to the Mountain View Municipal Code.

The council expressed support for the proposed amendments to the CSFRA, but directed staff to seek feedback from the Rental Housing Committee, given that amendments to the CSFRA may be perceived as substantive or controversial regardless of the scope.

And so council felt that it was important to secure the RHC's understanding and support for this amendment as a step towards achieving voter approval of the overall charter um amendment ballot measure.

So before you on the screen, you see propos a proposed amendment to section 1702 of the charter.

Section 1702 provides multiple definitions of terms that are used throughout the CSFRA.

Section 17020 provides the definition for relocation assistance.

As it is currently written, the definition refers to sections of the municipal code which no longer exist.

They've been repealed and replaced with a new chapter 46 and provisions within that chapter.

And so the recommendation that staff presented to city council on February 10th was to amend this one portion of the CSFRA to properly refer to the new sections of the municipal code for the definition of relocation assistance, and also to add some language explaining that the references to that chapter as it now exists, or may here and after be amended so that in the event that the municipal code is amended again, and the location of the definitions for relocation um assistance are moved, um, the charter would already speak to referring to any new amended provisions.

And so the request this evening is to um is that you discuss and deliberate with regard to this and provide feedback on whether or not you support or have suggestions with regard to this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will move on to questions from committee members.

The item is limited to discussing this particular change only within the CSFRA.

I put myself on cue.

Uh to the city attorney.

Regarding the efficacy of the language as it stands now, is it or have we just basically locked in the language of the old section as it was when the CSFRA was initially enacted?

Because I'm aware that the CSFRA was based off of East Palo Alto's ordinance and East Palo Alto.

Also does this weird thing with a basically locked in semi-old version of their ordinance code just to keep references correct?

Is that the same case here or is it now is it just in the weird situation?

I'm not sure what you mean by locked in.

Could you explain a little bit more?

Asking if we've locked in something, we meaning the city or the city.

As of right now, with this reference to dead code, is this just like a unresolved reference, or is the city supposed to look up what was the language back in 2017 when the CSFRA went into effect?

Um, so the reference as it stands now.

I suppose, I mean, the argument would be if you left it unchanged and you kept referring to what is that, Article 13, sections 36, 38, 15, which don't exist anymore.

Yes, in theory, you could go back and look at what those sections said at the time that the CSFRA was adopted.

Um, but the problem is is that relocation assistance may have improved or increased, or you know, there might be greater requirements today that you would not be getting the benefit of.

So the so the best you could do is yes, go back and look at what those sections said when the CSFRA was adopted, but they have been repealed, and so it really does create sort of some ambiguity and confusion and raises the potential for arguments that they're it just those sections just are not valid because they have been effectively repealed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Moving on to alternate bulge.

Yeah, just want to uh understand.

So how would this change be approved?

Would it be a city council vote?

Would it be a popular vote?

How does that work?

So the only way the charter can be changed is by voter approval.

So what you're seeing on the screen is what would be proposed, would is what would be the proposed change.

But there is a ballot measure that would go um on the ballot.

It will ask a question, you know, um, should the should the charter be amended?

And it would be various things.

Um, this is not the only piece, this is just one piece of the amendment.

And voter approval would be required in order to actually make the change.

If voter approval is received, then the charter would reflect the change that you're seeing on the screen.

Thank you.

Council alone can't do it.

No.

Right.

Okay.

So thank you.

That makes sense.

I was going to ask about that.

And so then this is going to go on to the onto a future ballot along with other items, as you said.

Are the are the other items are the other items at all related to rental housing or are they completely unrelated?

Completely unrelated, different sections of the charter.

This is the only change we are seeking to make to the CSFRA.

Everything else remains the same.

Thank you in the CSFRA.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I just want to quickly ask.

If this change were not made, would it's always possible for somebody to challenge something in court, but could it delay um a tenants uh right to relocation assistance because uh somebody is disputing this as if the change wasn't my that these sections no longer apply and it might get tied up in court and that could cost the city some litigation, even though they would ultimately prevail.

Would you agree with that?

Yes, I agree with that.

It definitely could create a dispute and force us into court.

Yes.

All right, does anyone else have any other questions?

Otherwise, I'll give another question.

Uh just give a simple question.

I forget, is there a limitation on how law or how many words are in the ballot language, or is that only for bonds?

Yes, there is for a ballot measure question, it's 75 words.

And so, you know, right now I'm already I'm at a limit trying to catch all of the, you know, capture all of the other cleanup changes that we'd like to make to the charter.

Um, that's why it's you know quite limited.

And, you know, just just to give you perspective, it's a hundred thousand dollars per ballot measure.

So we're only trying to put one measure on to address this cleanup of the charter.

Thank you.

So I'm just wondering how many words are you using for this part of the ballot measure?

I mean, are you going to be able to uh correctly, I mean, accurately and precisely enough indicate what the change is given the word limitation?

So the you you wouldn't you that it would be as broad, it would just be as simple as an um to modify or to it can be it can be as broad as something like um to correct um references to the municipal code or to update references to the municipal code.

So the ballot question itself will be very simple and broad, but what has to happen is I also have to prepare um a statement of the ballot measure, and in that statement that goes along with the question, it explains everything that's going on, and it would also um tell voters that they can come into the clerk's office and see all the red line changes.

So the question itself is kind of broad, but it's the statement of the measure that would give details.

So no, the question itself would not be really detailed about what this change looks like, but it would direct the voters on how they could get all of that information.

Okay, thank you for clarifying to me how you're gonna be able to thread the needle and make this work.

Alternate bulge.

Okay, um, I'll just give one procedure question for staff.

Are we looking for a motion on this or just discussion?

Okay, um, in the meantime, seeing no other questions on this item.

We'll move on to public comment.

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

We'll press start on your phone, or submit a blue speaker card to the staff.

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

Does anyone have any discussion on it?

You could quickly just say whether you're fine with the changes or something else.

Looks good to me.

Member Keating.

This is certainly non-controversial, and I want the overall ballot measure to pass, and I can't see this harming it, and I would certainly support this.

Member Brown, sure.

Does anyone else have any other deliberation or feedback on this item?

Otherwise, I two would agree that this is a non-controversial change, which is fitting for a non-controversial ballot measure.

I will say that once we do think of more controversial changes in the next cycle as intended by council that I would hope that the RHC is involved if the C SFRA does come to a discussion.

Or sure.

Remember, if you like, I have to say I agree, but I always support language that leaves flexibility for changes that may happen later on.

Okay, seeing no one else, I think that is it for this item.

Thank you for coming, city attorney.

Thank you very much.

All right, we are now moving on to item 6.2 CSFRA and MHRSO annual fee payment and registration requirements compliance.

Public comment will occur after the presentation item.

And committee questions.

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

We will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you, committee.

Uh I will be doing a presentation on item 6.2, which is to provide the rental housing committee an update uh on landlord property registration and fee payment for both the CSFRA and MHRS.

And just as background, the RHC adopts the annual budget to fund the reasonable expenses to implement the programs, and the landlords and mobile home park owners pay an annual fee to fund that budget.

Um in 2020, the rental housing committee adopted mandatory registration, and in 2022, uh adopted late fees and fines, and the annual registration and fee are both due at the end of January each year this year, January 31st, 2026.

And any payments after that are subject to late fees and fines, and just sort of as a reminder, I guess that's four percent per month on the balance of any unpaid rental housing fees, and for non-compliance with registration, that's $25 per unit per month.

And so you'll see a chart here on our outreach efforts, and staff conducts pretty extensive extensive outreach and education efforts during each annual cycle for fee payment and registration.

Um, as you'll see for workshops and webinars, it says three.

I've actually done one since this memo, so it's four for 2026.

Um we have done targeted outreach and mailings, but I did sort of want to mention that as internally, we are trying to automate a lot of our outreach.

So you'll see that with our latest new feature for the direct mailings to landlords who are not in compliance with either the registration or the fee payment component of requirements.

We automated a direct email system that goes out on the first of each month through our portal, and it will actually identify which piece of the requirement the landlord is not in compliance with, so it would either be fee payment registration or both, and then it would tailor the email to actually let them know how to comply with each of those.

So it individualizes it in a way for for each landlord, which is really nice.

So in January or February 1st, we sent out 84 of those uh individual personalized emails, and then we notice within about a week or two or two, we had 25 properties take immediate corrective action, which is great, and that will continue every month throughout the year.

Um so we are anticipating that that will actually really increase and help our compliance levels.

And also right now, staff is coordinating to send out our first compliance letters in the next week or so.

And this I just sort of wanted to let you see some of our outreach that we send out to landlords, so we do some workshops, we have postcards, we send out a lot of email blasts, especially leading up to the due dates.

Um, and then the bottom right here is just an example of the new tailored um email messages that go out through the portal.

And then here we're going to talk specifically about CSFRA compliance.

Um, and you'll see the the table to the left is fee payments, and then the table to the right is registration compliance.

Um, so looking at both, if we look at um the compliance rate for the January 31st deadline, um, we'll notice that that has increased year over year, um, especially I think due to some of our compliance measures that we implemented with the late penalties and the compliance letters and things like that.

And so we continue to sort of be at our all-time highs or very near where our all-time high was.

Um, and then I did want to mention to date as of four o'clock today.

We are at 90% compliance with both the payment and registration.

Um, and in two more days, another email blast will go out, and I'm hoping that that will increase the even more.

Um, but we do anticipate again that by the end of the year our our increase, our compliance percentages will be increased.

And with mobile home compliance, it is um at 100% before the January 31st deadline.

So we are already at 100% compliance for the year for both fee payment and registration, and for fiscal impact providing this information to you.

Um, as no fiscal impact.

Any questions?

Does anyone have any questions?

I'm guessing you want to give you a question.

Oh, I just want to make a couple comments.

Questions first, questions first.

So I'll wait for my comments.

So I'm happy that you included the email.

It's a little hard to read, it's kind of small.

And um, so is it an exact copy that goes to the um gets copied to the tenants, or is it a little different?

Yeah, so this is a little bit different.

This is um, this is an email that's going out to the owner and their managers at the first of every month, and it's only targeted to properties that are not in compliance with either fee payment or registration.

And it's just really a reminder, the email, it's the compliance letter that goes out and and that goes out by mail that we're sending out, and then after 30 days of that, if that uh issue's still not corrected, a copy of the compliance letter will be sent to the tenant.

And a copy of it.

I mean, is there like a cover letter saying yeah, there's a tenant saying this is what we send to your landlord or yeah, there's a very short cover letter and it's translated in all languages, and it says um the property, you know, maybe out of compliance with CSFRA.

Um, if if you've received a rent increase, please contact our office, or if you have any other concerns, please contact our office, and a copy of the compliance letters attached um to this letter.

And so we attach the compliance letter and then also translate the compliance letter in all the languages so that they're able to read what was sent to the landlord in any of the languages.

Does anyone else have any questions on this topic?

I'll just give one question, which is at this point do we just see the same people non-compliant year after year, or is it does it change?

It changes slightly, but it for the for the most part it is sort of the same people.

We have done a lot of research and worked with other departments in the city to try to find proper mailing addresses and contact information and check with the county.

Um so we continue to do that every year in hopes to get a get a hold of them.

Um it is generally the same people.

Over south says the I just did have a question, but since you've addressed it, I'll ask it.

Is if you get returned mail from a landlord, what actions do you take?

Yeah, so we do keep that we have a spreadsheet, and then we we look for alternate owners, um, or mailing addresses in the places that I mentioned and send mail to all of them in hopes that will someone will respond.

And then uh sometimes with the second compliance letter, if the tenants come in, we also ask the tenants if they have information.

All right, we will move on to public comment.

If you would like to give comment on this item, please press star nine on your phone, raise hand on Zoom or submit a blue speaker card.

Seeing uh actually we do have one comment.

You can unmute yourself, right?

Thank you.

So if I'm reading those slides correctly, you've got greater than 96%'s registration compliance, is that correct?

Correct.

Wow.

I think that's a pretty good job.

Thank you.

All right, Phil.

Okay, we're gonna bring it back to committed deliberations and feedback.

Does anyone have any further discussion on this item, Victor Cox?

Yeah, just want to make a couple comments.

First of all, I was going to say I was glad to see that the fee compliance by January 31st and improved to 4%, but now I'm gonna say 7%.

So thank you for going above and abort even what was in the staff report.

Um, you know, I'll echo uh what uh Chair Ma had said about, you know, we seem to still have um a persistent small percentage of non compliance, you know, this 4%.

And it seems I understand that even though the public commenter likes 96%.

I mean, if I again I've made an analogy from times that four percent of the people in Mount View didn't pay their property taxes, I would consider that to be an alarming situation.

And so I appreciate the fact that you're looking into trying to figure out um you know what's going on about this and in particular that you're trying to figure out whether it's the same four percent of landlords that are not uh not in compliance because that to me is a more serious issue than something that eventually gets resolved.

So I hope that you'll keep working on that and I would encourage that it's if at some time in the future you can put an item on the agenda you know to tell us what your progress is so that we can understand it in more detail I would appreciate that.

Any other discussion on the item and also we can clear out the timer at this point.

Seeing none I'll give a few more comments which is that I mean at this point either we I mean I have a funny feeling that the remaining sides probably don't have tenants at this point or if they do at this I don't know maybe they would just stop paying rent increases.

I don't know.

Because as as we mentioned in our second noncompliance letter we do make it very clear that the landlord does loses the ability to raise their rents.

But obviously as mentioned before as well CSFRA is a complaint based system so unless they pull the trigger we can't do really do very much as as of right now.

And as such I that's my comments so in that case see no other persons we would now move on to the next item which is committee staff announcements and updates.

Thank you.

Alright um as usual we continue to have our virtual office hours every Tuesday morning from 10 to noon.

Those are only online and we do have a new batch of workshops coming up so March 24th in the evening we have understanding the utility adjustment petition focused for tenants so they can understand those adjustments that might be coming their way.

And then in April you'll see we have a batch of sort of fair housing related workshops that we're partnering with Project Sentinel for uh during fair housing month.

Um so April 7th both in the afternoon for landlords and in the evening for tenants there is a general fair housing overview workshop and on April 14th at 6 30 p.m there's a rights and responsibilities for leasing an apartment that's tenant focused.

And we continue to keep our housing help center for landlords every Thursday from one to three p.m both in person and virtual and our tenant um housing help center is the first and third Thursdays which is rent stabilization staff as well as our partners in Project Sentinel CSA and CLUSPA for tenants to come in the evening both in person and online.

We are also attending the Lunar New Year celebration on Saturday um which we're very excited about any questions uh on any outreach.

Uh I have a question uh two part one part is regarding the tenant aspect of the utility adjustment petitions are ex are we seeing a certain amount of comments on the topic or just at this point people just have questions.

Um we are seeing some tenants uh in certain buildings who are actually receiving the adjustment notices um utilize the response forms um which has been great uh and we have been in you know working with those tenants to sort of investigate those petitions um so that's been very useful and then um separately from that I think staff is doing a lot of just clarifying in education because it it is a little bit confusing to sort of understand that rubs is disappearing, but it's you know, sort of going into your rent, which will then be stabilized.

So there's just it's a lot to sort of wrap your head around.

So we're doing a lot of education on that.

So we hope that the workshops we can um talk to more people at once than always well one on one-on-one.

Okay, thank you.

Uh my other one is about the retaliation anti-harassment regulations we made a few months back.

I wonder how those how have those been communicated to tenants and landlords.

Would it be part of these kind of sessions or would they be part of like the newsletter?

Um all of the above.

Uh we're in the process of making a communication plan with outreach workshops uh materials and newsletters and materials.

Yeah, thank you.

And a reminder for everyone else that the lunar near year event will be this Saturday, 10 to 2, I believe, at the community center.

Is that correct?

Does anyone else have any comments or questions?

Seeing none, we will move on to item 7.2, expected future agenda items for RC members.

There is nothing.

I just want to emphasize there is uh on your work plan there is an update on the trio.

Um, but that ed currently is the only agenda item.

Uh there's no appeal uh for March.

So I was wondering if we could postpone the March and then just add that um item to the April, April agenda.

Does anyone object to not having a March meeting alternative?

I actually can't attend, so that's fine with me.

Okay, that's about for it.

I uh member Keating.

Is this the first time we've deferred a meeting or it's happened before?

Uh it's very very rare that it happened before, yeah.

I don't see any objection to skipping the March meeting.

Um does anyone else have any final comments?

Otherwise, this meeting is adjourned at 7.55 pm.

The next rental housing committee is scheduled to be held March 26 at 6 p.m.

But we'll see when it actually is.

We'll definitely publicate that that meeting has been cancelled and what the next following meeting is gonna be.

Meeting adjourned.