City of Mountain View, CA Rental Housing Committee, 16 Sep 2019

Previous Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 9-16-2019: Rental Housing Committee Meeting

Description

Council Chambers, 500 Castro St., Mountain View, CA 94041

7:00 p.m. Monday, September 16, 2019

A

All right, so I will call to order today's meeting of the Mountain View Rental Housing Committee, its September 16th, we'll start with a roll call committee members, Susan almond I'm, here, nicole hands lives at present.

B

A

Honey will be absent today, Julianne Pardo does Ella president.

C

A

Vice chair, Emily Ramos here.

D

A

Right since Vanessa is out today, Nicole will be acting or alternate. Our alternate will be voting on the record minutes. Approval from the August 12th, meeting, copies of the minutes or the above unnoted meeting have been delivered to the committee members and copies are available at City Hall to the committee. Are there any questions regarding the minutes?

A

Seeing none we'll move to public comment? Would any members of the public like to comment on the minutes from the August 12th meeting, seeing none for no Corrections or additions? A motion is in order to approve these minutes.

A

E

A

A

Okay, but anyone like the second a motion.

F

I'll, second, it all right all.

A

In favor of adopting the minutes for August 12th aye.

A

All right so four and one abstention.

A

Great we'll move to 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 one three-minute period during this section. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items. Would anyone like to address the committee at this time on a non-agenda item.

A

Yes, this would be on a non-agenda item.

F

My name is Maria, Rangel and I'm here to ask you: please: I am living in Mountain View for more than eight years and I really love hunting view and I love the diversity and if anything, changes and Grenn I need I, rent, so I'm all by myself and I'm working. So you have so ready to pay the rent and if any changes come and the ring gets increase in, like more than seven percent, I can be able to afford because I cannot go through yaps I'm, 54 I'm, not a spring chicken.

F

So I ask you please to help us to keep the rain and the apartments affordable. I would like to stay in Mountain, View I, contribute to the community and, as a minority I think it's important to keep minorities and we all need each other and please help us to stay in Mountain View. Thank you all.

A

Right. Thank you.

G

I'm in a Miss Anna I.

H

G

In mom time you for 16 years I.

G

Have a ten-year-old daughter.

G

I've been having a lot of housing problems.

H

G

Never been able to rent a full apartment of my own I I can only rent a room because it's very expensive to rent the whole apartment.

H

G

A single mother, I.

G

I be living in a shelter for 10 days now.

G

I left I had to leave 10 days ago and I have to put all my belongings in a storage in Sunnyvale and I, be moving from three place to place for 10 days and.

G

I'm very tired too deep like that.

G

H

G

Daughter is outside waiting for me and we don't know what time we're going to leave and I. Don't know the schedule of the bus. I have to take the bus because I don't drive and I. Don't know what time the last bus I need to take to get to the shelter.

H

G

A

Thank you for your coming.

D

A

The question was: is the item 8.1? Yes, is about modifications to the CSF array? Yep, yes, that'd be great. Thank you.

A

If there are no more comments, we'll move to yeah item 8.1.

A

mmm Rental housing committee input for potential city initiated 2020 ballot measure to amend the CSF ah right I, believe we have a staff report.

I

So good evening my name is Tim Wong I'm, the housing and neighborhood services manager and good to see everyone again tonight again, we are bringing back some proposed changes to the CSF array for the 2020 ballot measure and just as a background.

I

The purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide input regarding potential amendments, and so tonight we will be discussing the subcommittee discussions and staff also will have some questions to the RHC. These common are. This discussion will be based on the the CSF. Are a ad hoc subcommittees meeting of September 4th of 2019, but it actually is a culmination of meetings that the subcommittee has been having since late July.

I

So, as I mentioned, the subcommittee has had three meetings and the primary issues are relationship between RHC and the city or the City Council, specific capital improvements or, in other words, potentially a separate petition process, and in addition, there have been discussions about the annual general annual general adjustment, whether to use AGA or a flat rate, and then lastly, regulation for mobile homes and so to start off. First and foremost, the subcommittee was very interested in looking at the relationship between the RH C and the City Council or City City Council from here on out.

I

I'll just call it the council to represent the entire city, but during those a series of meetings, the subcommittee said that they would like the city council to have oversight of the RHC based on high level oversight of decisions regarding persons units if the rhc requests city general funds pass-throughs as part of a separate petition process and also suspending the C sfra. So again, more of these higher level programmatic decisions that may affect the the program as a whole, and so as part of the this council oversight.

I

Some of the things that may need to be revised include council approval of any rhc decision to suspend the C sfra. One of another thing that the City Council or subcommittee mentioned was potentially treating the RH C as an advisory body, which kind of segues into the next point in talking about allowing potentially non-residents to serve on the RH C. In addition, as an advisory body, they could potentially delegate responsibilities to the RHC, including, if approved, a mobile home, rent ordinance or, in addition, potentially submitting a work plan.

I

And, lastly, they also discussed about providing authority to make register registering mandatory for all landlords.

I

And so the the other main issue that the subcommittee was discussed was specific capital improvements and, more specifically, a separate process from the current fair return petition process, and during these discussions they, the subcommittee talked about eligible capital improvements.

I

Those capital improvements that are necessary for compliance with health and safety codes, which is currently in the CSF, are a as we seek. But in addition, they added a couple other capital improvement categories, environmental sustainability and improvements that could potentially extend the useful life of the property and, as part of that since the last two environmental sustainability and they in extending the useful life of the property. While many times they will touch as health and health and safety code issues, but not always so so as part of its staff asked the subcommittee.

I

What are some guiding principles that you would like to see so that some of these environmentally sustainable improvements or other improvements that extend the life of property could be included in a separate petition process and what they came up with, where the improvements had to benefit tenants. In other words, the tenants had to derive a greater benefit from the improvement, more so than the landlord reduced tenant costs, and that's more so, towards environmental sustainability, for example.

I

If a landlord decides to install solar panels, for example, which could potentially lower the the power utility bill for tenants and this another guiding principle would be, this would exclude luxury improvements, so granite countertops was mentioned, for example, so those would not be eligible as part of an eligible capital improvement and as part of the subcommittee discussion, they were in agreement that the HC should design the separate petition process, and so these were some of the things that the subcommittee would like the RHC.

I

If the amendment passes to some some potential parameters or requirements that they would like the rhc to explore as part of it, including capping the amount or percentage looking at capping, any potential monthly increase or to the tenant household and potentially an amortization schedule for that improvement. Whatever that may be.

I

In addition, there was a discussion and this will be discussed tomorrow and from the council. Also, there was not a hundred percent agreement with the subcommittee, whether to look at using a flat rate, for example, five percent annually versus the aga, which, as you all know, is tied to the CPI about three and a half percent. In addition to that discussion, there was also this idea of maybe adding a little additional for a landlord who is a good actor.

I

If they met certain requirements, they could be they're, not in violation, they've done everything correct that they may be in line for an additional increment whatever that may be. So that was another idea that came forth from the subcommittee and lastly, there was a discussion about regulation.

I

Rent stabilization for mobile homes, I think whether to have it part as the see sfra amendment or to address through a city, council, ordinance and I think it was all decided. When staff brought this to the RHC on August 12th there, the rhc decided that it would probably be best to have it in the ordinance, and this same was the same question was posed to the subcommittee and they also agreed that it was best that it be as part of a city ordinance.

I

And lastly, it is a city, council, action, a work item, and so one of the things the subcommittee said was we wish staff to start pursuing an ordinance. They wanted it concurrent with this whole ballot measure timeframe, but because of staffing and others it's. It will be difficult to meet that timeframe and, lastly, staff posed a number of questions: the rhc talking about council oversight and also some additional parameters, and so this evening really staff is interested in and yeah any input that the RHC may have potential council oversight.

I

But, in addition, also focusing on number four, if there's any, have any additional input or parameters about a separate petition process. So that concludes staffs presentation. Happy to answer any questions that the RTC may have.

A

All right, thank you, Tim. So we'll start with questions from the committee to start with questions for Tim will, you know, have our opinions and discussion in the next after public comment.

J

I'm a little confused, so I was at the last subcommittee meeting and it seemed or my understanding is that mobile homes could possibly be I. Remember Chris Clark wanted wanting to turn the art, the mobile home issue back to our HC and that possibly we would have oversight until such time as the council took over I'm just sort of summarizing. What I've heard.

I

There was discussion about: can we temporarily put it as in the CSF RA until the city prepares and passes an ordinance? And there was some discussion about that. However, the the logistics in making preparing amendments to the CSF are a to tailor it towards mobile homes.

I

There are a number of items that need to be prepared and based on the the relatively short time frame of it being in place because, as I mentioned, it's a City Council work item and currently it's it's estimated for a start time to start the preparation of a mobile home ordinance in January of 2020.

I

That's an estimated time frame, we're not quite sure at this point, but.

K

I

Part of a council work plan because of that relatively short time frame, it may be a lot of effort for such a short time frame.

J

A

Questions for Tim.

D

E

In terms of the report that was sent back to Council or to the subcommittee, how much did they actually of our opinions? Did they actually take into account? I I've been to several meetings to and I where it was.

E

Perhaps they were more forthcoming with staffed and publicly about our feedback.

I

I think they they took some rhc input.

I

Obviously, for example, when they talked about the relationship and council oversight, because the rhc was clear that they wanted to maintain their independence or, and but this the subcommittee's still continued on with this line, but in in terms of, for example, the mobile home I think that confirmed their decision-making in that they felt that an ordinance would be better and I.

C

I

With when it comes to, for example, five percent versus AGA I, don't think the RHC was asked that question during that time, and so the separate petition process, the the count the RAC, also weighed in and I think they agreed by, allowing in in their proposal to allow the RH seed to design the petition process and I I remember. That is something that the RHC requested. If you will.

J

So, are you talking about this? The famous streamlining of the petition process that.

I

J

They would turn that back to us yeah.

I

The design is that they, the subcommittee, wanted the RHC to design a separate petition process with council oversight in which they would review the percentage of pass-throughs. Since that was one of their specific areas. They wanted to have counsel over council oversight on.

A

Just to follow up there Tim is it your sense that they would, with the reduce time frame, are they leaning towards giving us a writing something into the ballot measure that allows for the structure of us then making all these specific roles that need to be made for a for ongoing? Let's say capital improvements versus trying to get that done in the next couple months, all and iron that all out and have that in the ballot measure.

I

To answer your question, that is question number three from staff is one of the things what that we're looking at is so the quick answer is no we're we want to put in some jet, or the subcommittee wishes to put in some general language in the Charter that, with some may be guiding parameters that would allow the RHC to design the separate petition process. So it would not be verbatim prescriptive language in the CSF array and.

A

Right now, they're leaning towards that option, more they're, more amenable towards kind of a framework, and then you know giving us the freedom to iron out the details. That is correct. Okay, good! Thank you.

J

So I mean it seems to me one of the big issues is their desire to oversee us and our actions and then they're also suggesting which actions we have independence like petition process clarifications, it seems like it, it might leave things quite muddy, I, don't know, I would I would love to know like legally how that would take place.

J

That wasn't a very clear question.

L

Very well I think part of this is we need a little more direction from Council tomorrow night as to how specific and in what areas they want oversight over the rhce. So you know it may be as limited it's just making it clear that the RHC members are subject to the same rules as every other commission in the city in terms of removal and code of responsibilities which you've already adopted anyway. It may be more specific that certain decisions have to that.

L

You might make as an RHC have to be ratified by the council, such as suspension of the CSF r8. So there's a lot of room in between all of that, and hopefully, tomorrow night there will be a little more clarity in the direction. I think the subcommittee is throwing out of a lot of ideas and hopefully we'll narrow it down tomorrow.

I

If I could yes.

K

I

Is right that there is a lot of gray right now because of the compact timeline, those types of things, but tomorrow staff is hoping to get a little more clarity on what items, because if you talk about persons units that pretty much covers most, if not all, of the CSF are a so at what point do you want some of these decisions or items elevated to the council for their oversight? So again, that's what we're gonna try to clarify tomorrow. Also.

A

Any other questions I think I think one more Tim would be. What's the what are.

C

The rules of engagement going.

A

Forward when it comes to you know our legal staff kind of engaging with counsel if they would like to leverage you know what all of our staff and also our legal team you know, leverage their knowledge. Is that easy for them to do is that?

A

How does that work? I'm? Sorry, could you so you know if they wanted to delve into the details of mobile home residency law, I'm sure they would want some insight from our legal team, but, right now you know the fees pay for our access to legal team city council doesn't necessarily have access. Is that something that we need to grant them access if they want to iron? Some things out? How does well.

L

Can I we have a separate contract with the city, okay, to provide them with advice. We do other work for the city, not just bring control, but also land use housing issues. So similarly we have a separate contract to advise the council so that we can provide that advice, and you know justifiably, it should not be coming out of the RHC rental housing fee, because this is a different topic from what your budget covers. Okay,.

A

Great, that's what's my question. Thank you all right. If there's no more questions, we can move to public comment. So would any members of the public like to comment on this item all right? We have one. Anyone else raise your hand, please, okay, so we can stay at three minutes for each item. So please come forward.

K

Hey Alex Brown, it's not Tiger Villa North, Bay, Shore, Mountain, View, Tim I, see you brought your pop-ups with you.

K

It's a curse, it's okay! So when it comes to including mobile homes under the CSRA, it's already been litigated that you guys have the power to do it without amending the Charter in the through the ballot initiative process. That's something that you could agendize and vote on sidestepping the new branding, all the laws, everything and just drafting rules regulations instead of like specifics in the Charter. That's the power that you have it's an option that you have and that would provide the stopgap that they've the counts.

K

The subcommittee was discussing in terms of protections now that could be subsided in the future by an ordinance or improved by an ordinance that would protect other features of mobile home parks and their residents. It's something that you you can do you don't need to wait. We don't need to rush any kind of charter. Amendment drafting you don't need to specifically make it work with the other things in the ballot initiative to try to sell it to voters.

K

You could do now not now not tonight, it's not the agenda, but I soon sooner than March. You could do it. You could give the option if.

D

K

You know: okay thanks.

A

M

Motivates this whole as I understand it change to measure B, which is to set a rent increase right on the order of 3.5% and now you're, saying that you think in terms of justifying a 5%. Sorry.

A

Oh, my page, just if you could mention your name and.

M

Na mr. Dan I just want to get a feeling property, what motivates you and others to basically amend or return simply adjust when you talk about 5% versus 3.5% and you're, giving reasons why it should be done and make it positive, because you made the statement, that's kind of benefit tenants more than landlords. So the question is: are you a landlord? Do you want property and rent it out.

I

Yes or no I, don't know well.

A

I

A

Not necessarily Q&A.

I

A

Comments what your comments can be well, they have been received and they will be heard.

M

Yeah, everybody should think about it, because a lot of effort when to make measure V possible 3.5% this seems reasonable. This looks like an amendment to put in a ballot for 2020, which seems like okay, everybody passed it. We want to make a change, and now I'm saying is the change justifiable and the means by which was even put on the ballot. I was very cognizant what happened, trying to get signatures? I, don't know if you were and the other people are spoken to about that.

M

It was a misguided and somewhat unethical methodology, because it was had signs for rent control when it was really a for of landlord signature. I signed it with the understanding, I was for rent control. The person at this table said ring control. Was it for rent control? No, it's for landlords, landlords benefits.

M

So, whoever this amendment got onto the ballot because it also looks like it's now, city initiated it could be paid by people in the city who are part of this game plan, but the people who were getting the signatures, I found out later, didn't even live in Mountain View and they were paid from some outside entity or entities to make that happen. So I'm gonna here propose those who sign the document supporting what was turns out now to be an amendment in favor of landlords.

M

All those Sinese should be contacted and make sure they'd sign it again if they fully understand what they signed. So I can tell you right now: I found out almost after the fact and I freaked out, I was ticked, I felt it was unjust and I would stand by the table and I said dude you're gonna sign that. Do you understand what you're signing oh? Is that what I'm signing? Oh, oh geez I shouldn't sign that so I've gone back and got my signature removed, as has others I'm now saying to you.

M

I, don't know how many people signed it, but I challenge you to go, find out how many people who find that people who did sign it go back and ask them again and to see if they would really support this amendment being made on the upcoming ballot for 2020, because I think they'll be very surprised that landlords will not benefit more than tenants from what everything you just said financially.

A

Thank you for your comment.

A

N

Joe McDonald, but I was speaking for advocates for affordable housing and the League of Women Voters, and just to add some specific specifics to what was just said. There were more than 300 signatures for don't sign, in other words, withdraw my name from the petition and clearly there were a lot more people that we didn't get to.

N

We have some concern about what is the gray area of limited oversight.

N

N

The council members actually don't understand or know a lot of the things that RIT has done and so they're operating in a vacuum of lack of information or information.

N

That is way too early to make conclusions about, and certainly that's true in terms of the complaints about the onerous burden of petition process and I think they need to understand that overwhelmingly the petitions that were filed by landlords were found in favor of the landlords, although possibly not at the exact amount that the landlord's possibly asked for one another thing that we are concerned about is we do not want the RHC to become an advisory body for a great many reasons.

N

The Code of Conduct and removal of members can happen without becoming an advisory body. The rhc has a legislative role that none of the advisory bodies have, and in order for it to work, it must continue to have that legislative role.

N

The oversight on high-level matters actually gives oversight to all matters, so it is not really advisable.

N

The idea that council should decide when to suspend the.

N

The RHC and sifri makes no sense at all, since, in the current sifri it's spelled out. What might lead to the may. Suspend can I have 10 seconds more for.

A

You John yes 10 seconds.

N

The flat rate flies in the face of the wage minimum wage ordinance that the city has that adds by CPI, not by a flat rate. Thank you thank.

A

You for your comments.

A

All right mm-hmm, if there are no more public comments, we'll move on to the deliberation section for this agenda item.

A

This is a tough one. We've we've already provided feedback and I. Think after you know viewing the the committee, the subcommittee's response, I'd like to propose that we try to have I, think more specific and focused feedback. This time, it's a still a short list of items Tim. Maybe this is a question to you. If you're amenable you know, maybe we would put it up to a straw poll for each for each item. What's the minimum that we can agree on that, we would like to see place.

A

The reason I'd like to put that forward is is because I think we do represent the community of Mountain View to some extent and having first opinions, and if we can agree on something it makes it more likely that it's you know, would eventually pass and I think we want to use our spend our time wisely on the things that would be likely to pass as part of a ballot initiative, a ballot measure and and giving that feedback to the council will be helpful.

A

So if that seems amenable to you and to the rest of the committee, I think, maybe we try to move forward with that, seeing a lot of nodding heads so maybe we'll try that and see where we get and I think just going. You know down the list of primary issues that Tim provided. Sorry, it looks like you've a question Tim no.

I

That's fine! Okay! If you would like to yeah.

A

I

With oversight just a general discussion about that, however,.

D

I

Wish you approach it? That's why okay great.

A

So yeah: let's let's work through that and see if go kind of issue-by-issue and see if there we can get some sort of consensus. So we can have some more focused feedback for the council, so start with the first item, which would be the relationship between the RFC and the City Council.

A

Maybe we'll start at one end and you know kind of get, get opinions and and then try to put forward a motion or a statement that we'd be willing to get behind it. So maybe I'll start with okay Julian.

C

So on on this point, I think what we've tried to do throughout you.

D

C

Running the RHC has been to look at the intent of the voters and also to look at the plain text of the see sfra. It seems like most of our decisions at one level or another. That's what we've we've done pretty consistently and I think the text of the see sfra is extremely clear that were intended to be very insulated and independent and I think when the voters voted on the see sfra. They understood that that was going to be how the RAC functioned and so I think oversight is too strong of a characterization, I.

C

Think of a relationship that makes sense, given all that between us and the City Council I, think you know, high-level consultations and a are something that we can certainly engage in, and we can certainly seek out and ask for guidance on any variety of issues that come before us that might have particular interests, a community as a whole or as or for the City Council, but I think the idea of giving up some of our authority when that would be contrary to what the voters intended and what the CSF ra expects from us is something that I think only can come by a ballot initiative where the voters have a chance to decide that issue and if they want to have their one more oversight by the City Council for us and I.

C

Think the voters will decide that and I think that's great. But if not I think then things should stay the way they were decided by the voters in 2016.

A

It's just to clarify there you, if, if it were part of a ballot measure- and it were accepted, you'd be okay with that, but.

C

I, guess that's what we can do. They need to get nitty-gritty a little bit about what specific oversight you know. I person anything might be appropriate.

C

And I can't say at this point: I guess I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say: I think it's, this kind of a threshold issue I think it's almost premature, but I guess I'd I'd afford everyone else, and maybe you can come back to me. Sounds.

A

Good Emily.

E

So I'm I'm, looking at this through a lens of if council, is going to put something on the ballot. It is a complete waste of our time if it doesn't pass so in terms of looking at the relationship between the rhc and the city. A lot of that is fluff unless it's a clear improvement.

E

It's not really necessary. Personally I, like the separate nature of the of what the Charter affords us I had the opportunity. I go to every single council meeting since 2014 ish and the last council meeting. They got to go over work plans over their Advisory, Committee and I, sat through that and watch them like gut a work plan of one of the by zuri committees, I felt so bad for the HRC um cuz, like half of their stuff they're like I, don't think they should do that I, don't think they should do that.

E

um I would never want to do that to us. So I'm grateful for that independence plus. The fact that we have our own staff affords us that independence now things such as being they are able to appoint us and, as clearly designated in the measure, is not clear whether they could remove us and so that clarity would be helpful for I. Don't know bad behavior that that at least to have that clearly for them, and that I feel is an improvement, and that's why I was looking in that. That's.

E

Why I look into something like that, other than that everything outside of that the code of conduct doesn't necessarily need to be a charter amendment and in terms of working together between the rhc in the city. We just need to be a little bit more creative with how we get to work with each other if they want to work with us better, not by trying to establish dominance.

E

So that's that's how I view in terms of the relationships between the RHC in the city, the only thing I think is worthwhile in terms of the ballot initiative is clearly seeing that they could remove us, but other than that. Nothing.

A

A quick question actually for staff when we adopted the code of conduct is there anything.

C

A

About removal, or is that that still we haven't done a regulation about removal right? No.

L

And I don't know that you really can't adopt a regulation about the council, removing you, because that's a council action, so the code of conduct doesn't address that yeah.

A

So so that I guess another question in your mind, that is something that would rise the level of requiring.

A

L

Not clear under the C sfra I mean the CSF area is clear that the council appoints you, but then it also indicates that to the origin, C is independent of the city. So it's a bit of a gray area in terms of if the council wanted to remove an appointment, given that they made the appointment, I think you can make the argument that they can remove their appointee. But you know if somebody challenged that removal, there's potentially some lack of clarity and there might be litigation.

L

So that's an area where there could be more clarity, I mean right now. Clearly the council can remove their appointees to advisor reports, but you know it could be a pretty simple clarification in the CSF re. Okay,.

A

Thank you so to call we want to you.

B

So my thoughts on council and our HC interaction I do like our autonomy I think it's really important to maintain the autonomy. That being said, Julianne brought up an interesting point that kind of got my wheels turning.

B

You know, I think if we were, if the public wants to see more oversight of largely by the council, that may need to be its own pure ballot initiative, not mixed in and muddled up with everything else where it gets to be too much um for the general voter to be able to say why, like this, this and this I, don't like that not how do I vote um so I think you know to me: we should maintain our autonomy.

B

I just think it's important, but I could see if the voters really wanted to see more council oversight doing a ballot initiative later. That address is just that point.

A

How do you feel about removal you.

B

Know, removal I, don't like the idea of putting it on the ballot I think the beauty of appointments over elections can be that it does remove the appointees a bit from the electoral process pros and cons to that, of course, but I think that then giving a removal power in a ballot I just don't think, there's enough time to flush it out, so that it's clean and it can't be used for any political, pandering. So I, don't love that right now.

B

I think that just this whole concept of giving any oversight, including removal, would need to be its own ballot initiative if the public truly wants that, if that's what the public is looking for,.

A

All right, thank you. Let's move on to Susan well,.

J

I really agree with everybody: I'm gonna, each of you brought up important parts. It also seems to me I feel like this is almost a premature conversation, because we don't know the outcome of the subcommittee and what the council will choose to take from the subcommittee and it's gonna take another couple of months, but I mean the process is they're gonna have several more meetings right and they have to deliver the language by December 6th to get it on the ballot.

J

What one question for staff is, do you think it's realistic that they will come up with something that will go on the ballot other than the one? That's already got all the signatures.

I

um I think a lot will be to determine tomorrow, as we ask the council as a whole. Some some subcommittee items but I think so yeah it is. It is a City excuse me, a council work item to explore amendments to the C sfra, so I do believe something will move forward.

I

It seems like in the interest for the council.

J

I mean I think that the voters well I think the people who put in all the work to design the CSF are a and then the voters agreed that it was a good thing and voted it through I think that we haven't really given it a shot. I mean we're still in its infancy, we're still deciding whether duplexes and mobile homes, and probably things we haven't even thought of, should be part and parcel of the CSF array and that you.

C

J

Tweak it and maybe we'll add or we'll take things away, but I think that it's unfortunate that council seems to be very resentful of our autonomy and that seems to be motivating a whole lot of this and I'm sure there's a lot of pressure. You know from different community forces going in to wanting to get this thing done. I guess, I, just sort of feel like we'd seem to be an agreement. We want to maintain our independence and continue to work.

J

Do what I think the good work that we do and respond to community enquiries and petitions and I'm sure that staff would would love to you know streamline like petition process. If it's possible, it seems like everybody's doing a pretty good job. So anyway, my feeling is we're probably gonna revisit this a few times.

A

All right, yeah I mean it sounds like, were generally generally think that that modifying it somewhat unnecessary and being I think to to Julian's points. It was pretty clearly laid out and what the relationship was to be in the original ballot measure, and you know the people voted voted that in I.

D

A

I mean that is laid out and in many cases in the CSF area that were supposed to be independent and of that nature. So I myself and trying to get to a consensus statement. I guess you know just to do it not sure how to run a straw poll here, but what people be supportive of. On this Genda item saying there were generally unsupportive of a modification of the fundamental relationship between us and the council.

A

That's laid out in already the CSF are a but- and maybe we don't have full support for this I'm actually in support of if they would like to have removal in this ballot measure, if they do pass a ballot measure or put it forward, I, don't think it'll be.

A

My personal view is that it wouldn't necessarily move it one way or the other if it said that they could have the right to remove individual members of the committee as they saw fit since they do appoint us. I think I'd be generally in support of that. But I don't want to add that to break up what could be a unanimous support of generally saying that we're unsupportive of modifying this relationship so to that yeah. So, first, let's go with the statement.

A

The first statement that were generally on support, not supportive of you, know, modifying the relationship as it stands and is laid out in CSRA. We can kind of tweak that and write it with Tim and Anki, but how do people? Anyone in support of that? Let's say let's say: I, I, okay, that's unanimous support.

O

And I ask for some.

A

O

So you mean you mean you're, not supportive, of an amendment of the csfi with regards to changing the Rental Housing Committee City Council relationship.

O

A

Just had just that piece, yes, that that it's on my view- and hopefully everybody sees not heads it's unnecessary. It doesn't seem like it's serving a particular purpose and was already laid out pretty clearly and UCSF way has passed by the people. Okay, yeah.

I

Sure, just to be a little more specific, you just even council oversight in regards to these specific areas, units persons and.

K

I

Oversight in general, it sounds like also based on e. It's.

A

It's something of the.

I

Csfi and how it the purpose, I.

A

Think I almost think, there's a separate topic actually to say that the CSF are a to give us right now. We do not I believe have the capability of changing what a unit redefining unit you.

L

Don't have the ability to change what's covered and what's exempt right.

D

L

Mean you have the ability to interpret which you saw with the mobile homes, but you can, you couldn't add units to what's covered or you couldn't add exempt units right.

A

So I took this and my listening to to the council meetings where the subcommittee meetings was that they were debating whether to give us additional powers and then they would have oversight of they would have approval of those powers. I.

A

Don't want to put forward my my opinion on that, because I mean I do think it's a separate topic we could, if people are the rest of the committee would like to weigh in on that we could, which is, which is to say, should. Would they want? What do you want a system where we could amend specific pieces of the CSF or a text with then that being requiring approval from a majority or supermajority of City Council, which I think is what they put forward correct?

A

Is that something that people do that? That members of the committee would like to weigh in on at this time, I.

J

Don't think we should go there, I mean I, think it's we have cleric I think we're all in agreement that we want to keep it, as is our relationship and I, wouldn't want to muddy that.

A

Who that's specifically, actually one of the use cases was. This was the duplex issue, though that would solve the duplex issue, where you know multiple duplexes, of multiple parcels. At least that was my interpretation of where they were trying to yet, but as its as its stated here, it's much more broad-ranging than that. So my personal thought, I guess I put it out there that that I didn't think if it's too broad I think per some public comment. If it's too broad it just wouldn't pass.

A

If you said you know the hierarchy, as you know, carte blanche to change almost any part of the CSF array that to me seemed like it would just be the nail in the coffin for the for the ballot measure. Sorry for ya, not letting not letting all of you not weigh in before I give that, but as an alternative. We could in this in this piece this the first line item here we could add another one.

A

Maybe we want to add specific language about those duplexes, since that's the one issue we know of right now that would require changing the definition of unit. We could also make that a recommendation to the council.

A

Emily, sorry, didn't let me, would you like to weigh in.

E

It's kind of awful because the way the staff has this laid out and the way they want us to answer is probably not the way.

E

We're gonna answer this, though I'm so sorry about that in terms of an overall concept, I'm, really starting to think about one when it got put on the work plan in terms of council and their priority session, and all that and and the sped up timeline, because it needs to be done by December 6, because they're targeting March 2020, and so when it first came out that they wanted to do that.

E

One I didn't like the idea in the first place, but we could look into what kind of improvements we can do and if we are super targeted, we could probably come out with something great and and and really improve the see sfra coming out of one rhc meeting and three council subcommittee meetings. It has been anything but focused and targeted and that's not staffs fault.

E

Quite honestly, I think staff has done an amazing job in targeting and focusing a lot of the concepts, but it seems to get more and more complex in such a short timeline deadline and the more complex a ballot initiative is the less likely it's going to pass in in during the subcommittee meetings. The question was asked: what constituencies are actually going to support this? Who is asking for this? We were fortunate enough. In our first meeting we had members from the duplex community who are on multiple duplexes on the single parcel. That was great.

E

We found a constituency mobile home parks. We found a constituency, everything else we haven't found anything. So any changes to the CSF are a that I would like our RHC committee, or that's committee committee, I, guess at that point, but the RHC to support or or help target for our council in general and the subcommittee, because I believe this is going to the council in general. I, don't know if this report will go to the council in general. I think this is too much of a turn around no.

I

We will be reporting some, if not all, of the RHC input for tomorrow's council meeting. They specifically asked to to pull the RHC about these specific issues, because.

E

The reality is, it does us no good, even if we have the best input and the amendments to the Charter and it doesn't get passed by the voters. So in terms of that, the council decides a high level yeah. That sounds great and if we have more time to mesh this out and really think it through and have workshops on it or do it like a full workout outreach yeah. Maybe we should look into that. Looking at our December 6 deadline, why I don't think we should so concept wise? Yes, that sounds great.

E

Looking at the March 2020 deadline, I think it's wasting our staff time and wasting their staff time when they did this in the priority session. I pulled up my notes from that, because I sat through that meeting and that was priority goal 2.1 and in all the public comment. Only one person spoke on that topic, not necessarily topic, but on that that goal 2.1, which was modifications to see, is that right. Everyone wanted 1.2, I think which was immigration and then a 1.9 which was anti displacement.

E

So I I fail to see a constituency which will get this over the hump and actually get people to vote for it, and so, in order for this to be how do I say this? Not a waste of everyone's time? I suggest that we focus and pretty much. We can discuss some of these concepts but I think it's not useful for the ballon ishutin in December for December 6 deadline.

B

To follow on with Emily's point, there I think to your point: Emily. If we had the time to be tactical in applying this and really say, and with council have city council say with regards to duplex issues with regards to mobile home issues. Here are the precise ways we would modify. The CSF are a that could have benefit, however, giving carte blanche to edit things like units persons, city, general funds, past or in suspension to the arch. The arch say even with city oversight, makes a moving target for landlords and tenants both.

B

So as your RHC evolves. All of these concepts can, then, if you don't write it, the mallet initiative quite properly constantly evolved, so for both a landlord and a tenant. That's a moving target, that's really stressful and doesn't improve upon anything. So I think we need to keep that in mind as well.

A

Okay, maybe maybe one way to to kind of structure this feedback I think is to well. First I do want to get a vote on the the first two items we said. So we have. You know something on paper that we're giving to them on this on this agenda. Item I. Think then, we'll ask if anyone feels passionate about any details, that's in this list on that we see on the screen right now. So then we could decide whether there's there is a.

A

If there's a majority I feel like we could put that in as a subtext to say also, you know we feel like if there were very specific language about X item we feel like that would be something we'd be supportive of so to go back to our original vote. I think everyone was generally in agreement about the statement that were not supportive of fundamentally changing the relationship between between the two and then I think regarding specific items. The first one would be removal.

A

What who would would I guess, quick vote of who would be supportive of authorizing specific language for the council to put forward regarding the room vil their power to remove a member of the RHC all in.

A

But that we would be okay, that that seems, I guess, we'd be saying that that seems like an item that would by my interpretation of what staff is saying, is that that would be something if they wanted. To put it in, would make sense for it to be a part of the ballot measure. But if you're not supportive, but you know, definitely not have to vote so I guess anyone in support of the a removal language. I.

A

So I will say I looks like I'm the only one so we're not gonna put that on the list. There Tim, okay, sure.

J

Good I'm, the city general funds, it's my understanding is there was grave concerned about the costs of the start-up year or so, and that that may be where the history of this concern about general fund use comes it's seen from what I was listening to in the subcommittee, there's very great concern that there might be legal suits.

J

That would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and we would go willy-nilly spending the city's money and I wonder if maybe I mean monkey you have said over and over how you know the the CSF are a pays for itself and I. It seems like that hasn't gotten through to them, I mean I, just I. Just wonder if there's something that we could say about the use of funds about the fact that we're not planning to misuse them yeah.

O

I mean yes, you could I think what I recall from the last subcommittee meeting is that, okay to date, you were able to control the costs, but it's uncertain what type of litigation might come up in the future and whether or not the Randall Housing Committee will come to the City Council for extra funds. That was what was that.

B

But isn't that exactly why we've been trying to fund a sinking fund and isn't that why we are very pleased- or at least I, was very pleased to see that we had actually made additional progress on that this year, yeah and we're more than halfway funded. We.

O

Have about three hundred eighty thousand dollars in our reserves, so yeah.

B

So if we did want to say something around that, perhaps we could report to the City Council our sinking fund budget, so that they have more comfort around the fact that we would not be going into the city general funds. Maybe some level of reporting and sharing information might have value there. If others like that idea,.

A

D

Comments on on.

A

The general funds piece.

E

Hypothetically, if we get a mythical lawsuit for the RAC, doesn't city council run the same risk of a mythical lawsuit that they don't know in the future for whether for their ordinance hub so I I? Guess that was a redundant question or.

E

Rhetorical question so yeah so I think most of this stuff. If we had more time more thought, put into working things out and don't have the December 6 deadline and not trying to make a hodgepodge most of this stuff, we could disregard.

A

All right Julian any comments on the general funds. Why not him? No okay, I think would I would agree. I guess in that a simple statement of we take our budget making seriously and we have X amount of funds for a rainy day in reserves. I'd be supportive of just saying that and and generally we feel that it wouldn't be necessary to to make it to put anything into the ballot measure. I guess I would ask quick if just by nodding heads whether that's something that people would be supportive of alright great.

A

So the well I had.

E

A

This list that I put forward.

D

But I was wondering if anybody.

A

Else had any others all right, all the units I actually would you know if this is the time for us to to give that feedback on the duplex definition, I think by December 6? That could be reasonable to put together a very specific redefinition of duplex. Put that into the ballot measure. Also, I, don't think again, that's gonna move the vote either way, but it would make things easier on us by by kind of taking care of the duplex issue.

A

Would sorry I'm looking at Tim but actually I'm saying it took committee? If, if you feel like you'd, be supportive of specifically addressing the duplex issue, I'd love to hear your comments, I.

B

Would be I think that's a nice tactical maneuver, where we could be very specific and give direction or give guidance to City Council to the subcommittee that we'd like to see that addressed not in a broad stroke of units but specifically around a flex. I.

J

Agree, my only question is on the chance that this will lose. Does that damage our potential future choices? I guess we could then say: okay, well, it didn't pass, but we don't know that it had anything to do with duplexes. We can agendize that or after March.

A

Good question for legal stuff, you know, is a no vote on anything that that gets put on the ballot. Would that does that create legal precedent for someone to challenge our future decisions? No.

L

I, don't think so, I mean you have the ability to interpret this ESFR a within its parameters, and you would retain that a bill, regardless of the vote.

A

E

Legal question: so this specific case we can't do that on our own, so this would have to go through a charter.

L

Correct I, because of the way the exemptions are written, it's a very specific and it doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room. Okay,.

E

So I would support the specific language and I guess what we're going when I'm, hoping that all of us would aim for an RHC is the direction that we were giving to council is specific, and hopefully that will encourage them to be specific and clear and concise on this. So did you want to do a straw poll on this Matthew? Oh.

E

C

Sir I mean I would generally support adding duplexes there's something to be considered by the voters. I think one sub issue you might consider, though, is whether to also include you know the the appropriate base year for considering duplexes in the ballot initiative versus ourselves enacting clarifying regulation on that point. I think there could be merits to both, but I think that's kind of a natural thing. That's gonna come up well, duplexes are covered okay, great and now what is the appropriate base year to use for the timing to use?

C

And if it's set forth on the ballot, then that's pretty clear and I. Don't think we get ourselves into too much trouble, but if it's not clear and then when we make a determination, our own, that might be good because we actually know the issues better in the nuances, but it also makes us more of a target because of that so I just think it's something that may be a sub issue. We should consider.

A

All right, I think that's a good point, and now it's a slippery slope because now I'm remembering that we also there was our staff, did ask us if we could clarify the in lot units multiple in line units on one parcel situation as well as the multiple duplexes on one parcel. So I guess.

A

Would everyone here be supportive of saying.

A

Coming up with some language that helps us deal with outliers, but not in a way, that's going to reverse I. Think if something's on this ballot that allows us to read, you know gives us too much. As everyone has said, and agreed with too much leeway, then it's not going to be accepted because you know I've distrust in the community and you know which is valid. The the there will be different members of the RFC in the future and you never know what's going to happen so.

O

Discussion in a previous meeting, one suggestion would have been the CSF reapplies two properties with three or more units things kind of take care of both issues. At the same time,.

A

Okay, does that are there any unintended consequences from that that we could that we could think of, or is there well.

L

I think Julian's coming is correct. If we're gonna do that, we have to address what the base year is for those units because they have not been covered up till now. So we would, you know it's more than just a one sentence, but there it's, it can be done strategically very carefully and they could be covered.

A

How about this? What if, what, if we, the statement that we give to the the subcommittee would be?

A

We are supportive of an elegant way to define corner cases that are problematic and we would like the freedom to we would like the ballot measure or, what's in the ballot measure, give us the freedom to work out the details later you know, so the RTC would figure out what what the base here is or any it gives us jurisdiction over more control in dealing with those corner cases separately from the cs of our language CSF, our right language, as it is today.

A

What's that how's that too much I.

J

Don't like the idea give giving us freedom later, we we already have the authority. The question is whether the voters are going to take away that authority by agreeing with the council's recommendations. Right and I have a question about three units. Does that mean if there's one mother-in-law unit you're, that's gonna remain exempt, so only two and a property will will never be covered.

O

Yes, so the current problem is, if there's an ad you on the same property as a single-family home right because of the definition of the single family home, the single family home now becomes covered. Another C is fre, so if we say three units or more, if you have one a tu and a single-family home on one property, they're both exempt. If you were to change that definition,.

J

So so you can't have the single family home exempt and cover the ad. You well.

O

That depends how you define the exemptions, but how do you currently defined? It confuses a lot of people and it has some unintended consequences so.

L

All what are called companion units are exempt, regardless of how many you know are on a property right, whereas you know single family homes would not necessarily be exempt if they're, rented and there's a companion unit on it because of the way this is written. So that's where the lack of clarity comes in. Oh.

A

I guess maybe I would put it forward to develop it afforded to a straw poll of if we kind of, if we trust that or if we would give our support to staff trying to write something up. That would deal with the corner cases that have already been brought forward, that, where there's gray area to better, to find that better define those areas.

B

Can we add on there and we request that clarity be given around the base year? Yeah.

A

I think I think if.

B

You're yeah, if.

A

You're I heard you know what Susan saying about giving us too much freedom, so maybe we just say the base year and anything else in the next few days that that people that that that staff figures out isn't isn't as clear as it should be. I mean is that they we just brainstorm this right now, but is there anything else besides base year that you think would be problematic in covering a new or setting a new definition.

L

No I think that's that sort of the trickiest part and that we can come up with something okay,.

A

All right so I'll put that to the vote again. I think it is, you know we are supportive, the same one to be we're supportive of defining those corner cases and the base us having the responsibility for redefining the base year or within the within the ballot measure. Yes, are.

E

We looking at two separate votes: cuz I was really liking the street for a good duplex case and then are we doing a separate vote on the base year corner case issue? Are you putting the duplexes as a corner case gotcha.

A

Yeah, so the duplexes and as I I'm hearing for monkey, the the multiple ad use on the same parcel seems like there is an elegant solution for that, which is something along the lines that when three units are on the same parcel, it's it's covered and then just also for that case. Just for that case reset the base here set the base here, so it wouldn't be the base here forever: southern Basie for all units. It's just the base here for, for that case, yeah newly covered. Yes great, yes, already getting good good language.

A

There, I, like it okay, so we'll put that to a vote all in favor of putting that forward statement to putting forward that statement to the subcommittee I all right, okay, making progress any any other anything else from that list. For item number one: okay, we will we'll move on then to item number two: the capital improvements.

A

Okay, sorry so, yes to put to put forward the those items I'll give everyone a couple minutes to read through and then, if any of those rise to the level that you think it would deserve to be on the ballot measure we can discuss. Oh.

E

A

E

So, if we're just going down this list, the first one is going to scare people, no matter how you're gonna write that that's gonna terrify people mentioning how to see you safer, he's gonna get suspended when when things are scary, they don't vote for it. So I'm we're not gonna even discuss that all right. She is an advisory body. We were, he said, no non-residents to serve in the RAC, whatever no but I. If we are clear that they are required to to be part, it's mandatory for them to be part of the registry.

E

I feel that that's something that we could only do with a charter amendment- oh no, we we could require that without it, oh cool. Let's look I'm good with not going not sending anything of this. It.

O

Just would be more clear and and questionable if it were to be expressly mentioned indices every.

A

Okay, anybody else on these topics.

J

The fourth one Express authority for mandatory registry is that giving the council that authority to require registry- you.

O

Don't want either you are City Council.

J

And and when didn't we decide, we weren't gonna, make it mandatory.

A

Okay can give a we.

O

A

O

Discussed that topic a couple of times when it came up when we were discussing the database, we were gonna, keep track of how many people were actually volunteering voluntarily register, and that's where the end of this discussion was to date.

A

Any other feedback on that particular item, the fourth one I.

E

Mean the funny thing about this: is it's not really funny, but it's it's. The interesting thing about this is I. Do like the idea of expressing Authority for mandatory registration? uh If we put it on the ballot, it may actually get the landlords more against it. So, like I said, the priority is anything we want on. This has to be something that we can. That doesn't harm the other things from. We want getting passed so I'm, okay, with it not being included in the thing now in terms of if we have the authority as RAC.

E

Eventually, that will be fun to talk about in another agenda item.

A

Sure Nicole I.

B

Would concur with that I think that while I would love to see more registration happening I, do you think we have the tools to already courage, registration and perhaps eventually, mandate, registration and I like to think of it as an evolution and I think when we were discussing the budget or one of the agenda items previously, I mentioned this. You know I, think that we don't have to mandate right away. We can use some incentivizing first and get people warmed up.

B

Get people on board evolve that way, so I don't think it needs to be on a ballot, and everything else just know does not need to be on a ballot.

A

C

I think I had I recall having similar.

A

Kind of us thinking, similarly to what Nicole said, maybe the only question I would put to staff. You know I know we do have the flexibility to require this. If we wanted to I think, are there any incentives that we had talked about? That would need a ballot measure to for us to be able to do that. So, for instance, I think having different, maybe four four members who are registered. They can have a different fee than from what from what other members pay every year.

A

Is there anything that we mentioned that, like we couldn't do? Are there any ideas out there that if you wanted to incentivize them and use the carrot, not the stick, that we don't have the flexibility to do right now and that we could ask Council, for they were right in that flexibility, yeah.

O

So we can do a separate topic on that end. One of no future agendas.

A

Okay but I guess right now, but that wouldn't go on the agenda or that would go on the ballot or we wouldn't be able to this.

O

Question is justice need to go into the seats every amendments or not? Do you recommend that right.

A

And I think I'm I think what I'm hearing was that we have. The flexibility to you know make a lot of these choices ourselves, but is there anything that we want in the ballot to give us more flexibility from an instrumentation perspective, so something we're that we'd like to? If we came up with these rules to say, hey we're trying to incentivize landlords to register, we don't wanna, make it compulsory, but we'd like to do this this, and this specifically change the speaker. They have different grades of fees a month landlords.

A

Can we do that today? Well,.

L

The Sierra C sfra allows different fees between partially covered and fully covered units, but it doesn't allow additional differentiation. So that might be a problem if you wanted to create some sort of incentive or a reduced fee for people who register got.

A

O

We can do a late fee for people who write you're still late.

A

That's the sick, yeah I prefer I prefer to go with a carrot. First, if.

I

I'm, okay, just there has been discussion about this good actor landlord that something to consider but I, see.

A

Okay, I guess I'll there's differing opinions, it sounds like I, don't know, I, don't actually know how to put a statement again for this. It's it sounds. It sounds like we don't necessarily think it's necessary to write this specifically, but man mandate into the CSF are a, but some of these underlying levers that we'd like to pull. We like more flexibility there, but I I, don't think we have enough right now to make us focus recommendation to the subcommittee.

A

Unless someone would like to say they disagree.

A

Okay, actually unki yeah I mean if the the language doesn't need to be finalized until December 5th. Maybe we do have specifically talked about that item in a future agenda around the instruments that we could use to instead of eyes or a late fee.

A

Yes, if that's were leaning, okay, so I think we've covered now topic number one number two is specific capital improvements, so I'll give everyone a moment to read through this one and then same I think bring forward anything you feel passionate about that would be necessary to have in a valid measure that we could recommend to something at the subcommittee.

A

D

Again, I think.

A

On this, one counsels asking for: are we supportive of the concept in general, which is allow to allow you know the specific petition, expedited petition for capital improvements? That's outside of this of the current process for a fair return and then do. We also want to make sure that they include specific guidance around what those what those expedited processes can be, that we have jurisdiction over any thoughts to begin.

A

First, generally, are people supportive of an expedited petition process being part of the ballot measure I.

B

Am um I think that some level of streamlining more like from what I understand Alameda does with the pre approval process and then the document review for it. The post approval is not a bad idea um for just specific capital improvements. I might have the next slide. Some differing of opinions on the list there, but I am generally supportive of some level of streamlining, with a pre approval and a post approval process and.

A

Just to clarify: that's that's for the fair return petition, no.

B

That's for just recapping a capital improvement; okay,.

A

B

Not for an mo ah got it okay,.

A

Anyone else regarding capital improvement, expedited petition.

A

E

So I'm very mixed on this.

E

This is where the specificity really matters, and this is where you get to a point where not enough a specific that word, but if it gets not specific enough, it will sink this initiative and I'm very cognizant of that. Even even if we get specific on this, there's no.

E

There is a chance that it will still sink it too, depending on how people feel in whole how the measures going to go, because this is a clear I.

E

Feel like the specific capital improvements is something that is clearly beneficial to one party and so without a balancing out, or at least a clear spis, specifically.

E

That this will cause more people to want to sink it and.

E

It's such a cop-out for me to be like I, don't know, I, don't know if we should even weigh in unanimously on this or even a majority on this, because having a capital improvement process, I've seen that in other jurisdictions. So we know that there is a model that we can follow and, quite honestly, as we do, the the big genesis of one of the major issues when it came to meditation to see sfra is we have the seismic retrofits and we don't want dead tenants, so it would be.

E

Nice have like those met, and those are meant to be those Rocha pets actually happen, even though we make them mandatory. There is still questions because the they will get at it. They are because of our law, already allows for them to put it into our fair rate or return process.

E

Fundamentally, so there are two fundamental things that I believe and I feel like as we get more specific in terms of the capital improvements.

E

Think fundamentally, I do think that a capital improvement process is not necessarily a bad thing, but the other fundamental is I believe our fair rate of return petition process, currently as it is, is actually very good as it is so those are two conflicting narratives and how we actually work this out and whether it I know that a specific capital improvement change has to go through the Charter that that's my understanding.

E

Now there are wiggle rooms of ways that we could make that a little easier, but it's still fundamentally a fair rate of return process and staff has done a wonderful job of making that improving that, since our very first iterations and they constantly iterate so I, don't believe I guess that's a bad word. I, don't feel that the fair rate of return process will forever be a.

E

What was the word that a lot of people have used it? They it's like an overbearing process as what we have gotten from our initial feedback about our petitions and our staff has worked continuously very hard to ensure that it's not and they are constantly working to find ways to improve it and I believe in that process.

E

So this is where I'm a bit split in terms of specific capital improvements, because one I want to give specific direction to council I, don't know what that specific direction is clear, as mud all.

A

Right regarding I mean to focus in regarding the seismic retrofit in particular, would you be amenable to a specific statement that allowed for an expedited petition process for that outside of the fair return I.

E

Think at this point, I am open to only seismic retrofit.

A

B

Would you Emily be supportive of language in the Charter that allows the RHC at its sole discretion the flexibility in the future to streamline for capital improvements only as opposed to letting council have that control.

E

My problem with that is the definition of streamline I. Remember I, had this conversation with a council member and he spoke about, it's like I, would like a more streamlined process, and that was one of the things that he wanted and I was like what the streamline mean to you and he thought like over.

E

The counter was the word he told me and I'm just like no, absolutely not um so, but even if it's up to the RHC I feel like there needs to be more backing to it with the law like something that even with the RHC. This is. This is expanding. A power to the RAC and I was mentioning this before with Matthew so like. If you have the general sentiment of council here, the general sentiment of RTC is probably here uh-huh, which is unfortunate, but a reality and I worry that that will sink it.

E

So we are working with a whole bunch of stuff and even even the seismic retrofits you can make a case like for it. The question is: is who's going to make this case for it, and that's that when we go through all this is like where's, the constituency that is going to support this? Who are the people that are going to give up what I like to call their time and their treasure to make this initiative pass? And it's not easy to win elections?

E

When Council talked about doing this, they're like on their own time, they're going to work on this, they have full-time jobs, they have their council job and then they're going to campaign really hope the expectation for us.

E

So when we talk about what we're adding in I feel like seismic retrofits I see that we can make an argument for it. But that is really that's that, where we are starting to deal with a very dangerous.

E

We are risking not passing anything at all beyond that.

N

A

C

So I don't think we're gonna get a unanimous opinion on this. One, so I mean I, like the idea of expedited petitions over the counter. I think that, actually that, if he actually makes a lot of sense to me in terms of eligible capital, improvements, I actually think as as much as possible. She'll be eligible and I think logistically.

C

What makes sense to me is given that the time constraints that we have it seems very difficult, if not impossible, to come to some kind of agreement as to what exactly we would want covered and then to have. The subcommittee also be on board and end up kind of present at all on a ballot.

C

It seems like the challenging and I think an alternative is to simply have an initiative that gives us the authority to make whatever determinations we want about capital improvements, and then we have that authority to use I'm going forward, and we might decide that you know sizing. Seismic retrofits are something that we want to have eligible.

C

It seems like that that might be the case, and there might be other things as well that we would find eligible with our authority and other things that we would not find eligible, but I think the cleanest way to do. It would be simply to ask for that authority to use our discretion going forward with the knowledge base.

C

We have to make that determination, rather than trying to cobble something together pretty quickly, which I think at the end of the day is not going to be really what we want and what the council wants and then doesn't give us the flexibility that I think we properly should have on this issue because, for example, the seismic retrofits for those of us that don't follow. You know earthquake news a lot.

C

This is probably not an issue that maybe five years ago we would have seen on the horizon is something that might be worthy of capital improvement. But now we see this and we say well, this is a perfect or some of us might think.

C

This is a something that's appropriate for it, and likewise something else might come up in two to three years that we don't see now, that might be an appropriate topic for a capital of improvement to be included and I think giving us the discretion and the authority to make that determination is the cleanest way to go about this.

A

Okay, Susan I agree.

J

I mean I was thinking about it and say you will you know they were talking about very specific things like roofs and windows, and you know for sustainability, and it doesn't seem like a ballot initiative. Is the appropriate place to create the checklist. I mean it seems to me that takes a lot of research and comparing what other districts I mean. I was really happy to see the comparison sheet that the staff developed but yeah I agree with Julian. We need to maintain discretion and, through our experience, will develop that information.

B

But currently we don't and correct me if I'm wrong staff and our council, we don't have the discretion to do so. Do we we cannot do anything but a fair return for capital improvements with.

L

So the only allowable basis for a rent increase in an individual petition. It's got to be based on fair returns, so you could come up with a petition process that addressed capital improvements. The capital improvements also have to be necessary, so there are some restrictions there, so you could come up with something, but we have to tie it back to fair return, whereas what you saw in the information has some jurisdictions have just a completely separate capital improvement petition process. It's not tight to fair return. It's tight to. Did you install the capital improvements?

L

Do they fit the definition of capital improvements? How much money did you spend? What's the amortization, etc so that you don't have the ability to do.

A

All right, so somebody take on this. One I do think this is, or I have been leaning towards this being something that would really fit for the for the ballot measure I get concerned about if we have to go through, but if it is mandated that they have to have seismic retrofits without something separate, I could see our budget just getting blown up by having too many petitions that have to go through the full process.

A

50 pages of fair return, documentation that needs to be included so that that's a primary concern for me, I would I would definitely be supportive of at least for seismic retrofit. So the way I think I based on the feedback we had structure. This question or statement recommendation to the subcommittee would be first, we vote on.

A

If we think that seismic retrofit, it should be specifically laid out in a ballot measure that we could create an expedited petition process. For that, then I think there's also support for, but I'm not sure, if doesn't sound unanimous, but maybe a majority of you know give yes, the flexibility in the future to lay out other.

A

You know reasons for expedited petitions as they come up, maybe even something that's just necessary for compliance as stated here or you know, extending the useful life of the property personally I think I agree with everything in the eligibility rules, except when you say just benefits, tenants I think benefits tenants and they can, for the community, I feel like sidewalks and things like those I, don't see those as being something landlords putting in to raise Reds. You know I, think like it could.

A

You could just have general upkeep for the it and I think I heard someone say that safety and and that yeah. That makes sense. So maybe then it is covered, but the general language of benefits, sentence or exclude luxury I. Think then you're even getting into more gray area. What's luxury I agree with them in general, but it seems like you could get hamstrung again by something that we can't foresee. So that's just my personal opinion, so I think I'd put forward first to see if we can get perhaps unanimous agreement that a statement about.

A

We do believe that there's the necessity to add into the ballot measure regular, adding the ability for us to come up with capital improvement rules for a seismic retrofit as an expedited petition process, a lot of words there, but I think everyone gets it so we'll put that to a vote. First, just seismic retrofit all in favor all right, okay, so unanimous! So then the the one that I'm not so sure about- but you know, I'll put it out there.

A

Yes, yes for I, think that was within for the seismic retrofit. Yes, I think everybody! Everyone agreed nodding, heads, okay, okay, so now for the second one, just giving the RHC in general writing that into a ballot measure that we would get to write or develop new expedited petition processes for different capital improvements at our discretion.

A

All infant and I'll adopt the the eligibility requirements that they have here actually as part of this, the guiding principles, yes well and that maybe I'll try it first without this big specific categories and guiding principles and that's actually more flexible than the more specific ones. So, all in favor of that statement.

A

Sorry stating providing the artsy with the flexibility to adopt regulation for additional capital improvement categories as we see fit.

A

With I think expedite it, wasn't there I think so, but yes, that would be part of it. It's an expedited process outside of fair return. Only it has to be adopted by you know, majority of the rental housing committee, all in favor of a statement in support of that to the subcommittee.

A

All right, four out of five okay, so I mean I. Think we'll just note that to the subcommittee and we're moving right along.

A

Okay, well, alright, we'll see we'll see how the next one goes. If we can put that up on the screen there.

D

A

Sorry hunky: do you have what you need for for those two items that we got over so far? There are temp yeah.

I

A

Think so, just to.

I

Be perfectly clear: the RH c1 and an expedited process.

M

I

A fair rate of return.

D

I

Solely seismic retrofits, we.

A

Were unanimous on yes and.

I

Then, secondly, develop flexibility to adopt regulations to add capital improvement categories as the RHC sees fit outside of the fair return. That's.

A

Right and we were yeah I would note that we were four out of five on that one majority.

I

Are HC? Excuse me three. Okay,.

A

I

And just and you had mentioned, you won two fold in those guiding principles as part of I. Think we or was it dialed the back. My.

A

Interpretation was we would pass it without without that page, the four out of five okay, but would agree with it without that page of things. But that's: okay, that's up to the council whether they want to adopt those or not right, but we didn't. We didn't necessarily think that was necessary. Okay,.

I

All right, very good, no other okay,.

A

Sir, go ahead clarifying.

E

Question a lot of the stuff I'm just like no is that, like registering, is like we don't want council to touch that, or is that, like we're, not giving council feedback, that's a clear distinction on.

I

Some of these things, for example, previously you had discussed certain things about the RHC relationship with the council, the oversight and staff and report. It was a unanimous or very strong note, many of those things- okay, those that can be reported back to in just that discussion about relationship, okay,.

E

So but like didn't the I, don't remember it was like two slides ago or something like that: I'm just like no nope nope nope. Oh, is that feedback going to counsel, or is it going to counsel as we're not giving feedback? Does that make sense if.

I

The if the RHC felt strongly with affirmative or just a strong no in regards to all those aspects, then that will be taken to the council. I think.

A

I

L

A

Give me your feedback but I think if we voted on something we wouldn't. We would like that to be the only feedback and I think just to keep it focused. You know any individual may be I mean individual statements that you've that you want to record you. Don't we put that into pendeks or something.

M

A

I would like this to be in bold. You know the ones that we made group decisions on it's, because I think it is important to try to focus the issues on what we think is gonna pass I mean I. Think that's the question that we're asking here implicit in our ask, is we think that the things that we're pointing out rise to the level that they would require ballot measure and deserve one okay.

I

So stepping back the rhc did say they voted unanimously- that they're not supportive of fundamentally changing the CSF hooray in regards to council oversight. That was very clear, so that will be what is reported to the council. Okay,.

A

All right moving right along to more the next one is. The annual general adjustment at issue that we could discuss is either maintaining the current AGA setting a fixed AGA percentage, something like 5% or authorizing additional adi increments for good actors.

A

Think about that, and if you believe that any of those rise, the level of deserving to be on the ballot measure, then let's discuss and.

I

Just to clarify the the subcommittee was not unanimous, or there was no majority opinion, since they were split on this issue. This is one of the items that they wanted the council to weigh in on, but this is an opportunity for the RHC to provide their input in this about this topic. Also,.

A

Sure article I would.

B

Like to weigh in that, we should maintain the current AGA or do some percentage of CPI, but not set a fixed percentage and the whole good actors thing I do risk and compliance for a living and I, don't Pat people in the head if they follow minimum standards, so I'm sorry, I, don't know how else to say it. So if we want to incentivize that's one thing but giving putting that on the backs of a tenant doesn't make logical sense to me.

B

I think that's where we need to talk about incentivizing, not raising rent, to reward those who live up to minimum standards, because if you're in a quote/unquote, bad actor, that means you're violating the law and so I. Just don't have people on the head for violating laws. Like saying, oh good, you you didn't violate all the laws. That's awesome way to go.

A

All right anyone else like the way it oh.

E

Yes, so number two I think is a wonderful way to waste everyone's time by putting that in the ballot initiative, there's like that. That is the ultimate like this will kill this ballot initiative, so I believe in maintain the current AGA.

E

What was fascinating is early on I think they they've corrected themselves since then, but someone mentioned that the whole CPI thing was confusing and I, don't think they're really talking about the aga I think they were confused about our fair rate of return, CPI issues um and then somehow that got translated to the aga, so I'm I'm at the I'm, maintaining the current AGA I feel is probably the best way to actually not sync. All the work we're putting into this and the good actors thing I think just complicates that.

A

All right, Julian or I would.

C

Maintain the current AGA.

O

H

A

So I mean I've actually feel the same. I feel like it's a poison pill to do anything that first, the first CSRA it was very clear about what the what the AGA should be and that was voted in by the people. So I don't think there was any ambiguity there.

A

So I would also may be all in favor of. We believe that the current language was accepted by the voters, and you know what complicate a ballot measure. Anyone in support of that statement, hi, okay, great mm-hmm, that you have everything you need there too. Okay, all right! Last one regulation for mobile homes. This will probably be a little bit or more discussion here.

A

A

Just trying to think about the options that were laid out and then I think there are other options that have been floated regarding what we could do here. What we could recommend. Yes, thank you for the second page, with all righty. This sorry I thought I saw a question here that was regarding there similar to that would cover mobile homes. No.

A

No okay, okay, all right! So we'll just start. The discussion here, I think put forward something that you feel like would rise the level or make sense for the ballot measure and we'll discuss.

J

Didn't we cover this when we said we wanted to have.

A

So so that is a this would be a question for for staff, maybe for clarification, but if we had on the first page, if we had the flexibility to change the definition of units I think that could be a way then that we are enabled or given the tools to deal more specifically with mobile homes. I can I can offer my my initial opinion. There is that I think you're still beholding to the rest of the CSRA.

A

So there isn't, the flexibility I think everything else would stay the same so CPI they can see decontrol when we went through this a couple years ago, with with staff, there are a lot of line items where we were going to. You know, mark out certain pieces of the CSRA or replace them or overwrite them. But then there were also still other pieces that were we couldn't change, and you know I I guess: I'll I want to get opinions, first, I guess from everyone else beforehand before I put forward by.

A

But if, if you could say here that you're supportive in general of an ordinance I think what we had, what we had talked about last time was whether we thought it should be an ordinance or part of the ballot measure. Now I think the options are becoming more clear because of timing. It sounds like City. Council would not be able to get an ordinance prior to the ballot measure going out. Is that correct.

I

I'm, sorry well sorry,.

A

Sorry so the now at first, the first time I know he keep me Kimi straight here. We had the question that was put in front of us was: what do we think it was more deserving of mobile homes to be dealt with and a ballot measure versus an ordinance yeah, and we had given the feedback? Yes,.

O

And then you also said: well, we, the majority thought an ordinance would be a good idea if that could be implemented at the same time as a charter amendment. Is that what you're referring to yeah.

A

That's right yeah, so so that that's where we were last time and now now I think what what may have changed doesn't seem like that would coincide or at least be ready by March.

I

That's sure that would be a really heavy lift to have ready by March.

A

Yes, so now I'll bring it back and we can offer any as we have with everything else, recommendations for whether this should go in the ballot measure or you know, if, if you have other suggestions about an ordinance or way that we could, they could offload some work to us by beginning of those around the table, so I'll leave it there and open it up for her comments.

E

Always have lots of opinions of running a mobile home parks. I was on the losing end of this vote. We won't rehash that again because yeah we'll never stop talking um my concern right now. As this waffling of mobile homes and the idea, the charter amendment I felt. That was like the easiest way that we could address this. My concern is because council has been lawful, balling the mobile home parks since 2016, when the ordinance was nothing's.

E

When the charter amendment was first put, they came to the City Council and they're, like we don't know if it's gonna be covered under the measure V and so two years later it measure V passes and residents cope mobile home residents go back to City Council in like well, you don't know if it's gonna be on under measure V fast forward. Two years later, all right, you see, votes that it's not to my chagrin, but then I don't want this to come back to City Council when they take this up in fall.

E

2020 I think that's when it's in the work plan estimated.

I

Is January of 2000.

E

Air twenty point, so it's a little better I! Don't want this to be like how we put this in the ballot measure or even discussing it for the ballot measure to be your reason for council being like. Well, we don't know, what's gonna happen with this ballot measure, so we should hold off on this, because I really can't stand the idea of doing that to the mobile home residents.

E

So if they want to just address it via city council, ordinance great if they think that it should be under us great. Let's work that out and hash that out, though the worry I have is, do we need to put it in the ballot initiative, whether or not they are covered and not covered kind of thing, because that that will that will make things clearer and less likely for council to Waffle it.

E

But it's also another way that this could sink and if it's like, you could do like I said you could do the best ballot initiative that you want. It's worth, nothing if it doesn't pass and that that is my concern now. What's the answer for that I'm not sure all I know is mobile, home residents deserve protections and I will trust and staff the wood or my colleagues and what they think the best path for that is going to be, or even our legal counsel. If you have any ideas about that, that would be great.

L

About what's gonna pass.

E

What would be the safest course of action to getting protections for mobile homes.

L

You know I'm not sure that we do have a clear opinion. I mean I, think city, council ordinance is the quickest and you know most effective way of doing it, but the City Council has to pass an ordinance to do that. So.

C

Good could I just ask on that point, so if how would it function if there was an ordinance, how could an ordinance bring the mobile homes under our jurisdiction without amending the CSF already well.

L

That's one of the questions that the council subcommittee had is if they adopted an ordinance that had mobile home were in control, could they delegate to the rhc the implementation and administration of that ordinance? It's not clear that could be an amendment that would be put into the ballot measure to make it clear that they could delegate certain things to the RHC that are of similar nature. To what you do. So that's an option, the other options they could do an ordinance and have somebody else administer it. So right.

C

Sure the City Council could administer the program on its own or the city could, in theory, could.

L

Administer it with staff and not have a separate I mean there's options: I, don't think they've gotten to that level of discussion would.

C

Be first here that the cleaner option would be an amendment because you wouldn't have that that issue well.

L

I think you could put an amendment. One of the things that was discussed at the subcommittee was amending the C sfra to make it clear that the council could delegate certain things to the origin scene, so that, should they adopt mobile home rent control by ordinance, they could then delegate it to you all to administer.

A

Along those lines could could they adopt an amendment to the to the piece of the ballot measure to give us the flexibility to create you know, kind of a new class or a new category of unit that has different roles than other units, so I mean I, it's so for one thing to fee right like let's throw that out there if the fee, if you want the fee to be different among you, know mobile homes and park owners and that to just be a different structure, is that something we have a foot like yeah.

L

I mean you know, there's a lot of flexibility of what they could put into the ballot measure if they want to amend it, so they could put in to the ballot measure what you're suggesting that there's more flexibility on the fee they could put into the ballot measure that mobile homes are part of what's covered in the CSF are a you know, but leave it up to you to come up with the regulations.

L

You know they could put in some flexibility to give you the ability to determine whether they're covered, but you have that right now, so I think you know, there's a lot of options as to what they can do. I think there just has to be a decision of how they want to proceed.

A

E

I guess this goes back to the question. This is what is the cleanest most specific way? We could direct council on this I guess, that's that's what I would like to get a little bit more, because we know councils looking at an ordinance. We think that council wants to do an ordinance and protect the mobile home park. So what is what is the clear and specific feedback that we can give to council to encourage this.

A

What's, uh let's get, we have a we'll, get a lot more feedback and then I think we could try to. You know, pull together where there's consensus.

J

I'm kind of ambivalent on this because I think there may be, you know political strategies that, by putting it by including the mobile home coverage in the initiative, there is a sense that that will bring votes to the initiative.

J

But I don't know that. That means that there there will actually that will result in long term coverage for them. I'm also concerned that, if, if it's a separate ordinance that then the city has to set up separate bureaucracy and a fee schedule and a you know, the more staff time would be required. So that's why I'm a little I'm, not sure whether we should support, including it I, I'm, I'm, really not sure.

J

B

I'm kind of I mean I can see both sides of it. I think I.

B

Could support addressing via City Council ordinance if we put some language in there around speedily finalizing the ordinance or something so it doesn't waffle forever? um One of the things that does give me pause, though, is assigning the implementation and administration to the arch, say you know. Yes, we can set up different categories with different rules and different triggers the more complex you make. Categorization and supervision of the categorization and administration of the categorization, the more you blur the lines and the more on Weldy it becomes to administer.

B

So I think we need to be mindful of how we say what we want our role to be.

B

If we're not going to have it in the Charter, if we're going to have it as an ordinance where there'll be different terms and then we're charged with administering those terms, I just I, don't know, I see some overlap there and then, if we get into the master, tenant, sub tenancy arguments and I, just I, don't know I say going down a rabbit, hole um I, don't know, I think maybe this goes back to the unit's discussion from the first set of slides and really you know we're thinking about different types of units we see in 2019, but will theirs be the same units we see in 2049?

B

Will those be the same units we see? For you know things will evolve our Wii boxing ourselves in because we're trying to address the issues we've already seen and is that what we want to do or do we want to give some flexibility to RHC in the Charter to address ongoing evolution of what units look like, and maybe that's where this lies I don't know, I, don't think that helps, but.

J

I do want to clarify that I think that it's overdue, that mobile homes be covered and I, don't think it really requires a whole new set of regulations, whatever we need to do to make it legal and and permanent, I I would advocate for I just strategically don't know if the ballot initiative is the place for that, as opposed to us tweaking our existing system I think that's much cleaner, I. Don't think that the council thinks so.

A

D

A

Am I and my I think at some point, I've I've had some more opinions to everyone. What everyone's expressed on the committee I think where I've landed recently is well first, we all. We all agree that, generally speaking, we thought mobile homes. You know deserved to have similar protections, but I think the would inform the initial decision by the rental housing committee was that the?

A

If, if you applied all the rules that are in the CSF array that are more intended now for space Reds, but for rents of individual units that it was just kind of too blunt of an instrument to really you know, create a fair and balanced system between park owners and space renters, so at least yeah. That was the feeling at the time. So now I, you know we're in a position where we do feel like they should they deserve regulation.

A

We recommended that it be ordinance at the time we actually, the original decision was intended to say City Council. This is something that you can, that you can you have jurisdiction over. We are, you know, kind of granting you that jurisdiction by saying it's not in our jurisdiction and then now it's kind of coming back again, I think there's some some question and now I'm realizing that I kind of prefer to be we that we control our own destiny.

A

So if they were to come up with an ordinance and then say that we have to implement it, that seems to me to be the worst of both worlds. Actually, you know where they're forcing something upon us that they they've created I'd. Rather, you know, with our knowledge and staff and and background that we'd be able to come up with something that's fair by looking at all jurisdictions and have plenty of time to do so as opposed to something maybe that was rushed through.

A

So you know, I think we have a lot of differing opinions of trying to bring something together, but regarding Julian's point about what's the cleanest way forward now seeing the options that we see you know, I am leaning towards it. If we could find a way to create a new subcategory, that's not that's an addition. So again, I think when it comes to poison pills and things that would would sink this ballot measure I think it's saying the RHC gets.

A

It say what units are and what AGA is and redefined pretty much anything I think that's that's not gonna fly but I do think. We have a measured approach with more specific scope to say you know the RC has the flexibility to create new categories, define them. You know, flexibility to define them and that are not currently under jurisdiction and then different rules. For that, so let's say the fee or you wanted to change what happens. Sort of agency D control I mean I.

A

Think vacancy decontrol in these situations is very different because there's ownership there. So you know one thing that we discussed the time was that there's no vacancy decontrol, then the prices as they are now of selling a mobile home and when you transfer them stay very low in the opposite. If there is a vacancy decontrol.

A

Sorry, that's when there is very big in Sidi control prices stay very low when there's no vacancy decontrol, then you're locked into a space rent in perpetuity between owners- and you know certain jurisdictions. I've heard you know do like a one time, let's say 10% adjustment or something I'm, just throwing out kind of what I've heard about what different traditions do and things that we there were several areas where we couldn't change.

A

What was in the CSF air raid tailored to this to specifically to mobile homes, so where I'm, maybe what I'd propose is that we recommend to council that maybe, if we can add, if we have the power to add a new subcategory and I'm looking at legal staff here, if this makes sense to define for those for any new subcategories that we could then tweak the existing elements of the CSF array. B, that fees AGA vacancy decontrol things of that nature is that is that feasible. So.

L

I well, I want to be clear. So what you want is the ability to add to what are covered units, but with flexibility as to how you apply the rules to those covered units. Yes, I mean we can certainly put something like that in a ballot measure.

L

Okay, that works I mean you know, I, don't know how the council will feel about it and we'd have to think about how we drafted it, but I think there are ways to do it. Yeah.

A

I think the reason that I think it might be beneficial is that we would definitely put it on our working list of things to go through about I've heard council, not necessarily jump at the chance I think to administer certain cases with it they'd. Rather, you know when it comes to mana monetization capital improvements amortization over time right, they made clear. They don't want to be the decision makers, whether it's 20 years or 15 years, or anything like that. They want to put that in our in our plates.

A

I think this could be something similar where it's on the ballot measure. It gives us freedom to make those decisions, and then we come back and have it on our working list when they would do something a process, that's very similar, I think and make it an ordinance. I mean I'm talking a lot here, but I'm trying to get clarity, I think on. What's the difference between an ordinance where they have complete control and giving us control to essentially make an ordinance within the C sfra to cover mobile homes,.

L

Adopt ordinances only.

A

The City Council.

L

Can adopt ordinances? You can adopt regulations to implement this Safari, so you know they can give you authority to adopt regulations within certain categories. In terms of I mean, which is essentially what you have right now you have, the CSF are a and you have authority to adopt regulations to implement the CSF re. So you can't go beyond the boundaries of the CSF RA and take on new things, but you know you have authority to interpret it, and you know right now the CSF re says it covers all units unless they're specifically exempt.

L

So you have authority unless it's specifically exempt to cover.

A

But not, it sounds like then. Actually an ordinance hears that you're kind of suggesting ordinance might be the better way to go, because because we wouldn't, we haven't exempt, not exempt, but not necessarily the ability to tweak certain elements within, let's say B what I mean we may not do it, but the AGA right like if you want to say, okay from mobile, it's going to be one hundred twenty five percent or 60 percent of the right.

L

I mean you couldn't do that, because the AGA language is very specific in the CSF RA, the AGA is whatever the CPI is. You know not less than two percent, not more than five percent. You don't have a lot of discretion right in that area and.

A

L

You do have discretion in other areas that you know, as we talked about when we talked about mobile homes, that you do have discretion to adopt regulations that would fit within mobile homes.

A

Would it be possible for council to give us more flexibility there so.

L

Yeah I mean I'd want to think about like what do we want more flexibility to do? I guess I mean so I guess the question back is: what are you feeling you're constrained in that you can't do it's.

A

Been a couple years, but we did I think we had a list at the time of things when we were going through the red lines items there, that we just felt boxed in and Julian Julian, Ella and Emily were there, but you know short of going through that list. Mm-Hmm.

D

A

A way to in the time that we have with or time that council house before December sticks to write something that would be specific enough. That would allow us it's kind of like the flexibility to revisit those items go through them. Write regulation.

A

With them foot with a ballot measure to the CSF array, I feel like at the time. The decision was that the currency is separate was limiting in that regard. I.

L

Mean I think we would want to go back and look at the issues at the time that we were looking at mobile homes to see where we thought you know. Amendments to the CSF array might have been more helpful. I honestly can't remember yeah.

A

I know I've kind of been the same spot I keep bringing up. You know like it's. Definitely not the aga that we were looking at, but I know. We had several bullet points that, as we went through, we felt less and less comfortable interpreting that.

D

A

I'm just feeling now like if there was a if there's flexibility, that's right, sorry go ahead. Methylene I think.

E

What I think what you're struggling with is that there's like three types of law that we are essentially like messing with on here? We have the charter amendment law, which, if you think about it, is like a building. The Charter Manor in law is like steel. By going in and messing with it, we're gonna have to get like welders riveters, it's a more significant undertaking to change that. But it's something that's supposed to be like unchanging.

E

Almost let us say unchanging, but like it's a significant, it is the foundation, not the foundation, because now I'm mixing metaphors, sorry, but it's the Steel City Council is like the ordinance they're dealing with like the plywood and glass and that's the building. We are essentially like pouring bits of cement into the steel frame, and so, as we are dealing with the mobile home parks, it's some things.

E

I think we could find consensus on is I do believe that we could find consensus that we does that the mobile home park says I'm getting us to see some kind of votes, because this is this is going to be really complicated.

E

We are I feel that we have a majority that we do believe that mobile home residents should have similar protections that were granted to the people with the CSF array. The differences that we'd had about this was the actual implementation questions, one things because yeah I guess the three of us sort of hair.

E

You were concerned about the vacancy decontrol and but the funny thing is, is the measure it's we have vacancy decontrol to the maximum allowed by state law. Is that some kind of language? So therefore, since mobile home parks, don't have vacancy decontrol or state law limiting that, because that was limited by Kosta Hawkins, which doesn't cover mobile homes yeah, so suddenly mobile home parks? Don't don't have a pep? Essentially vacancy control is, or we don't know or is that unclear? Is that unclear? Well.

A

I think there I mean there was also mobile home residency law which in some cases you served what we could do, and then there was state law and anyway, perhaps the proposal. Maybe the proposal isn't workable of of having you know having.

A

Maybe what I want to put on the table was asking council to put something on the ballot that would give us the flexibility to more flexibility, to add regulation within CSF area for a new category, but that that doesn't sound, workable.

L

No I mean, as I said, I think it is workable. I think the real issue is: what is the goal we're trying to accomplish? If you want to see sfra to cover mobile homes, that's that's doable. We can put something in this ballot measure that will cover mobile homes and work through any issues that creates. But it sounds like it's not quite that it's something less specific than that and that's where you know we need guidance. I mean we can draft anything, but we need guidance.

L

A

That's that sorry I didn't mean to cut you off, but.

E

I mean I really hate to do this to you, then, as we are delving more into the weeds, is it a possibility?

E

Because, because we are remembering some of the the setbacks, um the concerns when we were dealing through this, the one was the vacancy control finding a way for the CSF RA. To address that. That's that's worth digging into the steel. Essentially mobile home, residency law, I I believe Matthew. Your concern was the pretzeling that we had to do in order to make that work. Is there something that we can look at?

E

That makes it less uncomfortable, and that's that's that we're gonna have to go back in time and figure that out, unfortunately, and so in terms of like a vote, because personally I viewed that the worst case scenario is that we go through another five years without giving mobile home residents protections.

E

But you brought out the second worst outcome, where the City Council, without really understanding the City Council passes a law that is difficult for us to implement yet still expect us to implement, and that's like the second person error, you know, and we would like to prevent that too personally. I feel it might be better if we actually do it ourselves, but the if we do that, then we do have to address the uncomfortable pretzel parts in the steel.

E

I'm not entirely sure how we can do how what, if.

O

You want to give feedback to the City Council. With regards to your concerns. With regard to an ordinance, you can add the language that you just gave like.

O

Can you, if you're going to trust us with the implementation of an ordinance, can how far can our input and recommendations count when you are starting to adopt an ordinance.

E

All right so I I have two three possible votes. One is a vote, hoping that we direct to Council that we, you want simul similar protections given to apartment residents of measure B to be given to mobile home residents. So that's one straw vote. I can do this. One I talked about almost all three right now. The second one is that we do would like the flexibility of a city council ordinance to do that, making sure that that first criteria is important.

E

We want it similar and we would like City Council's and then, with the caveat that if they are assigning us, the implementation of it, that we have more significant feedback, then I feel that we've had with the drafting of this measure.

E

Is that something a statements that we can agree on? Do we need to do a separate vote on all three statements? Should we put that as one giant vote? How does everyone feel about that statement that that that was a lot sure.

A

So notice that Julian it was light on so I want to get his feedback yeah.

C

I may think we might want to break the statement down a little more, but I mean I, guess my thoughts would be, and we maybe we made this clear, already. I think. Maybe it's what you're saying already in part, but that the determination before that we made that we weren't going to enact regulation to cover more homes was essentially not because we thought it would be bad, but because we thought we didn't have that explicit authority. And so we or we could say that. That's how we now look at it either way.

C

But that's the way, I kind of frame it in my mind that in terms of characterizes that it's not that. We think that this is that the failure to enact the regs before was not because we thought it would be a bad thing to have the regulations. It was because we thought there was at least an ambiguity and some reasons why our authority to do so might have been somewhat limited.

C

And so, but having that as background, we do think that it would be a positive thing to have some kind of coverage and I think to Matt's point about the the definition of of units are changing. You know, definitions to me, I'm a little uncomfortable about that, because I think you know, flexibility is nice, but I think that's.

C

This is something that I think we want to be a lot more explicit about if we're actually gonna cover mobile homes and I can see how a lot of people would be very uncomfortable with giving us that much discretion to change what a unit is, because you know I, don't know if City Hall could be a unit if we wanted to make it that way, I mean you know, there's all kinds of things you could do and and so and it gets.

C

My last point would be a you know whether it's an ordinance or or a ballot initiative and I guess, there's merits to both but I like the idea of people knowing clearly what they're getting and if people in Mountain View want mobile homes covered, then great, but I think they should know that.

C

That's the decision, they're making versus just voting for a kind of a more ambiguous change to the language, I still like how we define units or give us that discretion, because then a lot of people wouldn't necessarily know that that's gonna be a consequence of of what they're voting. For so that, having been said and now that you've lost your train of thought and I mean I probably would go along with what you were saying.

C

But I just wanted to add that, and maybe we could unpack it in to one or two sentences, rather than just just.

A

Just quick comment: you're you're kind of reminding me again that that one of the major discussion points we have at the time was just a level discomfort of how deep were getting away from. You know what we felt like.

A

What's the situation that everybody was voting for when they better for the CSF array, so that was another kind of guiding factor and that's why I was kind of leaning towards this being on the ballot, because getting it in front of the people and saying here's, the here's, the eCos, here's the economical system, the economic system that would be in place if they're sort of go through but again I. Don't think we have the time to kind of lay that out for a valid.

C

A

So I think the Emily's point will go through with your questions. There I think they're good ones with our level of comfort, and you know we'll see where everybody so was your advisor or your first one was okay.

E

So the first question is that we support granting mobile home residents similar protections to those covered by measure V the language that you inputted Julian is a little I'm still trying to process that better vibe. You know like this is an easier statement to just say: I get why you want it to add that and like I see that look a bit of the value for it, but I feel that this might be a little easier. So do we want to go with that question first? Do we want to go to all three questions?

E

I think you wanted to split.

C

That works for me as well I mean that's fine and I. Think that works.

E

So if we are doing this all together, okay, we're doing it all together, then we sub we're breaking it up, we're breaking it up. Okay,.

J

We agreed that we should do it one at a time.

L

E

All right so did you want to look all.

O

E

Right so I I make a straw motion. We support similar protections to mobile home residents, as are given to those covered under measure V, all in favor aye.

A

D

A

Sorry I thought we were going from more specific to this is general to specific, so I'm.

D

A

In support actually of I understood how you're breaking them out here in success in succession I mean just the first one. Just saying general is a little too. Maybe.

E

A friend, maybe it's a friendly.

A

Amendment but I'm supportive of an ordinance of City Council, developing an ordinance providing.

E

A

Providing protections out outlined protections to specifically to the let's say this economic situation of you know: space rents.

E

Okay, so, like I, don't want this too broad, because I don't want to be like we, we believe in protections for mobile home residents, and that could be oh. They should register what their reds are, but not have anything. So I really want to be very careful right.

A

I think the option I definitely wouldn't be supportive of would be the one. That's um saying that it's covered by the CSF array until you know, until they they can put together an ordinance or something else happens right like we, we know, then you know immediately as the CS phrase right now, the effective date you know, like there'd, be a lot of activity. That would just be it be more. Chaos I think if there was not an ordinance in place, so I think where you're going.

A

Is it that you would like an ordinance with protections for mobile home residents.

E

Yes, okay, I want I I mean the primary thing is I want protections for mobile home residents, how how much that protections I'd like to get as close to me as possible. So if you're letting me know at what point can I like dial it back, I think.

A

I think that it's not we I would hold my personal opinion that it's not I'm not covered under current master V and that it wasn't clear to the people at time of voting per all the other individual specifics that we had at the time. But yes, that we're supportive of someone figuring out coverage, whether it's us or or a city council ordinance. So.

E

N

A

Everyone could vote on that, as is and I know that be four out of five and maybe so yeah.

E

I'm not entirely sure would sorry.

A

All right look at this finished up here so that we believe that mobile home space renters deserve similar protections to tenants, but that there are specifics that make it a different situation that should it be addressed either by ordinance or specific ballot measure powers to the RHC.

A

No, no just this.

C

An ordinance does adjust.

M

A

Yes, is that sorry, is that, where people are that.

A

Maybe someone else should should try to.

J

The initial part that Emily- and you also said, is that the Irish see supports granting similar protections of apartment of mobile homes to those that are already given to to apartment dwellers.

J

Period and not say that we're waiting for something in the future, which might be an ordinance I, don't like, like us, tying ourselves to the fact that maybe some day council is going to take it upon themselves to create some complicated ordinance that might really make it worse for mobile homes. I.

J

Think if we're, if we're this, is our shot to tell the council that what we're saying is we support this, and we believe we have the experience to administer that that we already have years of petitions and and well just experience in the bureaucratic implementation of measure V, and what we would like to do is to expand it to include that I mean I. Don't know that everybody agrees with that, but I I think that's much clearer than saying until such time as council is nice enough to pass an ordinance.

A

B

Where I'm hearing some difference of opinion on the statement is around the word similar to the word similar to apartment dwellers are similar to other tenants and I. Think perhaps what I'm hearing is that? That's because there are certain protections that do to state law cannot necessarily be held up as like to like so I'm wondering if we keep the statement more basic and rather than say, similar to apartment dwellers or something that nature say something around deserve.

B

We believe that our HC believes that mobile home dwellers or renters or Linley service. However, you want to say it deserve eviction and quantifiable rent stabilization protections.

A

Maybe from a maybe to bring to bring this out right, they're deciding whether to put something on the ballot or not and I think I. Think, while our opinions, you know, there's there's a there's a lot of history here, so I don't think we can delve into all the details there, but I I, think I. Think the question in front of us is: are we recommending, and this is Tim's question? Are we recommending that something be on the ballot or not? So maybe would that be okay?

A

If, if we kind of weighed in on that, we could say yeah.

B

I think we definitely can I think maybe this is now being colored with my personal opinion, I'm, not sure that it belongs on the ballot, but would like to send a statement to count. Does that he counsel that we would like them to take action on an ordinance suit, rather than put it on the ballot and so I think that's why I was trying to craft it as like a statement of purpose and then a request so that it was like a layer, one layer, two situation.

A

Well, I think I'm supportive of what you just said. Actually, okay with.

B

A

I'll, let you shop that around actually okay.

B

So I would say maybe take a strong vote on the rhc. Is supportive of mobile home deserving eviction and rent stabilization protections and would like to see the City Council formulate and enact an ordinance soon to address the issues. And maybe we need to get firmware on soon or maybe soon carries enough weight.

E

So I support that statement and there's going there's a third part that we eventually knew and I don't know. If you want to add that in to make this so much more complicated or should we take. That is like a separate thing because I, it is slightly separate, I. Think what's great about your. Your statement is that it addresses the first statements and then what what's left is dealing with the second statement, so so.

O

For clarification, the Just Cause is already card under mrl, so you can even make that statement a little shorter there.

E

We go excellent.

E

Are you willing to draft the motion? Nicole, the straw ocean.

B

So unki could I keep it as simple as rent stabilization RHC. It feels that mobile homes deserve rent stabilization protection and encourages the City Council to enact an ordinance soon to address this matter.

A

Do you also want to add I mean for the second question? Could we add, maybe that they engage with us to make those rules if we would be implementing it? I think.

B

That's where we were gonna do to supper, but.

A

B

Don't vote one we're gonna get to vote two but vote. One is um the AG fields. Mobile homes deserve rent stabilization protections and encourages the City Council to enact an ordinance to address these matters soon.

A

Friendly amendment could we add unique. They.

B

A

Unique protect their.

B

A

B

Situation we can say that to address this unique situation soon,.

E

So sorry, staff shall we draft the second statement that we want to deal with I. Don't.

A

Let the coal run with it so.

B

If I'm drafting the second statement, I just want everyone to be aware, budgetary concerns are gonna, come in there, because, if I'm assigned to implement something but I have no flexible I have no input into it. Then how can you ask me to fund it? So I would say that the RHC respectfully requests that council elicit and utilize RHC guidance around the construction of the ordinance to ensure that implementation included budgetary concerns. An administration is run smoothly by our say.

A

On the fly, all right, all in favor all right, you never said did you guys to get all that?

A

B

Do you want me to try and reiterate it? Okay, um large II, respectfully request that counsel include the Rh C's guidance in drafting the ordinance so that the implementation and administration, including budgetary consequences,.

B

D

B

Successfully borne by the RHC is everyone still supportive of that I edited it a little budgetary and administrative consequences may be borne by the RNC.

A

All right, okay, all right, everyone feel good about 8.1 or sorry. We did have the the back page of question. Did we one on which way? Oh.

D

A

We still support that one. Yet sorry, I was gonna say it did. We did we skip anything that was on the last page. There unki of questions they are you see or that we kind of cover that stuff I think.

I

You covered most of it, the first three questions are about council oversight or the relationship and I think the our agency was very clear in its response to that and in regards to any additional parameters: qualifications for the separate petition process. I think you did mention, but you didn't vote, just talk about those guiding principles, so I think I think we're we're okay. In addition, we will include this other input regarding the aga and then mobile homes. All.

A

Right, thank you. So a point of order I was going to recommend. Maybe move 8.3. How many? How many do you think we can get through and or 15 minutes for each one.

O

Sorry I could do 15-20 minutes for the okay.

A

All right all right, all right, so we'll move on to if really.

E

One more thing at a point when I worry, but if it may need a vote, but I would like a statement that we would like that this ballot initiative is clear and specific in order to ensure its viability. I don't know if that is necessary, but I feel like that.

E

I'm sure you guys got in the angry emails too that were sent to us being like. Oh, why are we wasting everyone's time? So I I don't want to already say it's like don't waste everyone's time, make sure that whatever this thing is clear and doesn't make it difficult to pass by throwing a whole bunch of other stuff, and we were clear with our guidance to that in specific questions. But I would love an overarching statement about that. I guess.

A

The question Kim Tim.

E

I

Feel, like that, has.

A

Come through in the items we've we've had already that yeah. Yes,.

I

In regards to our HC input, yes, you've been very clear, very specific, just clear and specific regarding viability, no poison pills, in other words, okay, all right.

A

All right, yeah I've, just tried another vote. You know at this point good, threaten her we're already running up against our over-under on time. I can see so. Okay move on to 8.2.

A

Just quarterly financial expenditures report.

O

So a quick recap of the last quarter of last fiscal year: 18 19.

O

As you can see, we keep track of four main categories of our budget.

O

The personnel services were lower than budgeted due to the delayed onboarding of the office assistant for non personal services were also under budget, because we're gradually using the software budget and also the quarter for invoices were not yet received by the end of the fiscal year. The capital outlay is also the database management system and further phases occur in fiscal year. 1920.

O

That's why we only expanded to 35% by the end of the year and then the interfund expenditures are a certain percentage of the total actual and that always gets charged in December of the year so that it's a hundred percent.

O

That's the update for the quarterly financials.

A

Yeah any questions from the committee all.

M

A

None, and would anyone from the public like to comment on this specific agenda item 8.2.

A

All right, then, the next next item eight point: three.

O

So this is an overview, a yearly overview of the fund results for fiscal year. 1819 part of this discussion we already had when we were talking about the budget 1920, but just a recap of the actuals.

O

So we are giving a comparison of adopted first estimate and the final and audited numbers I just got reassurance from our finance director like the audited numbers will only be available but by the end of October, but it would be highly surprised if that would change from the current and audited numbers again. We are always looking at the four same categories. The key expenditures of our program.

O

Just a little overview, the staffing is in personnel directly charged to terminal housing, community budgets, the general operating cost, anything that has to do it running the office running the meetings, office, supplies, materials for outreach and education. Third party, professional and technical services are the consultant services that we use hearing officers, legal services, rental, housing, helpline, pre-hearing settlement conference, mediators, relocation, services, agency facilitation services as needed, and translation services and city resources and administrative support is the wonderful support we're getting from all other city departments such as, in this case, the financial department.

O

This is a ensure the overview of the comparison between adopted, estimated and unaudited actuals and of orion's between these numbers.

O

The varieties are in one-time expenditures, some costs for litigation have been occurred, but no major activity by the end of the fiscal year and certain IT costs for the database systems have not yet been incurred and have been carried over to the next year. As you can see, the operating expenditures were less than budgeted and I can give you an overview of that in the next slide.

O

As you can see staffing, we were understaffed for part of the year. That's why that frien's occurred in general. Operating costs is due to postage and materials, and we only had limited use of external office space and we moved back into city premises for professional technical services. We use less hearing officer, services, less pre settlement conferences and relocation costs. They were all incurred at a lower rate than budgeted I.

O

Also want to talk about the repurchase and encumbrances. The rebirth includes the limited period expenditures related to the database system. We revisited one hundred and forty six thousand four hundred for that encumbrances. Our legal obligations for funds that have not been paid by the end of the fiscal year, but are still do like for all our consultants. We receive our quarter for a bills, usually after the fiscal years over, so these are being encumbered, so we are able to pay them in this fiscal year.

O

That was a total amount of one hundred and seventy six thousand dollars and four hundred and forty four dollars and then, as we talked about before, we created a reserve that provides a balanced for unanticipated expenditures and the staff had recommended to make a total reserve of twenty percent and this year in the new budget, we adopted a second part of that. So in total we now have a reserve or 382 thousand dollars.

O

So that concludes the presentation. We would I courage any questions you may have.

A

Thank you, oaky. Any any questions about the budget.

A

All right. Any comments for the public regarding this budget I will slow us down at first. I can just say you know, I know a lot of hard work goes into this, so you know, I feel I feel great that you guys were able to hit it in five minutes. Couldn't cover this but I'll I'll. Try to you know, send you separate questions about this, but again that 380 plus thousand number I hope we communicate that to Council as evidence that we that we take our budget seriously all right yeah. Thank you very much.

A

O

Then the next item is to formally adopt a resolution, adopt your meeting schedule for the rest of 2019 and for fiscal year 2020, and this is the proposed schedule and rental housing committee can always adopt our meeting times when necessary, and the recommendation is to adopt a resolution. Does anyone have a questions with regards to the dates at this point? I.

A

Just had one so the two in June yeah are those are those placeholders for if we have petitions, because.

D

A

Know we're taking off July, but typically we take off July, but are any of these four in your mind being held for if we have petition activity or appeal activity well,.

O

We always try to keep that into account by scheduling enough meetings if at some point in time- and there are no appeals- and there are no pressuring issues that need to be determined in a certain timeline. The rental housing community can always decide to postpone a meeting or change the schedule and.

P

Typically, in June, we've had two RHC meetings for budget adoption purposes.

L

Can I just note I think it's supposed to be June 29th the 28th. Does the Sunday? Oh no,.

O

Sunday's around June 29.

O

I will change that accordingly, it.

A

Sounds great any other! So sorry, any other questions from committee that did already call for public head. Okay,.

E

I do have one question: this is really far office. The last date that we're looking at December 14th is getting really close to holiday season like currently ours is this year, is December 9th. Is there a way that we can move it a little bit more.

O

Our timber 14 make it one week earlier yeah.

E

Something like I worry about the holiday schedule. I, don't know what everyone else feels about that I I! Don't like the idea of our meetings and crunching on holidays. That.

O

Would be December 7 then.

A

Sorry, the proposal had been removed from December 9th to December, 7 or.

O

The 14th oh yeah,.

A

I mean that's a yeah I, don't know what I'm doing that day. But for your point, yeah I mean I. Think we could we get try to move that up or or.

O

Revisit revisit.

A

Mid 2020 and see if we need to change any dates. Yeah.

O

A

Yep open to that concern, okay, all right, any any other questions from the committee, any other. Any public comment on this item all right, seeing none I think.

O

A

Need to adopt resolution correct, do I, have a motion to adopt all right, Emily.

E

I moved to adopt a resolution establishing a meeting scheduled for the rental housing committee for the remainder of 2019 and for the calendar year of 2020 woohoo. Second, wind all.

A

L

It's good wait. A second.

A

All right that second did all in favor aye all right sounds good. Thank you very much. Funky.

P

Item 9.1 is a brief update on the monthly status report. I'm not gonna, go in-depth in this. We will do that next month. I think.

P

Typically, everything is just kind of continuing, along as it has for the past year or so we did break out the information requests that go through project Sentinel and the Mountain View housing helpline into more concrete and definitive categories. So I will go over those next month as well. We are in the process of finishing out all of our petitions for last fiscal year and we have received now six tenant petitions as of August, and we actually do have a couple of landlord petitions that are coming up.

P

I believe so we'll have some information coming up with those in the next month or so, and then one thing that I would like to note is the mo I for the Consumer Price Index. Those numbers just came out today for August and so for those three indices for the rent of primary residence. It's at 23% for housing. It has held steady at 19% and for all items. It has held steady again for the next few months at 14%.

P

So that is the only update compared to what you actually see here and I will be updating this agenda item as well to reflect those changes, and then we did a host a workshop last month on evictions. It was landlord focused and this past month, just a last week we had the same one but focus for tenants. So we've had two workshops within the new fiscal year and we have one coming up.

P

So we have. We had two workshops that had 20 attendees total that doesn't include this month's, that was for July and August, and then we have one coming up on October 24th that is focused on security deposits and that is for everyone.

P

All people are welcome and then to end up the year we have one on November 14th for addressing challenging tenants, which is landlord focused and on December 12th. We have one focused on four tenants on addressing challenging living situations and then that'll end our calendar year. Four workshops does anyone have any questions.

E

Like one, which ones are most popular.

P

The ones that were focused on habitability were really popular this year, so we had quite a few property owners come out for the one that was landlord focused and quite a few tenants come out for the one that was tenant, focused and then some of the ones that just our general see sfra. Those are almost popular as well.

P

Any other questions.

A

All right, thank you very much. Okay, I think without further ado, I think we can adjourn this regular meeting of these RHC until our next one on October 7th. Thank you.