►
From YouTube: June 20, 2022 Rental Housing Committee Meeting
Description
Live teleconference of the City of Mountain View's Rental Housing Committee Meeting scheduled for Monday, June 20, 2022.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
A
The
committee
will
reconvene
on
this
public
zoo
meeting
once
the
closed
session
has
ended.
Legal
counsel
will
report
any
updates
from
the
closed
session
during
the
agenda
item
12.
now
before
we
do.
That.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
the
closed
session
agenda
item?
A
B
B
B
The
rental
housing
committee,
however,
is
bound
by
the
substantive
terms
of
the
csfra
and
cannot
use
the
regulations
to
introduce
substantive
changes
to
the
meaning
of
the
words
in
the
csfra
regulations
that
change
the
substantive
meaning
of
the
implementing
law
are
avoid,
and
nowhere
does.
The
csfr
suggest
that
a
periodic
payment
should
mean
anything
other
than
the
amount
that
the
tenant
pays
periodically.
B
This
issue
highlights
a
key
provision
with
the
proposed
amendment.
It
treats
all
types
of
concessions
in
the
same
way,
but
a
one-month
move-in
special
is
different
than
a
concession
that
is
amortized
over
the
term
of
a
lease.
In
the
case
of
an
amortized
concession,
the
tenant's
periodic
payment
could
actually
be
the
amount
of
rent
less
the
concession.
B
B
My
colleagues
have
raised
this
concern
directly
with
program
staff,
but
the
june
20th
memo
respectfully
does
not
address
this
subject.
It
analyzes
the
definition
of
base
rent
in
the
csfra,
but
not
the
definition
of
the
word
rent
simply
itself,
but
since
the
definition
of
base
rent
is
actually
based
in
part
on
the
definition
of
rent,
it's
necessary
to
analyze.
That
definition
as
well.
The
rental
housing
committee
should
not
move
forward
on
this
incomplete
record.
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
E
A
Excellent,
we
will
now
move
to
agenda
item
5
the
consent
calendar.
These
items
will
be
approved
by
one
motion
unless
any
member
of
the
committee
wishes
to
remove
an
item
for
discussion.
The
purpose
of
the
consent
calendar
is
for
the
committee
to
efficiently
and
quickly
control,
routine
or
administrative
business
items.
In
one
motion,
although
committee
members
may
remove
items,
it
is
generally
not
intended
for
the
committee
to
have
a
lengthy
substance
discussion
on
the
consent,
calendar
items.
A
H
A
A
A
motion
to
approve
should
include
reading
the
following
items
for
a
5.1
approve
the
minutes
for
may
23,
2022
rhc
meetings
and
for
5.2
approval
resolution,
making
findings
authorizing
continued
remote
teleconference
meetings
of
the
rental
housing
committee.
Pursuant
to
the
brown
act
provisions
as
amended
by
assembly
bill
number
361
and
I
see
a
hand
vice
chair,
rimmels.
A
Okay,
excellent
moving
right
along.
We
will
now
open
the
meeting
for
oral
communication
from
the
public.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
adjust
the
address
the
committee
on
any
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.
A
L
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Can
you
hear
me
we
can
hear
you
okay,
please
understand
this
once
any
agency
of
any
state
or
county
makes
a
declaration
regarding
the
property
of
value
and
it's
significantly
less
fun
than
the
original
value
that
was
signed
on
a
rental
agreement.
For
example,
a
history
of
one
billing
was
once
current
a
value
of
five
million
dollars,
but
in
the
last
two
years
the
property
owner
had
the
property
reappraised
to
only
3.8
million.
L
That
would,
in
effect,
define
that
the
landlord's
activities
had
breached
the
rental
contract
by
covertly
declaring
the
value
officially
with
any
agency
regarding
the
value,
which
is
not
the
value
that
the
original
contract
was
signed
on,
this
becomes
a
breach
of
contract
and,
in
effect
one
can
argue.
The
entire
rent
collected
under
those
conditions
is
not
lawful.
L
There
is
a
required
reduction
in
rents
for
any
rental
controlled
unit.
Under
those
circumstances,
it
specifically
with
regards
to
david
avenue,
184
center
street.
He
originally
bought
the
property
for
five
million
dollars.
The
sec
tax
appraisal
recently
has
established
that
the
land
is
worth
2.4
million
and
that
the
original
building
was
worth
2.5
million.
However,
the
the
latest
report
indicates
now
that
the
building
is
only
worth
1.45
million.
L
L
H
M
Thank
you.
I'd
like
to
bring
up
a
general
principle
that
appears
lost
in
some
of
the
weeds
here.
The
csfra
has
a
market
safety
provision,
section
1718,
which
is
titled
d
control.
It
reads
if
the
average
annual
vacancy
rate
in
controlled
rental
units
exceeds
five
percent.
The
committee
is
empowered
in
order
to
achieve
the
objectives
of
this
article,
to
suspend
the
provisions
of
this
article.
M
M
Finds
that
the
average
annual
vacancy
rate
has
thereafter
fallen
below
five
percent,
the
provisions
of
this
article
shall
be
reimposed.
I.
This
has
not
been
factored
and
fully
acted
upon
by
the
rhc
temporary
d
control
was
a
central
and
essential
balancing
factor
that
voters
approved
it
was
clearly
designed
for
circumstances
of
widespread
vacancy
and
falling
rents,
and
that
using
those
suppressed
rents
in
a
ba
as
a
basis
in
csfra
would
need
to
be
suspended
rather
than
the
whole
one
way
to
do.
M
This
is
the
months
where
vacancy
exceeded
five
percent
during
the
past
two
years
need
to
be
removed
from
being
factored
into
base,
rent
calculations,
rollback
revisions
and
rent
concession
discussions.
Temporary
incentives
should
not
be
locked
in
during
that
suppressed
rent
high
vacancy
time
period.
That
was
the
purpose
and
intent
of
this
limiting
language.
If
the
vacancy
is
high,
there
is
an
issue
in
the
market.
M
It
is
not
balanced
and
rents
are
forced
into
being
uncharacteristically
lowered
or
heavy
incentives
and
concessions
provided
such
that
the
base
rent
would
not
reflect
a
balanced
market
and
landlords
would
be
permanently
punished
for
10
to
20
years.
If
such
were
made
permanent
to
the
extent
the
landlords
identified
clearly
with
tenants
that
these
were
not
permanent
rent
reductions,
they
are
to
be
commended
when
listed
as
temporary
limited
concessions
or
credits.
M
Tenants
knew
clearly
that
these
were
one-time
temporary
assistance
or
incentives.
I
understand
their
natural
motivations
to
now,
lock
that
in
in
cases
where
the
landlords
were
vague,
the
confusion
is
understandable
and
should
be
remedied
case
by
case
with
clarity
provided
by
the
rhc
for
future.
However,
prior
to
voting
on
or
implementing
any
changes
or
clarifications
now
proposed
in
order
to
not
selectively
enforce
but
be
balanced
and
aligned.
M
With
this
voter
provision,
the
rhc
should
undertake
a
full
analysis
of
the
vacancy
rate
for
covered
units
by
month
for
the
past
two
years,
then
in
fairness,
rhcs
should
discuss
and
implement
section
1718
first,
excluding
those
months
of
suppressed
rents
and
heightened
concessions
from
base
rent
calculations.
This
will
also
help
define
and
set
parameters
to
any
retroactive
resets.
This
aligns
with
voters
intent
and
objectives,
and
I
ask
you
to
direct
staff
and
place
this
on
the
next
rhc
meeting
for
public
discussion
in
action
and
not
take
any
action
on
any
proposals
before
fully
doing
so.
O
O
Oh,
can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
okay,
perfect,
I
don't
know
where
I
cut
out,
but
basically
I
was
just
saying:
ableism
is
real,
taking
away
virtual
or
hybrid
meetings
is
violating
the
rights
of
a
large
group
of
various
people,
low
income
people
with
mobility
issues
immunocompromised
the
list
can
go
on
to
equally
participate
in
these
community
meetings.
O
F
F
F
F
You
also
received
a
summary
of
the
stakeholder
meetings
and
extensive
public
comments,
and
we
also
went
over
what
other
jurisdictions
with
rent
stabilization
have
adopted
with
regard
to
this
matter
and
the
intent
of
adopting
regulations
to
address
the
issue.
So
it
was
a
pretty
lively
conversation
and
staff
did
hear
what
everyone
said
and
tried
to
take
that
into
account
in
bringing
back
the
regulations
next
slide.
F
The
third
question
was:
should
the
calculation
exclude
any
rent
that
the
tenant
fails
to
pay
or
withholds
in
violation
of
the
agreement
on
that
one?
All
six
of
the
rhc
members
and
alternate
were
in
agreement
and
then
the
final
question
that
was
put
to
the
rhc
was:
should
all
types
of
concessions
be
treated
the
same
when
calculating
base
rent?
F
F
The
regulations
also
make
clear
that
the
tenant's
failure
to
pay
rent
or
if
the
tenant
gets
a
rent
reduction
as
a
result
of
a
habitability
petition
or
a
decrease
in
housing
services
will
not
impact
base
rent.
So
this
was
one
of
the
issues
that
came
up
at
your
meeting
in
may
and
at
the
stakeholder
meetings
of.
How
do
you
address
the
fact
that
maybe
tenants
don't
pay
the
rent
and
particularly
during
covid?
F
F
So
next
slide,
so
just
by
way
of
calculation
and
sort
of
examples
of
how
this
would
work.
In
our
first
example,
a
tenant
would
sign
a
12-month
lease
with
a
contract
rent
of
a
thousand
dollars
a
month,
but
as
part
of
the
lease
the
tenant
would
be
given
two
months
free
rent
during
that
12-month
period.
F
If
the
tenant
signs
a
six-month
lease
at
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
and
there's
one
month
of
free
rent,
so
the
basement
would
be
determined
over
that
six-month
term.
So,
once
again,
we
would
have
833
dollars
as
the
basement,
because
the
tenant
in
that
example
would
pay
five
months
a
thousand
over
a
six
month
term.
F
The
other
example
is,
let's
say,
the
tenant
signs,
a
15-month
lease
with
a
contract
rent
of
a
thousand
dollars
a
month,
and
there
are
two
months
of
free
rent
during
the
first
12
months
of
the
leaves
in
that
example.
We
would
use
12
months
as
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy
and,
once
again
the
rent
would
be
833.33.
F
F
F
So
it
would
limit
the
recovery
to
one
year
as
opposed
to
the
applicable
statute
of
limitations.
If
we
say
nothing
which
would
presumably
be
three
years
as
that's
the
statute
of
limitations
under
state
law,
for
statutes
for
tendencies
that
commenced
after
september
1st
of
2022,
the
regulation
is
slightly
different
and
would
essentially
say
that
the
tenant
would
be
entitled
to
a
rollback
and
a
refund
of
any
overpaid
rent
subject
to
any
applicable
statute
and
limitations.
F
And
the
distinction
is
made
because
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
also
heard
was
landlords
didn't
have
knowledge
of
the
potential
of
how
basement
actually
worked.
So,
presumably
after
september,
1st
2022
for
any
tenancy
that
commenced,
this
regulation
clarifies
and
they
can
conduct
their
business
appropriately.
F
F
F
Based
on
that
petition,
the
tenant
would
only
be
able
to
recover
the
last
12
months
of
overpaid
rent.
So
in
this
example
250,
so
the
recovery
would
be
limited
to
three
thousand
dollars,
as
opposed
to
potential
six
thousand
and
just
to
note
under
the
csfra
once
the
tenant
did
recover,
the
overpaid
rent,
the
landlord
would
be
eligible
to
take
any
of
the
annual
general
adjustments.
F
F
So,
and
one
of
the
other
questions
that
we
received
on
at
the
may
meeting
was
the
concern
about
trouble
damages.
Potentially,
the
csfra
does
allow
tenants
to
bring
civil
suit
against
their
landlord,
and
there
is
the
option
of
trouble
damages.
Those
trouble
damages
can
only
be
awarded
if
the
landlord
acted
willfully
and
with
oppression,
fraud
or
malice.
So
that
is
a
pretty
high
standard
trouble
damages
are
considered
a
penal
damage
and
they
are
governed
by
a
one-year
statute
of
limitations.
F
F
F
There
is
also
once
again
an
extensive
discussion
about
this
in
your
staff
report.
So
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
that
with
all
the
case
sites,
but
the
proposed
regulations
are
related
to
the
legitimate
purposes
of
the
csfra
and
the
mhrso,
and
those
purposes
are
a
legitimate
exercise
of
the
police
power.
F
H
K
P
K
There's
a
legal
consequence
to
that
where,
if
the
landlords
now
don't
comply
with
our
new
clarified
interpretation
of
the
csfra,
then
you
know
arguably
there
they
are
subject
to
any
manner
of
consequences,
whether
via
a
petition
or
even
through
the
court
process.
So
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
understand
that
concept,
because
to
me
it
certainly
seems
as
if,
if
we
adopt
the
regulations.
P
K
Okay
and
then
I
mean,
but
ultimately
something
like
whether
to
go
a
year
a
year
back
or
not.
That
csfr
is
silent.
Csf
already
silent
on
that.
But
that's
not
us
clarifying
anything.
That's
us
making
policy
and
saying
we've
decided
as
a
policy
principle.
We
want
to
do
x,
y
and
z.
That's
not
clarifying
anything!
I
mean.
Is
that
fair
to
say
in
terms
of
the
one
year
going
back.
K
Okay,
but
I
mean
I
think,
it's
one
thing
if
we
are
looking
at
the
plain
text
of
the
csfra
like
we've,
been
doing
and
saying
some
people
find
ambiguity
in
this.
So
let's
clarify
that
exact
language
as
compared
to
saying
now
we're
going
to
introduce
a
new
concept,
which
is
whether
we
should
go
a
year
back
or
three
years
back.
I
mean
that
that
seems
to
me
more
of
a
policy
decision,
but
maybe
it's
not
a
proper
time
for
it.
K
The
only
thing
is
that,
as
always,
there's
a
high
standard
you
have
to
meet
in
order
to
secure
those
types
of
damages,
if
you're
in
a
tenant's
position,
but
we're
not
doing
anything
in
any
way
that
insulates,
the
landlords
or
otherwise
protects
them
from
tenants
who
going
forward
after
we
enact
these
regs
might
come
after
them
and,
among
other
things,
say
I
want
triple
damages
against
you,
the
landlords,
because
of
how
you
treated
the
base.
France,
I
mean
is
that
kind
of
a
fair
statement.
F
E
This
is
two
months
free,
but
but
be
a
one-time
concession
of
zero
with
you
know,
with
several
months
a
different
term
or
based
rent
for
for
the
months
afterward
versus
number
two,
which
is
a
25
percent
discount,
and
I
think
in
example
one
I
think.
That's
where
a
lot
of
the
energy
I've
heard
from
the
community
has
been
that
you
know,
moving
a
move-in
special
or
a
move-in
concession
has
a
different
purpose
as
as
the
second
one
where
that
is
tougher
to
defend
it.
E
F
F
F
A
A
F
I
think
this
is
the
challenge
and
I
have
to
say
we
may
need
to
come
up
with
some
clarifying
regulations
on
this
as
well,
because
that
is
one
interpretation.
You
know
what
both
the
mhrso
and
the
csfrsa
is.
It
is
the
basement,
in
effect,
it
doesn't
define
an
effect
and-
and
that
essentially
is
the
entire
sum
of
what
it
says.
So
it
doesn't
have
any
of
the
additional
language
or
tendencies
that
commence
after
those
dates
that
we
have
in
the
other
definitions.
F
A
A
I'm
trying
to
think
of
how
to
phrase
this
sorry,
okay,
so
as
we're
thinking
about
the
retro
activity
and
we're
thinking
about,
do
we
go?
Do
we
do
anything
to
potentially
limit
you
know?
I
I
tend
to
understand
that,
based
on
the
plain
language
of
the
csfra
base,
rent
and
rent
may
have
slightly
contradictory
definitions
there
beyond
periodic
versus
actual
paid
by
looking
at
retroactivity.
F
F
K
Yeah
those
other
jurisdictions
that
you
mentioned,
your
contact
did
any
of
them
have
anything.
I
think
it
was
richmond
and
berkeley,
perhaps
for
some
of
them,
but
did
any
of
them
in
any
way
address
a
circumstance
that
we're
in
here
or
are
we
really
in
kind
of
uncharted
territory
as
to
this
specific
issue?
So
did
any
of
them
ever?
K
Have
the
specific
issue
of
of
clarifying
how
base
rent
was
going
to
be
defined
and
then
taking
that
second
step
of
saying?
Well,
how
far
back
are
we
willing
to
permit?
You
know,
recovery
in
terms
of
you
know,
statute
limitations.
Purpose
is
anyone
else
kind
of
dealt
with
that?
Are
we
the
first
as
far
as
we
understand.
F
So
several
of
those
jurisdictions
have
clarified
base
rent.
I
think
we
provided
you
with
that
information
last
month,
including
berkeley,
richmond,
west
hollywood
and
santa
monica.
I
did
go
back
and
check
their
regulations.
I
could
not
find
any
that
then
limited
the
tenants
recovery
amount.
We
did
have
some
discussions
today
with
richmond
and
west
hollywood.
F
Many
many
years
after
their
ordinances
were
adopted,
but
in
particular
five
or
six
years
after
costa
hawkins
went
into
effect,
which
is
what
really
impacted
this
issue
for
jurisdictions
that
had
defense,
stabilization,
pre-costa,
hawkins,
so
very
similar
situation.
Timing,
wise
to
what
mountain
view
is
doing.
A
Okay,
I
have
one
final
question,
but
does
anyone
else
on
the
committee
have
one
before
I
have
asked
mine?
Okay,
I
know
that
this
has
mostly.
This
issue
has
mostly
arisen
because
of
perhaps
concessions
given
during
the
cove
times
and
various
things
that
we've
seen
as
of
late.
But
rental
concessions
are
not
new
in
the
industry.
I
think
my
first
I'm
going
to
call
it.
My
big
girl,
lease
like
after
I
was
out
of
college,
had
to
run
concession
in
it,
and
that
was
many
many
moons
before
covet.
A
Do
we
have
any
concerns-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
maybe
more
for
anki-
that
this
question
has
been
asked
in
since
2015
by
a
landlord
or
a
tenant
and
was
answered
differently
than
it's
being
answered
now,
meaning
that
we
may
have
a
tenant
or
landlord.
Who
was
advised
that
the
concession
did
not
need
to
be
reduced,
maybe
in
2016
or
2017
and
was
operating
under
that
assumption.
Q
We
have
not
encountered
those
questions
in
the
beginning
of
the
csf
array
being
effective
because
we
try
to
signal
any
questions
that
are
coming
in
and
where
clarification
might
be
beneficial
to
the
public
at
large.
So
this
la
past
months
have
been
the
first
time
that
these
issues
were
brought
up
to
us
at
least
yeah.
H
Q
A
Okay,
seeing
no
more
questions
raise
your
hands.
If
you
have
questions,
I
am
now
going
to
invite
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
staff
will
display
a
countdown
timer
on
the
screen
and
perhaps
help
me
keep
the
commenters
in
order,
so
I
don't
lose
track
of
them.
Thank
you
in
advance
staff.
Okay.
I
believe
that
someone
had
had
their
hand
up.
R
R
R
What's
before
you
today
is
a
question
of
what
the
law
is
and
it's
pretty
clear
what
the
attorney
for
the
city
you
know
believes
the
law
says.
I
I
think
it's
clear
as
day
what
measure
v
says.
I
and
it's
remarkable
to
me
that
so
much
has
been
said
about
you
know,
basically
to
rationalize
a
decision
made
by
landlords
who
had
not
carefully
read
the
csfra.
R
S
S
It
sounds
like
what
from
what
I've
heard
if
a
landlord
stole
rent
money
from
a
tenant,
either
through
malice
or
through
poorly
reading
the
city
charter,
then
there
is
a
policy
decision
being
made
tonight
to
limit
how
much
a
tenant
could
get
back
and
making
a
decision
to
make
it
only
back
to
a
year.
So
there
is,
there
does
seem
to
be
a
policy
and
it
seems
pretty
clear
what
face
rent
is
at
the
I'd.
H
T
So,
yes,
I'm
requesting
nine
minutes,
I'm
representing
five
people,
so
if
they
were
all
to
talk,
that's
15
minutes.
We've
done
a
lot
of
research
about
the
economic
impact
of
this
policy.
So
that's
something
the
board
has
requested
of
the
and
I'm
I'm
ready
to
give
it
to
you.
If
you
give
me
that
time.
F
A
T
T
So
to
get
us
all
oriented
the
rental
housing
committee,
intent
and
purpose
is
to
fulfill
upon
the
community
stabilization
and
fair
rent
act
and
the
two
main
objectives
in
that
rent
act
are
affordability
for
renters,
as
well
as
ensuring
a
fair
and
reasonable
return
for
landlords.
The
first
part
of
this
study
we're
going
to
look
at
the
affordability
for
renters
and
what
that
impact
will
be
so
the
impact
of
this
regulation
were
it
to
go
through,
is
that
landlords
have
stated
overwhelmingly
that
they
will
no
longer
be
providing
future
concessions.
T
So,
with
this
in
mind,
the
industry
standard
of
often
providing
one
month
free
concessions
is
now
taken
out
from
the
possibility,
so
we're
going
to
look
at
what
impact
that
will
make.
So
the
ultimate
impact
is
that
relocation
costs
into
mountain
view
will
become
financially
prohibitive
for
the
median
income
people
in
santa
clara.
So
that
means
50
percent
of
people
in
santa
clara
county
will
face
financial
hardship
with
the
possibility
or
desire
to
move
to
mountain
view
or
relocate
within
the
city
and
to
break
down
how
we're
looking
at
this.
T
It
is
a
short-term,
acute
financial
hardship
that
would
occur
so
the
median
household
income.
If
we
look
at
that
for
santa
clara
county,
is
a
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars
that
breaks
down
into
an
after
tax
amount
of
seven
thousand
three
hundred
and
eighteen,
the
average
householder
excuse
me.
Median
household
savings
is
two
thousand
dollars.
That
means
there's
approximately
9
000
available.
T
That
means
the
remaining
funds
are
three
thousand
forty
nine
dollars
and
the
average
living
expenses
for
a
home
for
a
health
for
a
family
is
three
thousand
one
hundred
and
fifty
eight.
That
means
net
funds
without
any
concessions,
is
three
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars.
So
if
any
health
issues
come
up,
any
unexpected
costs
come
up.
We
are
talking
about
a
short-term,
acute
financial
hardship
and
risk
to
those
renters.
T
The
second
portion
or
purpose
commitment
that
the
rental
housing
committee
has
is
to
also
ensure
fair
and
reasonable
returns
to
landlords.
So
I
want
to
remind
the
committee
that
or
let
the
committee
know
that
many
of
these
landlords
are
elderly.
This
represents
often
their
life
savings
and
they
rely
upon
this
income
to
meet
their
monthly
needs.
T
So
you're,
the
you
know,
you
guys
have
a
very
big
impact
in
whatever
you
vote
to
examine
the
impact
that
this
regulation
would
have
on
the
bottom
line.
We
took
a
look
at
a
typical
10
unit
complex.
We
made
the
assumption
that
a
good
faith
type
concession
was
given
at
move-in
for
every
tenant,
so
a
one-month
free,
single
concession
with
no
renewals,
the
tenant
duration
mix
would
be.
In
this
example.
Five
tenants
moved
in
in
2022
and
as
the
other
five
tenants
had
moved
in
prior,
that
means
all
tenant.
T
T
This
is
huge,
and
this
is
for
only
the
average
landlord,
so
other
people
can
be
more
than
this,
so
so
moving
on
to
how
this
breaks
down,
so
you
may
think
that
you're
just
voting
on
a
1
12
reduction,
but
the
issue
is
that
the
costs
remain
the
same,
so
it
multiplies
the
impact,
and
so
that
is
what
I'm
showing
here
and
again
we
can.
You
can
take
a
look
at
the
excel
sheets
for
further
detail,
and
this
does
also
take
into
account
the
annual
increase.
All
of
that
is
included.
T
So,
in
summary,
the
proposed
regulation
as
it
stands
will
substantially
impair
affordability
and
access
to
housing
to
middle
income,
individuals
looking
to
move
into
or
relocate
within
mountain
view.
The
proposed
regulation,
if
applied
retroactively,
will
substantially
impede
upon
the
landlord's
ability
to
achieve
fair
and
reasonable
returns.
T
T
The
tenants
do
need
to
be
protected,
and
for
that
reason,
what
we
would
propose
is
to
simply
limit
the
scope
of
allowable
concessions,
to
one
stop
annually,
renewing
concessions
and
to
to
stop
the
amortization
of
concessions.
This
would
both
provide
safety
for
the
tenants
and
the
renters.
It
would
enable
the
beneficial
impact
to
the
renters
of
the
through
the
move-in
specials
and
make
sure
that
the
landlords
are
able
to
have
a
fair
and
reasonable
return
so
again
benefiting
all
parties.
T
So
just
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you
for
for
listening
and
thank
you
for
I
know
I
know
you
guys
really
care
about
the
community.
I
was
born
in
mountain
view.
I
care
about
the
community
as
well,
so
I
do
want
renters
to
be
taken
care
of
and
ultimately
the
best
way
to
do,
that
is
to
take
care
of
all
parties
involved.
T
So
if
you
have
any
questions
about
the
economic
impact,
please
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
concerns
about
the
study.
I
I
am
an
economic
researcher.
I've
done
that
for
a
living
for
many
years.
So
you
know
a
lot
of
work
was
put
into
this
and
yeah.
Just
please.
Let
me
know
any
questions,
so
that's
that's
all
I
have
thank
you
so
much.
T
A
U
Can
hear
you
wonderful,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
an
opportunity
to
speak.
I
am
a
rental
housing
provider
in
mountain
view.
Again
my
name
is
shanna.
This
is
a
really
challenging
time
to
be
a
landlord.
I'm
sure
you've
heard
that
many
times
rents
over
the
last
two
years
and
my
properties
in
mountain
view,
dropped
600
or
more
a
month.
That
is
very
significant.
U
In
a
time
where
people
were
moving
out
of
california
moving
out
of
mountain
view.
Moving
out
of
the
msa,
it
was
challenging
to
get
people
back
into
our
homes,
so
we
did
have
to
rely
on
concessions
like
most
of
those
landlords
in
the
market
had
to
do
at
the
time
we
were
operated.
We
did
read
the
agreements
we
did
read
the
regulations
and
nothing
in
there
would
have
told
me
that
I
would
be
asked
to
give
back
money
right
that
I've
already
lost
I've
already
given
out
concessions
that
there
would.
U
I
could
not
have
fathomed
that
we
would
be
sitting
where
we
are
today
and
I'm
sure
the
people
that
have
lived
here
for
a
long
time
are
more
agreeable
to
this
kind
of
thing,
because
they
probably
experienced
concessions
in
the
past,
and
this
is
a
windfall
for
them,
but
not
for
the
new
people
coming
in.
I
can
tell
you
we
do
not
do
amortized
concessions,
we
do
them
up
front
because
people
need
them
to
move
in.
They
need
them
to
mitigate
the
cost
of
a
truck.
U
I
need
that
I
need
people
in
my
buildings
so
that
I'm
able
to
pay
payroll
for
the
people
on
site
to
take
care
of
the
work
orders
that
are
on
site
to
invest
in
my
property
to
keep
it
looking
clean
for
the
renters
that
rent
with
me.
I
I
find
it
very
challenging
to
hear
that
you
think
people
are
already
filing
these
petitions
about
concessions
and,
if
so,
if
people
are
getting
money
back
because
of
the
concessions,
why
do
we
need
this
as
it's
written
today?
Right?
U
U
How
would
you
I
implore
you
to
think
about
how
you
would
handle
it
if
your
employer
asked
you
to
give
back
money
that
you
had
earned
right?
How
would
you
feel
about
that?
Where
would
you
come
up
with
that?
We're
not
talking
about
a
four
property
dupe,
or
you
know
four
property
complex,
we're
talking
in
some
cases,
even
if
it's
10
or
15
units?
That
is
a
lot
of
money.
U
V
V
Doesn't
the
tenant
have
a
lease
for
the
first
two
months?
Of
course
they
do.
Their
initial
tenancy
includes
the
period
of
free
rent.
Any
other
interpretation
is
convoluted
and
strays
from
the
wording
of
our
rental
ordinances
to
landlords
who
want
to
end
up
with
a
rent
of
1
000
in
months
13
and
want
to
provide
two
months
free.
They
can
do
it.
They
need
to
start
renting.
The
unit
at
1200.
V
here
is
their
marketing
two
months
free,
then
pay
rent
of
1200
and
a
rent
decrease
to
1
000,
beginning
in
months
13.
mountain
view.
Apartments
will
still
be
rented,
including
after
you
pass
the
staff
recommendation
regarding
base
rent
to
the
landlord
example
of
giving
a
move-in
of
cash
of
cash
payment
to
renters
it
is.
It
is
hard
to
see
this
as
paid
by
the
tenant.
V
However,
while
I
hope
you
will
adopt
the
proposed
regulation
tonight,
you
might
ask
staff
to
come
back
with
additional
language
to
prevent
abuse
of
the
csfra
by
large
move-in
payments
to
tenants
allowing
the
tenant
to
pay
an
inflated
initial
rent
and
enabling
an
inflated
base
rent
so
that
future
rents
become.
Let's
make
a
deal,
your
legal
staff
has
recommended
flexibility
regarding
retroactive
return
of
rent
to
tenants
related
to
concessions.
V
I
support
this.
I
would
not
reduce
the
potential
return
available
to
renters
below
what
is
proposed
and
you
might
consider
more
than
a
one
year
return
in
the
case
of
hardship,
as
you
have
done
for
other
regulations,
giving
this
discretion
to
hearing
officers
and,
of
course,
the
mnoi
fair
rate
of
return
is
available
to
the
landlords
who
are
impacted
by
not
this
change,
but
this
clarification
and
interpretation
of
the
existing
language
in
the
csfra.
W
Good
evening
my
name
is
lauren
zack
you
she
her
pronouns.
I
am
a
housing
attorney.
I
barred
in
the
state
of
california
and
I
practice
in
san
mateo
and
santa
clara
counties,
including
in
mountain
view.
I
have
read
the
csfra
very
carefully
and
I
support
the
staff
recommendation
as
a
clarification
of
the
existing
law.
It
is
completely
consistent
with
the
language
and
the
intent
of
the
csfra.
W
X
X
I
wanted
to
address
the
impact
that
this
proposal
will
have
on
owners
and
many
other
owners
in
mountain
view.
The
proposal
you
have
before
you
is
punitive
in
its
approach.
First
of
all,
concessions
are
acceptable,
business
practice
used
to
lease
units,
and
it's
that's
important
in
this
particular
market.
X
These
concessions
were
being
provided
with
the
with
no
expectation
that
one
day
you
would
deem
them
illegal
and
force
owners
to
pay
retroactively
on
the
amount
that
that
you
will
determine.
Most
importantly,
concessions
are
a
valuable
tool
for
tenants
to
ease
the
transition
of
moving.
They
are
a
win-win
for
both
tenants
and
property
owners.
X
Y
Since
that
time,
many
mountain
view,
housing
providers
have
been
operating
in
good
faith
to
work
with
residents
to
make
housing
accessible
upfront
rent
concessions
that
take
the
form
of
one
to
two
months.
Free
rent
help
reduce
moving
costs,
make
housing
accessible
and
are
consistent
with
the
stated
intent
of
the
csfra
upfront.
Rent
concessions
do
not
reduce
the
periodic
payment
of
monthly
rent.
Y
Y
Rather,
you
should
look
to
treat
upfront
concessions
differently
from
ongoing
concessions
and
tenants
will
know
up
front
what
they're
paying
and
how
much
they
can
anticipate
their
rent
increase
will
be
there's
a
clear
distinction
between
the
upfront
concession
and
the
ongoing
concession.
Secondarily,
the
retroactive
application
is
punitive
to
housing
providers
who
acted
in
good
faith.
They
were
acting
in
compliance
with
the
csfra.
Y
Y
N
H
Z
Wonderful,
so
I
just
like
to
make
my
comments
to
some
of
the
board
members
who
are
in
favor
of
including
concessions
in
the
base
rant.
You
know,
I
understand
that
you've
accepted
the
consequences
to
landlords,
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
bother
you
very
much,
but
I
want
you
to
think
about
the
consequences
to
tenants.
Z
That
money
is
now
gone,
they're
not
going
to
get
it
anymore.
So
I
need
everybody
to
understand
if
you're
voting
to
include
concessions
in
base
rent
you're,
penalizing
every
tenant
who
moves
in
later
on.
Yes,
it's
a
windfall
for
the
tenants
that
are
there
now,
but
this
is
penalizing
landlords
today,
but
you'll
be
penalizing
tenants
forever,
because
we
will
eliminate
all
concessions.
AA
AA
AA
AA
How
is
that
fair
staff
is
saying
only
new
renters
who
signed
leases
on
or
after
march,
16
2021
would
be
covered
by
any
rhc
decision
to
alter
base
rents
to
accommodate
for
concessions
effectively
such
a
really
such
a
ruling
would
discriminate
between
old,
long-time
residents
and
new
residents
and
how
they
are
treated,
and
this
has
kind
of
directed-
I
guess
at
karen.
There
is
more
than
sufficient
legal
room
for
a
broader
interpretation
of
the
ordinance
such
that
longtime
residents
and
new
residents
are
treated
equally
when
it
comes
to
concessions.
AA
AA
AA
A
AB
Moving
all
right,
the
landlords
knew
the
rules,
landlords
followed,
the
rules,
landlords
followed
acceptable
practices
used
in
other
481
cities
and
57
counties
throughout
the
state.
There's
no
clarification
needed.
It
was
very
clear
what
the
rules
were
and
now
you're
looking
to
change
them.
This
is
not
a
clarification.
This
is
another
way
by
the
biased
staff.
The
retroactively
punish,
landlords,
plain
and
simple.
This
is
bias
and
you've
got
the
votes
to
do
it,
and
you
all
know
it.
AB
AB
If
you
need
to
clarify
it,
clarify
going
forward
not
going
backwards,
no
reason
to
go
backward.
If
we
go
forward,
we
know
the
rules
we
play
by
the
rules,
easy
said
and
done
now,
five
years
later,
you
want
to
go
backwards.
It's
a
bunch
of
bs.
Here
are
the
unintended
consequences.
Let
me
straight
up
with
you:
it's
gonna
pass.
We
know
it's
gonna
pass
because
you're
biased
and
you
will
pass
it
and
going
forward.
There
will
be
no
move-in
specials
ever
a
gun.
AB
H
AC
AC
As
one
of
the
speakers
probably
mentioned,
it's
not
really
a
policy
question,
it's
more
of
like
what
does
this
actually
mean
so
that
we
don't
have
to
deal
this
out
in
court.
It
is
good
on
all
sides
to
ensure
that
tenants
have
the
knowledge
of
what
they're
getting
themselves
into
at
first.
We
don't
want
to
be
leading
to
a
situation
where
suddenly
there's
like
a
massive
rent
increase
functioning.
AC
That
happens
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
they
perhaps
did
not
know
about,
because
things
can
happen
over
a
year
and
if
concessions
are
really
what
is
necessary
to
bring
people
in.
That's
there's
nothing,
stopping
a
reduction
of
rent
right,
that's
still
the
option,
and
even
if
a
rental
provider
is
facing
issues
with
the
overall
dealing
with
the
property,
there
is
already
a
process
under
the
rhc
to.
AC
Provide
a
fair
rate
of
return,
we
already
have
a
process
for
it,
it
can
be
done.
We
don't
need
to
be
creating
more
disruption
for
now,
so
I
do
recommend
what
staff
has
brought
up
for
you,
because
we've
gone
through
already
a
public
process
over
this
we've
gone
through
workshops
and
what
staff
has
brought
up
is
reflective
of
workshops.
AC
AD
All
right
awesome,
so
I've
been
living
in
mountain
view.
For
a
few
years
now
I
was
able
to
have
the
privilege
of
voting
for
the
adoption
of
the
sisfra
via
passage
of
measure
v
in
2016
and
actually
see
through
a
much
staggeringly
greater
percentage
of
support
of
renter
protections
in
mountain
view,
a
70
voter,
rejection
of
measure
d
in
2020.
So
in
terms
of
you
know,
we
we
keep
hearing
letter
and
then
ten
in
terms
of
intent.
AD
That's
that's
literally
in
in
the
law,
both
the
cisra
and
the
mhrso
say
that
the
initial
rental
rate
means
only
the
amount
of
rent
actually
paid
by
the
tenant
for
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy
that
that's
that's
it's
literal.
It's
there!
It's
it's!
There's
no
debate
about
this.
That's
not
the
debate
that
we're
having
today,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
what
you
know.
A
lot
of
speakers
you
know
are
are
kind
of
discussing.
AD
Without
necessarily
you
know,
if
we,
if
we
were
to
give
a
name
to
it,
you
know
it's
the
context
around
the
system,
the
context
around
what
it
means
you
know
the
perspective
around,
who
is
it
fair
to
who?
Is
it
not
fair
to
and
just
to
be
clear
when
we
passed
our
rent
control
laws?
We
passed
that
within
a
city
that
not
only
operates
within
but
also
acknowledges
that
our
nation
is
based
on
a
free
market
economy,
and
that
means
that
business
owners,
landlords
are
business
owners.
AD
You
know
just
like
any
other
business
owner.
They
must
be
appropriately
rewarded
for
with
profits
against
the
risks
that
they
take
on
when
they
provide
goods
and
services.
The
cispro
has
been
challenged
in
court
on
those
grounds
thoroughly,
and
it
has
been
thoroughly
upheld
with
its
language
surviving
intact,
because
it
has
been
found
to
be
fair
to
landlords
in
furthering
the
will
of
mount
view's
voters,
which
is
to
protect
vulnerable
residents
and
renters.
AD
So
when
you
know
I'm
kind
of
hearing,
you
know
like
ms
skye
moreland's
discussion
around
housing-
affordability,
hey
like
guess
what
that's
only
going
to
be
affordable
up
front
but
as
rents
compound
in
the
future
based
on
a
higher
base
rent,
then
that's
actually
creating
far
less
affordability
over
the
long
term.
When
I
hear
mr
anil
babar
say
you
know
quote
in
this,
particular
market
concessions
are
needed.
You
know,
there's
no
forced
major
clause
in
our
rent
control
laws.
AD
AE
Hi
everybody.
Can
you
hear
me?
We
can
hear
you
hi
good
evening.
Everybody,
this
discussion
is,
is
very
important
and
it
affects
housing
providers
and
residents,
and
you
know
I'm
grateful
to
hear
the
input
and
I'm
grateful
to
rhc
staff
and
to
all
of
rhc
members,
for
you
know
allowing
the
type
of
discussion
to
be
had,
because
it
really
is
important,
and
you
know
my
my
comment
is-
is
really
going
to
the
language
of
sister
itself.
AE
You
know
if
the
language
of
cispra
is
as
clear
as
rhc
staff
says
it
is,
and
some
of
the
other
speakers
say
it
is
then
no
need
for
clarification,
but
the
reality
is.
The
proposed
amendment
is
a
change.
It
contradicts
the
definition
of
rent
in
sisra,
which
specifically
includes
periodic
payments
of
monthly
rent,
a
one-time,
temporary
move-in
or
renewal.
Concession
is
consistent
with
the
purposes
of
sisfra.
AE
AE
N
N
Well,
it's
the
base
rent
is
whatever
is
on
the
contract
there,
and
I
just
left
it
at
that,
and
I
realized
that
I
should
have
called
you
guys
and
asked
you
for
clarification
at
that
time,
but
we
didn't-
and
so
now
here
we
are,
but
by
my
reading
of
this-
is
that
the
initial
rent
is
is
the
periodic
rent
on
a
month-to-month
thing.
I
never
saw
anything
that
said
in
the
month
to
month.
It
was
the
12-month
and
you.
O
Well,
you
can
hear
me
okay,
we
can
hear
you.
Oh
thank
you,
I'm
anna
marie.
I
use
she
her
pronouns,
I'm
an
over
40-year
resident
of
our
beautiful
city
as
a
nine-year
mobile
home
resident.
I
like
to
echo
everything
that
edie
allen,
alex
n
and
the
mobile
home
renter
who
spoke
on
the
phone
said
they
said
it
all
perfectly.
O
O
AF
Okay?
Well,
thank
you
rhc,
because
I
know
you
have
a
very
difficult
job
and
you
know
from
my
perspective,
what
that
job
is
is
having
at
almost
every
rhc
meeting,
to
have
landlords.
Ask
you
to
relitigate
something:
that's
already
been
passed,
and
that
is
what
is
happening
yet
again
today
and
I'm
exhausted.
I
have
lived
here
for
many
years
and
definitely
fought
alongside
folks
for
rent
control
and
it's
it's
very
clear.
Let's
not
gaslight
ourselves.
AF
Yes,
we
live
in
this
political
climate
today,
where
agencies
are
captured,
one
of
our
supreme
court
members
has
a
wife
that
started
to
support
january
6,
but
let's
not
get
in
our
heads
that
it's
okay
to
treat
bodies
that
are
meant
to
legis,
not
to
legislate
but
to
uphold
the
law.
As
these
corrupt
agencies,
the
california
apartment
association,
has
a
lot
of
power.
AF
I
don't,
I
believe
smaller
landlords
didn't
understand
this,
but
I
do
not
believe
joshua,
howard
or
the
california
apartment
association
did
not
know
that
this
was
a
way
to
get
around
my
control.
I
know
him
he's
very,
very
smart
and
I
actually
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
his
intelligence,
but
I
am
tired
of
the
bs
and
I'm
being
nice
by
not
swearing
that
we're
even
having
this
conversation.
AF
If
we
need
an
emotional
support
group
for
landlords
before
and
after
these
meetings
great,
but
we
passed
rent
control
and
it
is
the
rhc's
duty
to
uphold
it.
That
is
it.
It
is
very
clear
what
the
law
says,
and
it
is
an
activist
move
of
this
agency,
the
rhc,
if
you
do
anything
but
uphold
what
we
as
voters,
have
passed.
So
my
ass
for
rhc
tonight
is
to
be
the
most
amazing
people
that
you
are,
and
I
know
you
get
bullied
a
lot
and
I'm
sorry
that
I
might
be
coming
off
as
bullying
you.
AF
I
will
say
I
will
stand
with
other
tenants
in
a
lawsuit
and
finding
plaintiffs
for
a
lawsuit.
If
you
choose
to
go
in
any
route
that
undermines
something
that
we
fought
very
very
hard
for
as
tenants.
The
issue
is
what
is
your
job
and
it
is
to
actually
interpret
what
it
is,
whether
you
love
it
or
hate
it,
and
whether
landlords
or
tenants
or
anyone
loves
it
or
hates
it.
AF
So
please
show
some
respect
and
get
to
know
some
tenants
and
get
to
know
the
hardship
that
they
have,
and
I
know
small
landlords,
don't
you
know
definitely
didn't
you
know
do
this
intentionally,
but
I
do
believe
california
partners
association,
probably
gave
them
some
good
strategies
that
they
thought
they
get
around:
rent
control
laws
in
mountain
view
and
I'm
tired
of
it.
So
please
uphold
our
law,
whether
you
like
it
or
hate
it.
Please
please
do
what
you
are
tasked
to
do
and
go
against
the
state
of
affairs
in
our
country.
That
undermines
that.
M
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
Yes,
the
initial
comments
were
more
general
about
vacancy
control
and
specifically
section
17
18.,
and
how
that
provision
of
the
csfra
needs
to
be
given
equal
weight
in
all
discussions,
regardless
of
what
they
are.
I
pointed
out
a
few
specific
applications
to
9.1,
but
that
was
the
the
the
brunt
of
my
comments
was
specifically
focused
on
asking
for
action
by
the
rhc
to
address
that
specific
d
control
section
of
the
csfra,
and
that
has
a
big
impact
on
everything
that
we
do.
M
Obviously,
over
the
last
couple
years.
That
has
been
a
huge
factor,
and
I
think
a
lot
of
what's
being
discussed
here
could
be
alleviated
and
get
some
clarity
if
the
rhc
would
look
at
that
carefully
and
consider
that
the
excessively
suppressed
rents
and
high
vacancy
during
that
period
certainly
had
an
effect
on
on
everyone,
both
tenants
and
landlords.
M
Outside
of
that
specific.
To
this,
this
point
not
having
one-time
concessions,
be
what
they
truly
are
and
be
able
to
do
early
in
a
tenancy,
certainly
injures
landlords
compared
to
other
mountain
view.
Rental
properties
not
subject
to
the
csfra
others
can
provide
a
move-in
bonus
one
month,
free
rent
or
what
have
you
and
not
be
a
permanent
forever
annual
commitment?
M
M
Please
provide
a
way
that
we
can
make
clear
assistance
without
resorting
and-
and
you
know,
submitting
them
to
feeling
like
they're
under
the
gun,
that
if
we,
if
we
provide
any
any
relief
to
them,
if
they
get
in
trouble
at
any
point
in
time
in
that
first
tenancy
period,
we
can't
do
anything
for
them
unless
we
do
it
permanently,
except
that
as
a
permanent,
you
know
benefit
to
them.
And
it's
it's
not.
You
know
I,
you
know.
M
Certainly,
one
way
to
do
that
is
to
you
know,
ignore
that
free
rent
period
or
just
somehow
have
something
that
we
can
be
clear.
I
think
that's
the
most
important.
The
reason
we
didn't
face
this
in
2016
to
2020
is
because
people
understand
one
time,
one-time
concessions
and,
to
the
extent
that
we've
been
clear
with
that,
I
think
all
tenants
and
all
landlords
deserve
to
have
it
clear
up
front
and
in
writing.
Thank
you.
H
L
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
I
hope
I'm
being
heard,
and
basically
my
situation
now
I'm
going
to
be
describing
is
this:
you
hear
a
lot
about
the
housing
providers
complaining
over
and
over
again
about
having
not
understood
the
rules
prior
to
doing
what
they're
doing,
which
is
something
that
I
find
very
strange:
a
person
with
two
business
degrees.
L
I
I
I
would
figure
that
the
first
thing
that
most
property
owners
would
do
is
either
have
a
very
good
attorney
to
make
sure
that
they
are
taking
steps
to
prevent
problems
or,
at
the
very
least,
at
the
same
time,
understand
the
consequences
of
their
actions.
Again,
as
I
described
before,
I
have
a
particular
landlord
that
has
seen
his
property
value
drop
by
28
and
under
the
the
section
regarding
remedies
for
potential
potential
petitions
for
rent
adjustments
going
down.
L
P
P
H
AG
AG
AG
The
petitions
will
be
coming,
the
mountain
view,
mobile
home
alliance
and
others
will
be
helping
tenants
to
write
these
petitions,
and
so
the
only
thing
needed
now
is
to
avoid
the
headache
of
having
to
go
through
a
bunch
of
different
hearings
and
then
having
the
rhc
come
back
to
deal
with
it.
So
I
urge
you
to
pass
the
staff
recommendations.
Thank
you.
A
K
Yeah,
so
you
know
my
take
on
this-
is
that
we're
not
clarifying
anything
we're
making
policy
now
if
we
were
just
clarifying
things,
we
wouldn't
have
three
meetings
and
a
workshop
and
50
pages
of
staff
reports
to
clarify
one
line
of
text
in
the
csfra,
so
I
don't
think
we're
clarifying
anything.
I
think
we're
making
policy
now,
whether
we
should
be
or
not
is
another
question,
but
that's
what
we're
doing
so.
I
think
we
have
to
be
honest
about
what
we're
doing
now.
This
is
policy,
we're
not
clarifying
anything.
K
So
I
mean
if
we
are
talking
about
policy.
I
think
the
first
thing
that
I
think
of
in
my
mind
is
the
fact
that
for
years
and
years,
apparently
there
was
no
ambiguity.
Nothing
needed
to
be
clarified
because
the
tenants
and
the
landlords
were
all
operating
under
the
working
assumption.
That
concessions
were
not
to
be
considered
part
of
base
rent
and
then
a
few
months
ago,
somehow,
suddenly
there
became
this
issue
where
people
were
confused,
but
for
years
and
years
it
seemed
like
there
was
no
confusion.
K
No
one
was
talking
about
this,
so
I
think
it's
one
thing
to
talk
about
clarifying
things,
moving
forward
and
providing
clarity,
but
it's
another
thing
to
say:
we're
going
to
clarify
things
in
the
past
that
apparently
weren't
unclear
to
anyone.
So
now,
there's
there's
confusion
and
we
we're
probably
primarily
responsible
for
that
now
creating
this
confusion.
K
But
apparently
there
was
no
confusion
for
years
and
years,
so
I
don't.
I
think,
it's
very
troubling
to
clarify
something
from
years
ago
that
doesn't
need
to
be
clarified.
No
one.
No
one
was
confused
about
this
okay,
so
I
think
we
can
use
the
words
retroactive
or
not,
or
whatever
language
we
want,
but
to
say
we're
going
to
go
back
and
and
and
and
clarify
retroactively,
I
think
is,
is-
is
very
significant
because
we're
essentially
changing
we're
creating
confusion
where
there
was
no
confusion.
K
K
It
helped
me
rent
my
first
apartment
in
mountain
view
and
I
think
its
point
is
spot
on
a
few
of
the
people
that
spoke
where
they
said
not
having
concessions
is
going
to
hurt
the
middle
income,
people
and
the
people
that
are
lower
income,
people
that
are
high
income
and
are
moving
here
and
are
making
two
three
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year.
Concessions
are
beer
money,
it
doesn't
affect
them,
but
other
people
that's
going
to
be
the
difference
between
they
can
rent
a
unit
or
not
so
we're
going
to
take
that
away.
K
Now,
if
we
adopt
these
draft
regulations-
and
it
is
going
to
make
it
harder
for-
I
think-
working
class
people
to
live
in
mountain
view,
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
clear
about
that,
because
in
a
year
or
two
from
now,
when
we
see
the
effects
of
what
we're
doing,
I
think
we
should
know
now
we
should
be
responsible
and
we
should
be
held
accountable.
So
I
think,
when
a
year
from
now,
if
the
landlord
to
mount,
you
are
no
longer
offering
concessions.
K
I
don't
think
any
of
us
on
the
committee.
Can
scratch
our
heads
and
say
I
don't
know
how
that
happened,
we're
going
to
know
how
it
happened.
We
decided
to
adopt
these
draft
regulations
and,
in
response,
landlords
are
going
to
say
we're
not
going
to
offer
concessions
anymore
and
middle-income
people
and
low-income
people
are
not
going
to
have
that
benefit
and
they're
it's
going
to
be
harder
for
them
to
live
in
the
mountains.
That's
a
policy
decision
so
now
we're
talking
about
policy.
K
That's
one
policy
issue
to
consider
second
related
issue
to
me
is
there
have
been
landlords
that
have
left
mountain
view
because
of
rent
control,
and
there
are
landlords
that
are
going
to
leave
mountain
view
because
of
rent
control
and
this
these
draft
regulations
further
that
atmosphere
of
encouraging
landlords
to
bail
and
to
sell
their
rent,
controlled
units
and
turn
them
into
townhouses
might
not
happen
overnight,
but
the
climate
that
we've
created,
where
at
least
there's
a
perception
that
we're
going
to
target
landlords.
It
doesn't
help
us
in
the
long
term.
K
So
let's
just
hurt
them
with
one
ear,
and
maybe
it's
you
know
like
split
the
baby
and
no
one
will
be
too
upset,
but
that's
a
policy
decision
we're
making,
but
if
we
can
make
the
decision
to
just
go
one
year,
we
could
also
go
three
years
back
or
we
could
go
no
years
back.
Okay,
there's
nothing
that
says
it
has
to
be
one
year.
So
if
we're
talking
about
policy,
I
think
the
fairest
thing
is
to
say
now
that
there
is
ambiguity
which
did
not
exist
based
on
everything.
We've
heard
the
committee's
heard.
K
P
K
K
You
also
have
to
say:
well
why
not,
two
years
back
or
why
not
zero
years
back,
you
have
to
you
have
to
say
why,
and
so
I
think
that's
an
admission
that
this
is
this.
Is
policy
we're
making?
So
I
think,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
a
fair
rate
of
return
is
when
both
the
landlord
and
the
tenants
think
and
believe
that
there's
no
problem
with
that
transaction
and
for
years
no
one
apparently
believed
that
there
was
any
problem
with
how
this
was
being
treated
in
terms
of
baseline
and
concessions.
I
I
Known
as
a
global
pandemic,
and
that
global
pandemic
caused
some
rents
to
decrease
and
cause
some
essentially
movement
within
the
market,
the
the
concern
I
largely
heard
was
renters,
who
signed
in
with
a
move-in
bonus
of
a
your
real
rent.
Is
this
but
we're
giving
you
a
25
off,
decrease
that
it's
now
one
year
since
they
probably
moved,
and
so
it's
2022
and
suddenly
they're
faced
with
a
25
increase?
I
That
is
not
okay
with
me
that
on
a
bare
minimum
basis,
not
okay
with
me.
If,
if,
if
we
were
concerned
about
just
absolutely
just
full
clarifications,
we
wouldn't
have
changed
anything
from
when
staff
initially
proposed
it
three
months
ago.
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
sympathetic
to
the
the
the
misunderstanding
that
landlords
may
have
had
the
misunderstanding
that
tenants
may
have
had
regarding
this
law
and
that's
why
we
want
to
essentially
make
a
softer
landing.
I
My
understanding,
the
the
one-year
statute
of
limitations
addition
to
the
law
was
so
that
we
wouldn't
have
the
same
law
applying,
because
it's
really
just
the
definitions
and
and
force
a
roll
back
all
the
way
back
to
2016
again
that
that
was
my
understanding
that
the
one-year
statute
of
limitation
was
was
so
that
we
wouldn't
harm
landlords.
That
far
back,
I
did
have
a
quick
question
on
how
rebates
would
work
it.
I
It's
it's
very
interesting
as
as
there's
such
a
level
of
shock
into
the
system
and
the
shock
was
caused
by
the
pandemic.
I
mean,
I
think,
we've
all
agreed
that
that
that
was
why
rents
went
down
last
year,
it's
because
of
the
pandemic
and
and
all
the
people
either
moving
out
unable
to
pay
their
rent
and
therefore
moved
out
or
lost
whatever
their
jobs
were,
and
that
caused
that
that.
I
However,
if
we
are
and-
and
that's
why-
I
I
see
that,
there's
a
distinction
in
in
clarification
and
policy,
we
are,
we
are
clarifying
this
law
and
if
we
want
to
do
a
straight
clarification,
we
would
have
passed
the
staff
recommendation
three
months
ago,
but
we
aren't
doing
that
right
now.
We
have
asked
staff
to
come
back
with
with,
I
want
to
say
concessions,
but
not
really
concessions,
and
I
am
willing
to
look
at
those
to
to
soften
this
landing
that
there
are
things
that
I'm
very
clear
about.
I
E
Sure
thank
you
and
I
will
say
I
had
a
conflict
tonight,
but
I
did
stay
on
to
get
my
comments.
I
will
not
leave
after
I
give
my
comments,
but
I
I
agree
with
with
emily
on
the
situation
she
mentioned.
You
know
about
ongoing
rent
decreases.
I
I
do
think
that's
just
kind
of
a
trick
to
inflate
the
rent,
and
so
whatever
we
would
pass
tonight.
I
I
think
you
know,
there's
there's
probably
a
widespread
spread
agreement
that
something
like
that
shouldn't
be
allowed.
You
should
never.
E
E
With
the
30-day
with
the
move-in
concession
30-day
260
day,
you
know
we
discussed
this
last
time
and
I
did
hear
members
of
the
committee
say
you
know
things
like.
They
believe
that
the
landlords
who
offer
movement
specials
were
acting
in
good
faith.
Our
members
say
you
know:
movement,
specials
are
a
common
business
practice
and
today
a
few
have
mentioned
that
they
benefited
from
them
as
tenants.
I
haven't
heard
that
anyone
necessarily
in
the
believes
on
the
committee
that
movement
specials
qualified
as
an
excessive
rent
increase,
or
that
even
it's,
it's
unfair.
E
That
would
that
would
be
my
ass,
but
and
if
that's
if
the
members
of
the
committee,
if
you
do
believe
those
kind
of
of
specials,
were
run
in
good
faith
to
really
help
with
the
specific
instance
where
a
tenant
you
know
hasn't
gotten
their
deposit
back
from
their
prior,
you
know
unit
that
they
were
occupying
and
it
just
it
makes
the
the
process
smoother.
It's
really
hard,
I
think,
from
my
personal
experience,
to
look
for
another
apartment
when
you're
trying
to
schedule
movers
get
out
of
your
old
lease,
get
your
deposit
back.
E
A
G
A
A
I
if
I
and
I
haven't
signed
a
lease
with
concessions
in
it,
since
I
moved
to
california,
but
if
I
had,
I
will
say
that
candidly
I
would
have
fully
expected
that
the
concession
was
basically
a
bonus.
It
was
a
non-monetary
compensation
in
exchange
for
the
fact
that
I
was
filling
the
unit,
possibly
quicker
or
filling
the
unit
at
all.
I
was
getting
some
monetary
benefit
in
terms
of
a
reduction.
I
would
never.
A
Personally,
I
thought
that
that
meant
my
right
one
down
the
next
year.
I
would
have
never
thought
hey.
I
take
that
concession
month,
put
it
in
at
zero.
Add
up
the
other
11
divide
by
12,
and
that
gets
me
my
right.
That
just
would
not
have
been
my
thought,
and
I
consider
myself
right
there
savvy
with
reading
contracts
deep
in
a
detail-oriented
fashion,
and
I
would
never
have
interpreted
it
that
way.
That
being
said,
I
do
think
that
you
know
the
plane
link.
A
You
know
I'm
not
sure
if
we
can
or
can't
treat
it
differently
if
we
do
treat
the
one
month
differently
or
one
to
two
months
differently.
I
think
we
need
to
acknowledge
that
there's
non-monetary
compensation
there.
That
would
then
allow
us,
I
think,
to
rely
on
the
on
the
definition
of
rent
as
our
basis
for
doing
so
now,
the
20
off
thing
or
25,
off
or
whatever
that
is
month
over
month.
A
That
to
me
I
mean
that
just
seems
like
it's
definitely
a
skirting
of
the
law,
so
I
would
want
us
to
take
some
action
to
put
a
stop
to
that.
I
do
think
that
that
is
probably
a
less
common,
hopefully
a
less
common
business
practice,
but
if
it
is
happening
at
all,
it
bothers
me
that
it's
happening
at
all
in
terms
of
the
statute
of
limitations.
A
A
We
may
have
a
better
argument
by
saying
that
the
one
to
two
month,
move-in
special
whatever
the
case
may
be.
However,
we
want
to
subdivide
that
is
really
non-monetary
compensation
and
your
rent
is
comprised
of
non-monetary
compensation
in
the
definition
ergo
that
gets
calculated
in
as
a
full
month
periodic
payment,
that's
forgiven.
A
Out
of
the
goodwill
of
you
moving
in,
I
could
see
an
argument
there.
Potentially,
I
think
karen
would
need
to
flush
it
out
for
us
to
make
sure
it
works,
but
I
do
think
that,
if
we're,
if
we're
going
to
say,
let's
do
something
about
the
25
off
or
whatever
the
10
off
whatever
the
case
may
be
the
month
over
month
discount
that
we
probably
need
to
think
about
going
stricter
to
the
language
and
not
softening
the
blue
there
as
we're
putting
it
really
just
taking
that
one
at
face
value.
A
I
think
it
would
impact
less
of
a
population
of
landlords,
so
it
may
not
have
as
wide
reaching
impact
on
business
practice,
and
I
also
think
that
you
could
probably
get
into
a
discussion
about
moving
specials,
probably
were
given
in
good
faith.
I
I
do
think
that
mom
and
pop
landlords-
and
many
other
landlords
probably
did
not
think.
Oh
I'm
skirting
the
wall
by
doing
a
move
in
special.
A
I
think
someone
who
says
your
rent's
3
000,
but
you
really
only
have
to
pay
me
2500
every
month,
knows
exactly
what
they're
doing
and
candidly
is
offering
that
lease
to
someone
that
they
believe
is
not
sophisticated
enough
to
figure
out
what
they're
doing
so
they
are
taking
advantage
of
someone
else
and
that's
the
definition,
bad
thing.
So
that's
my
thoughts.
I
see
committee
member
almond
has
some
comments.
I'd
like
to
let
her
speak
now,.
J
Given
the
lateness
of
the
hour,
I'm
going
to
be
brief.
I
happen
to
think
that
both
of
the
staff
reports
that
were
created
were
really
quite
elegant
in
explaining
exactly
what
csfra
covers
and
that,
as
I
see
it,
I
don't
know.
Maybe
we
opened
a
big
can
of
worms
by
trying
to
clarify,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
the
actual
rent
paid
in
the
initial
period
is
what
we're
talking
about,
and
I
don't
think
we
have
to
get
too
complicated.
J
I
mean
I
would
love
to
just
go
at
this
point
to
a
straw
vote
and
see
where
we
come
out.
I
don't
I'm
at
this
point.
I
really
don't
know,
and
I
I
understand
that
there
seems
to
be
a
drift
toward
softening
the
blow
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
doing
something
delicate
with
this
one
or
two
month,
concession
period
to
to
offset
the
bad
will.
That
seems
to
provide
it
to
landlords.
Personally,
I
I'm
okay
with
leaving
things.
The
way
they
are
base
rent
is
base
rant.
A
J
F
A
K
J
F
A
A
AH
Good
evening
committee
members
item
10.1
is
the
monthly
status
reports
and
we
have
a
series
of
three
monthly
status
reports
today,
as
we
did
not
review
april
during
last
month's
committee
meeting,
I'm
going
to
keep
april
short
because
we
will
be
reviewing
maze
and
may
will
give
you
the
updated
numbers.
So
I
do
want
to
point
out
some
highlights
here.
AH
We
are
also
seeing
a
decline
in
the
vacancy
rates
and
an
increase
in
the
average
market
rent,
so
the
market
is
recovering
and
has
recovered
to
almost
pre
pandemic
levels,
which
we
will
highlight
in
the
next
month's
report.
So
here
we
go
with
the
termination
notice
data.
You
can
see
it
here
again.
We've
had
a
significant
decline.
AH
We
have
provided
58
of
our
services
in
spanish
as
a
primary
language
for
the
recipient,
and
you
can
also
see
that
we
are
receiving
a
lot
of
questions
about
allowed
rent
increases,
as
well
as
property
registrations
and
habitability
concerns.
So
do
you
want
to
highlight
those
numbers,
as
we've
talked
a
lot
about
coveted
rent
relief,
we'll
start
transitioning
back
into
our
non-rent
relief
items,
and
that
is
important
to
note
for
the
targeted
letters
that
go
out
every
month
we've
sent
out
875
targeted
letters.
AH
So
more
people
are
receiving
our
information
and
are
interested
in
finding
out
about
the
services
that
we
offer
for
mediations
we've
seen
a
slight
increase.
We
have
132
mediations
at
this
time
for
a
total
of
113
that
have
been
resolved
with
18
pending
this
month.
We
received
in
total
for
the
past
two
months,
so
through
may
again,
138
eviction,
notices
for
failure
to
pay
rent
were
received
by
tenants,
that's
substantially
lower
than
last
quarter.
AH
We
have
had
a
few
more
petitions
come
in.
A
few
of
those
petitions
have
since
dropped
off
as
people
were
able
to
conciliate
with
their
tenant
and
their
landlord,
based
on
the
work
that
staff
did
during
the
petition
process.
So
that
is
good
news.
You
will
see
these
numbers
change
next
month.
There
will
be
fewer
fewer
items
in
review
and
more
items
in
this
settled
category,
and
here
we
go
for
vacancy
rate
data,
so
you're
going
to
see
here
some
changes
in
the
market
that
are
significant.
AH
We
have
once
again
gone
into
the
4.7
below
we
are
below
the
threshold
for
the
csfra.
We
are
back
below
5
in
the
market,
so
we
have
recovered.
Officially,
I
would,
I
would
say,
in
terms
of
being
below
our
threshold
in
terms
of
a
healthy
housing
market,
that's
debatable
because,
if
you're
below
five
percent-
technically
it's
not
a
healthy
housing
market,
which
is
why
this
law
is
in
effect.
AH
At
this
point,
you
will
also
see
in
the
newly
built
units
a
spike
in
units
that
are
vacant,
and
that's
because
we
had
two
new
buildings
come
online.
So
this
data
for
newly
built
units
is
almost
always
a
little
bit
inconsistent
and
it's
because
when
new
buildings
come
online,
those
vacancy
rates
are
included
in
that
data.
There
are
about
200
units
that
came
online
this
quarter
and
that's
what
you're
seeing
there.
AH
We
have
a
vacancy
rate
for
partially
covered
units
of
2.2
percent
and
again
the
all
units
data
is
now
skewed,
because
those
newly
built
units
were
included
in
this
data.
So
you're
always
going
to
see
those
changes
in
those
two
numbers
for
the
average
market.
Rent
you'll
see
that
we
have
recovered
in
that
as
well.
AH
G
AH
AH
Clients
have
requested
and
received
legal
assistance
pro
bono
through
the
program,
and
so
we're
going
to
go
into
these
numbers
quickly.
We've
received
2
959
public
inquiries,
with
tenants
being
the
bulk
of
those
we've
held.
14
eviction
help
center
pop-up
events,
including
one
on
june
11th.
That's
not
in
this
data,
but
we'll
talk
about
it
later.
We
do.
I
just
want
to
mention
it.
We
had
a
great
event
in
june
and
andrea
will
share
more
about
that.
AH
We've
held
24
webinars
we've
reached
156
community
members.
We've
had
three
postcards
that
have
gone
out,
we'll
likely
be
sending
one
out
at
the
direction
of
the
city
manager's
office
at
the
end
of
june,
the
beginning
of
july,
as
the
last
round
of
eviction
protections
expire
working
on
language
for
that
as
well,
and
then
we
have
the
bulk
of
the
websites
and
pages
that
we
maintain
still
being
maintained.
AH
We're
starting
to
transition
over
from
rent
relief,
related
focus
to
a
more
broad
housing
and
eviction
helps
in
our
focus
in
the
next
few
months,
and
here
you'll
see
the
most
updated
state
numbers
for
the
rent
state.
Rent
relief,
they've
had
781
complete
household
applications
for
a
total
of
677
households
that
have
so
far
been
served.
AH
That
means
that
they're
almost
they
have
about
a
hundred
households,
left
that
they
have
not
served
and
are
going
through.
Those
final
applications
for
an
average
assistance
of
11
000
per
household
and
a
total
funding
of
7
million
461
000
for
the
city
of
mountain
view.
Specifically-
and
that
concludes
staff
presentation-
I
will
take
questions
at
this
time.
If
there
are
any.
H
A
T
Hi,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
going
over.
All
of
that
patricia,
that's
always
very
interesting
and
helpful.
I
do
I,
I
know
the
ordinance
are
the
proposal
already
passed.
I
want
to
just
point
out
to
everyone
that
it
just
seems
bizarre
to
me
to
piecemeal
it.
If
you
want
to
provide
the
one
month
free
as
a
potential
carve
out,
I
would
highly
wait
highly
suggest
waiting
on.
T
You
know
approving
the
proposal
until
you
pro
approve
it
in
its
totality.
This
is
very
stressful
for
landlords
and
tenants
and
just
creates
confusion.
If
the
goal
is
clarity,
then
wait
until
you
can
do
the
whole
thing
in
its
totality,
I
will
tell
you:
people
are
looking
to
start
selling
their
businesses
and
people
are
looking
to
see
how
they
can
convert
these
apartments
into
something
else
that
the
process,
also
the
law
that
you
stated,
is
not
telling
us
how
this
would
be
invoked
inside
of
the
petition
process
and
the
petition
process
is
not
easy.
T
It's
just
you're
gonna
have
less
housing
for
people
ultimately,
and
people
are
gonna,
be,
are
trying
to
flee
mountain
view
as
quickly
as
they
can.
This
is
so
harmful
and
the
way
it's
being
done
in
a
piecemeal
fashion
is
harmful
to
the
tenants
because
they're
confused
it's
harmful
to
the
landlords,
because
it's
they're
confused
and
yeah.
That's
that's
all.
I
have
to
say.
I
just
hope
you
guys
will
consider
at
least
waiting
to
make
that
full
decision.
T
A
V
So
it's
very
reassuring
to
see
that
that
return
has
happened,
and
I
appreciate
your
restraint
to
not
consider
a
survey
and
returning
the
rental
house
or
the
potentially
turning
off
rent
control
and
also
you
know.
The
related
item
here
seems
to
be
the
registry,
so
it
would
really
be
good
to
know
about
apartment
by
apartment
where
there
are
apartments
that
are
vacant
and
what
rents
are
doing
so
that'll
be
valuable
information
to
everyone.
Thank
you.
V
A
G
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I'm
really
happy
to
see
that
the
emails
the
people
from
the
community
are
actually
wanting
to
know
what's
going
on
in
the
city
and
what's
what
what
services
they
that
can
help
them?
You
know
that
is
definitely
very,
very
good
as
a
committee
to
see
that
that
our
communities
getting
engaged
in
the
process.
G
A
Q
Q
As
a
short
summary
of
this
last
discussion,
the
total
budget
would
end
up
to
be
two
million.
Seventy
eight
thousand
and
seven
dollars
with
personnel
coming
to
1
million
58
and
647
the
general
operating
cost,
173
500,
the
professional
services
to
416
500
I.t
system
and
maintenance,
133
000
and
city
resources,
and
administrative
support
and
296
thousand
and
360
dollars,
as
also
was
shared
in
the
last
month's
meeting.
Q
H
A
Seeing
none,
I
will
now
invite
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
This
is
the
budget
and
housing
fee
item.
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
staff
will
display
a
countdown
timer
on
the
screen
and
I
see
teresa.
AE
Hi
everyone-
I
guess
I'm
still
reeling
from
the
adoption
of
the
resolution
at
the
urging
of
karen
teidemann,
but
I
would
like
to
address
the
budget,
which
is
the
issue
here.
I
did
send
anki
an
email
about
very
specific
questions
related
to
the
I.t
budget
and
issues
with
the
registry
that
have
not
been
addressed.
It
is
a
significant
budget.
I
would
like
to
see
a
response
to
that.
I
think
we're
entitled
to
that.
AE
AE
Q
AB
So
you
ought
to
be
doubly
proud
that
you're
stiffened
landlords
to
protect
your
crazy
ass
rent
control
teresa,
does
deserve
an
answer
and
deserves
it
instantly,
but
not
instantly,
but
earnestly
and
shouldn't
be
dismissed,
like
I
said
we're
paying
for
this
budget
to
get
regulated
by
you
guys
and
we
get
punished
every
time,
so
these
rates
should
be
lower
than
they
should
and
we
shouldn't
be
getting
discounts.
We
said
we
took
a
loss,
we
take
a
loss
every
time
you
guys
come
to
a
meeting.
V
Thank
you.
I
would
just
like
to
point
out.
There
is
a
tenant's
point
of
view
regarding
the
annual
housing
fee,
and
it's
that
there's
vacancy
d
control
and
so
well,
you
know
the
all.
The
landlords
are
business
people
they
are
certainly
considering
what
the
annual
fee
is
when
they
are
setting
the
rents
that
they
are
charging
for
new
tenancies.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
edie.
Do
I
have
any
other
commenters
okay,
seeing
none
I'm
bringing
this
back
to
the
committee
now
committee.
We
can
have
deliberation,
we
can
have
discussion,
but
a
motion
to
approve
should
include
reading
the
following
to
adopt
a
resolution
of
the
rental
housing
committee
of
mountain
view,
adopting
the
fiscal
year
2022-23
budget
and
establishing
a
rental
housing
fee
sufficient
to
support
the
fiscal
year
2022-23
budget.
J
F
J
H
A
Q
So
for
this
agenda
item,
we
would
like
to
request
the
rental
housing
committee
to
authorize
the
program
manager
or
other
designate
to
execute
an
agreement
with
project
sentinel
for
the
administrative
and
hearing
process
services
for
the
next
fiscal
year
in
an
amount
not
to
exceed
and
fifteen
thousand
dollars
as
background
information
project.
Sentinel
has
provided
administrative
and
hearing
process
services
since
fiscal
year
1718
and
following
an
rfp
process
in
november
of
2018,
the
rental
housing
committee
selected
project
sentinel
to
continue
to
provide
these
services
for
the
csfa.
A
H
A
K
J
D
A
Q
Q
Q
So
the
services
for
2022-23
for
legal
services
is
estimated
not
to
exceed
175
000
and
for
litigations
services
is
estimated
to
not
exceed
100
000
and
we
are
requesting
authorization
of
the
rental
housing
committee,
since
this
is
over
fifty
thousand
dollars
again.
The
recommendation
is
as
follows:
to
authorize
the
program
manager
or
a
designee
to
execute
this
agreement,
as
mentioned
with
call
farp
and
lipman
any
questions
happy
to
answer.
H
A
A
A
J
A
C
C
That
is
both
in
person
and
virtually
and
it's
the
first
and
third
thursdays
of
each
month,
at
the
mountain
view,
public
library,
from
1
pm
to
5
pm,
if
anybody's
interested
in
joining
virtually
they
can
go
to
mountainview.gov
eviction,
help
clinics
and
so
at
the
help
center
we're
covering
housing
programs
where
people
can
learn
about
our
rent.
Stabilization
laws
apply
for
affordable
housing,
connect
with
different
rental
assistance
programs
and
we're
still
helping
people
check
the
statuses
of
their
california
coved,
rent
relief
applications.
C
We
also
have
eviction
help
where
we
can
answer
questions
about
people
receiving
or
if
landlords
come
and
they're
serving
termination
notices.
We
can
answer
questions
about
that.
We
also
have
legal
resources
and
lawyer
referrals
that
we
do
at
the
help
center
and
we
have
other
types
of
supportive
services
where
people
can
get
assistance
with
food
distribution,
financial
assistance,
our
mediation
program
and
homelessness
prevention
services
and
as
far
as
our
upcoming
webinars
or
workshops
go.
C
C
We
have
our
program
at
the
top
left
catholic
charities
chalk.
Who
was
our
co-host
at
the
bottom?
We
have
story
time
from
the
mountain
view,
public
library
and
then
the
bottom
right
here
is
a
picture
of
the
raffle
where
we
had
mayor
ramirez,
actually
come
and
pick
the
raffle
tickets,
so
that
was
very
nice.
C
That
was
a
big
hit
and,
of
course
I
did
want
to
take
just
a
minute
or
two
to
acknowledge
and
thank
our
local
organizations
who
took
time
out
to
participate
in
the
event
and
connect
with
our
community.
So
we
did
have
our
co-host,
who
was
chalk
family
resource
center.
We
had
with
the
housing
department,
the
mountain
view,
housing
departments.
They
talked
about
affordable
housing
and
sort
of
our
bmr
part
of
the
city.
C
We
also
had
project
sentinel
with
us
catholic
charities,
the
day
worker
center
we
had
cluster,
the
county
of
santa
clara
was
there
we
had
csa
and
the
city
of
mountain
view
library,
so
they
had
a
table
and
they
also
did
our
story
time,
but
also
some
fun
activities,
of
course,
including
the
story
time
which
was
a
huge
hit,
and
then
we
had
some
other
local
people
come
in
and
do
some
things
with
the
kids.
So
we
had
an
art
class
by
a
local
artist.
C
I
believe
it's
pronounced
giada
kante,
so
she
did
a
nice
table
with
all
of
our
sort
of
young
children
where
they
could
color
and
do
some
arts
and
crafts.
We
also
had
shaved
ice.
That
was
yes
and
it
was
hot,
so
it
was
very,
very
much
needed,
so
we
had
some
shaved
ice
that
was
provided
by
our
community
member,
actually,
the
father
of
one
of
our
run
stabilization
staff
alexel.
So
he
was
there
and
provided
much
needed
relief
from
the
heat,
and
then
every
table
had
a
craft
that
they
put
on.
C
H
I
Oh,
I'm
so
sorry,
staff
you're
just
going
to
hate
me
for
this
fair
warning,
fair
warning
back
to
the
agenda
item
that
we
had
earlier
this
evening.
I
am
interested
in
legal
staff,
exploring
options
that
would
still
comply
with
the
csfra
and
so
but
figure
out
a
way
to
deal
with
the
one
month
for
your
rent,
and
I
am
not
equipped
nor
capable
of
figuring
that
out
how
to
help
to
shoehorn
that
into
the
csfra
when
it
came
down
to
it.
Really
it
actually
was
it.
I
I
Q
I
F
This
so
this
is
a
little
bit
out
of
the
ordinary
and
there
isn't
really
anything
in
your
guidelines
about
this.
I
we
have
passed
that
item
on
the
agenda,
but
I
think
if
it's
okay
with
the
rest
of
the
rhc,
we
could
go
back.
You
could
give
direction
to
staff
to
to
explore
that
issue
and
come
back
with
further
amendments
or
a
report.
H
I
A
Any
sense
clarify
briefly,
I
guess
I'm
a
little
confused,
because
we
we
passed
a
resolution
that
covers
that.
So
are
you
this
to
say
that
you?
Will
you
redo
the
vote
on
that
one
item
because
we
passed
a
resolution
that
includes
language
that
specifically
addresses
this,
and
so
I'm
not
a
real
player
on
what
the
ask
here
is
because
we've
the
question's,
been
answered,
it
was
answered
and
it
was
one
through.
K
Yeah
I
mean
I
would
move
that
we,
we
stay
implementation
of
the
reg
that
we
just
voted
on
for
90
days,
so
it
gives
us
90
days,
breathing
room
before
it's
implemented
and
if
we
want
to
tinker
with
it
or
make
it
better
or
worse
during
that
period
of
time,
there's
at
least
90
days
to
think
about
it
rather
than
just
going
full
on
in,
and
perhaps
some
of
us
have
some
reservations
about
it.
So
that
would
be
my
motion.
F
F
I
To
be
clear,
I
am
not
asking
for
a
motion
to
reconsider
a
vote
and
I
I
do
from
what
I
remember
at
least
in
council
policies.
Only
people
who
who
voted,
who
sent
on
the
winning
side
can
motion
to
reconsider
the
vote.
I'm
not
I'm
not
asking
for
that.
It's!
What
I'm
asking
is
for
something
much
more
narrowly
scoped.
I
J
A
I
mean
the
the
only
way
I
could
see
doing
this
is
by
sheriff
ramos.
Are
you
saying
that
your
second
was
done
in
error
and
you're
saying
that
you
would
not
have
seconded
them
as
indicated
at
that
time?
If
you
had
understood
what
you
were
seconding
because
you
seconded
the
motion
so
to
change
it,
I
I
I
I
I
I.
F
F
F
K
K
I
J
This
has
been
under
discussion
since
march,
so
it's
no
brand
new
item.
I
don't
I
don't
see
any
point
in
all.
If
we
put
a
stay,
then
we're
going
to
get
three
months
more
of
public
comment
and
you
know
brew.
I
think
it's
time
to
settle
things
and
for
people
to
get
used
to
the
base
rent
as
it
has
been
written.