►
From YouTube: 3-22-2021 - Mountain Rental Housing Committee Meeting
Description
Live teleconference meeting of the Mountain View Rental Housing Committee Meeting scheduled for Monday, March 22, 2021.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
All
right,
everyone
welcome
to
the
rental
housing
committee
meeting.
I'm
going
to
call
this
meeting
to
order.
This
meeting
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
state
of
california
executive
order.
N-29
n-29-20
dated
march
17
2020..
All
members
of
the
rental
housing
committee
are
participating
in
this
meeting
by
video
conference
with
no
physical
meeting
location
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
observe
the
meeting
live,
may
do
so
at
mountainview.legistrar.com
on
youtube
at
mountainview.gov
youtube
and
on
comcast
channel
26.
A
A
Committee
member
vice
chair
susan
allman
howdy,
and
I
am
here
so
we
will
continue
to
the
next
item-
minutes
approval,
so
3.1
is
approve
the
minutes
for
the
february
22nd
2020
one
rhc
meeting
would
any
of
the
member
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raised
hand.
Button
on
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
staff
will
keep
time
and
announce
when
one
minute
remains.
A
Seeing
none
I'm
bringing
it
back
to
the
committee,
so
we
a
motion
to
approve,
should
include
reading
the
following
items:
approve
the
minutes
for
the
february
22nd
2021
rhc
meeting.
Do
we
have
a
motion.
A
All
right
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
a
motion
by
vice
chair
almond,
a
second
by
nicole
committee
member
nicole
haynes,
lip
say
andrea.
Do
you
mind
doing
the
roll
call
vote
we'll.
C
A
All
right
now,
our
next
item
item
five
oral
communications.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
committee
on
any
matter
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes.
During
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
committee.
The
committee
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items,
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
non-agenda
items.
E
Something
we've
been
talking
about
in
the
rental
housing
committee
for
the
past
two
three
years,
a
little
bit
of
background
for
completeness
sake
in
december
of
2016,
the
csfre
was
adopted
and
effective,
and
soon
after
the
discussion
started
up,
whether
or
not
mobile
homes
would
also
be
covered.
Under
the
csfre
and
in
february
of
2018,
the
rental
housing
committee
decided
mobile
homes
were
not
covered.
E
E
A
little
overview
of
other
action
or
meetings
held
on
this
topic
in
may
21
in
2019,
the
city
council
adopted
a
work
plan
item,
including
potentially
develop
a
rent
stabilization
for
mobile
homes
and
in
january
of
2020.
That
was
followed
up
by
a
study
session
in
the
city
council
and
it
gave
direction
to
staff
to
reach
out
to
stakeholders.
E
At
that
time,
provided
input
on
these
potential
changes
and
supported
a
separate
ordinance
for
mobile
homes,
then
in
february
and
march
of
2020,
staff
held
stakeholder
meetings
and
surveys
were
distributed
among
the
residents
and
park
owners,
and
that
brings
us
to
the
next
study
session
in
september
of
2020,
where
the
rental
housing
committee
again
received
an
extensive
overview
of
the
issues
at
stake,
and
now
I
would
like
to
give
the
floor
to
patricia
who
initiated
the
surveys
and
is
responsible
for
this
overview.
That
is
an
attachment
to
the
rental
housing
committee
memo
of
today.
F
Thank
you
anki
good
evening
committee
members
in
early
of
early
2020
march,
2020
city
staff,
mailed
surveys
to
all
mobile
home
residents,
and
the
survey
could
also
be
completed
online
through
surveymonkey.
We
received
385
households,
household
responses,
and
this
represents
a
32
response
rate.
As
you
can
see
here,
it
was
distributed
to
all
six
mobile
home
parks
representing
100
1
130
mobile
homes,
and
the
responses
are
as
follows.
So
of
respondent,
households
16
have
members
who
are
under
18.,
57
have
members
who
are
65
or
over
13
percent.
F
F
Income.
Wise
household
income
is
as
follows:
84
of
households
make
less
than
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
annually
compared
to
thirty
five
percent.
In
mountain
view,
forty
nine
percent
of
households
make
less
than
fifty
thousand
dollars
compared
to
seventy
percent
in
seventeen
percent.
In
mountain
view,
48
of
households
rely
on
a
fixed
income
and
40
percent
of
households
with
at
least
one
member
who
is
65
or
older,
rely
on
a
fixed
income.
F
F
F
and
92
percent
of
our
respondents
received
a
space
rent
increase
from
2015
forward.
F
31
of
these
respondents
pay
a
mortgage
in
addition
to
space
rent
which
averages
fifty
1053
dollars
a
month
and
eighty
four
percent
pay
property
taxes
or
dmv
fees
in
addition
to
space
rent
annually
at
an
average
of
eight
hundred
and
forty
five
dollars
a
year.
Also
they
pay
for
insurance.
On
their
homes,
so,
as
you
can
see,
if
you're
on
a
fixed
income,
these
expensive
expenses
can
really
start
to
add
up
and
then
renters
who
responded.
F
We
received
30
household
responses
from
people
who
rent
their
home
on
average
they
their
rent,
is
two
thousand
nine
hundred
and
sixteen
dollars
a
month,
although
it
went
up
as
far
as
high
three
thousand
low
four
thousands
a
month.
Seventy
percent
received
an
increase
since
2015,
and
this
represents
12
percent
of
our
survey.
Households,
45
of
renters,
have
lived
in
their
home
for
more
than
five
years,
and
that
is
the
overview
of
the
survey
results.
Anki,
I'm
going
to
hand
it
back
over
to
you
now.
E
Thank
you
so
much
patricia
and
it
looks
very
effortlessly,
but
believe
me,
there
was
a
lot
of
work,
tallying
up
all
the
services
and
making
a
nice
presentation
out
of
the
data
that
was
received
and
we
commend
all
the
mobile
home
residents
that
send
in
their
surveys.
I
think
that
was
a
very
high
response
rate
that
we
received.
E
Next
slide,
please
yeah.
So
in
the
february
10
2020
meeting
to
go
into
more
detail
of
what
the
rental
housing
committee
decided.
E
Then.
Last
week
the
city
council
held
a
study
session
on
march
16th,
and
this
study
session
was
held
to
provide
input
on
a
draft
vision,
strategic
properties
and
potential
projects
that
would
be
incorporated
as
part
of
the
city
strategic
plan
and
one
of
the
discussion
items
was
rent
stabilization
for
mobile
homes.
So
all
council
supported
the
staff's
recommendation
for
the
city
to
develop
a
mobile
home
rent
stabilization,
ordinance
modeled
after
the
csfra
and
administered
by
the
rental
housing
committee,
and
to
include
this
project
as
part
of
the
city's
strategic
plan.
E
E
In
case
mobile
home
rental
housing
fee
will
be
charged
similar
to
that
of
the
current
rental
housing
fee.
The
increase
in
funding
may
cover
increased
expenditures
and
as
an
example,
if
we
talking
about
1130
mobile
home
spaces-
and
we
take
this
year's
rental,
housing
fee
of
85
per
unit
would
result
in
an
added
revenue
of
96
050
dollars.
E
So
the
questions
before
the
rental
housing
committee
today
are:
does
the
rental
housing
committee
support
the
decision
of
council
to
develop
a
city
mobile
home
ordnance
to
be
modeled
after
the
csfra
and
to
be
administered
by
the
rental
housing
committee,
provided
there
is
adequate
funding
available
and
the
second
question
would
be?
Does
the
rental
housing
committee
wish
to
provide
initial
input
to
the
council
regarding
the
development
of
such
mobile
home,
rent
stabilization
ordinance
and
or
the
administration
of
this
ordinance?
C
G
Yeah,
certainly
there's
nothing
that
would
preclude
the
rhc
from
taking
action
on
its
own.
As
we've
discussed
in
the
past,
you
could
adopt
regulations
that
would
cover
mobile
homes.
There
are
some
issues
with
that
they
might
be
more
complicated
than
if
the
city
were
to
adopt
a
separate
ordinance,
but
there
isn't
anything
that
prevents
you
from
taking
action.
If
the
city
doesn't
take
action,
if
you
take
action
and
then
the
city
takes
action,
then
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out.
G
You
know
which,
which
really
covers
mobile
homes,
because
we
can't
have
two
regulatory
restrictions
on
mobile
homes.
That's
that's
not
gonna
work.
E
C
E
Actually,
I
ask
both.
First
of
all,
do
you
agree
with
what
the
city
council
expressed
in
last
week's
meeting
that
they
would
like
to
take
on
developing
a
separate
ordinance?
And
if
the
answer
is
yes,
would
you
like
to
give
them
some
initial
thoughts
or
input
on
that
ordinance
that
they're
going
to
develop?
Or
do
you
have
already
any
specific
ideas
about
how
you
would
like
to
administer
if
and
how
you
would
like
to
administer
such
an
ordinance?
This
will
not
be
your
only
time
to
be
able
to
provide
input.
A
D
Regarding
giving
input,
assuming
that
the
rhc
decides,
we
would
like
to
administer
any
program
that
the
council
comes
up
with,
which
would
be
cool.
Would
there
be
opportunities
to
do
things
like
joint
study
sessions
or
joint
planning
sessions
or
a
retreat,
or
something
where
we
get
to
be
a
little
bit
more
actively
involved
understanding
that
we're
not
an
advisory
board,
not
an
advisory
committee,
but
get
to
have
a
little
bit
more
dialogue
with
counsel
beyond
how
we
have
in
the
past,
where
we
write
letters
or
send
over
commentary.
E
H
Well,
I
mean
this
is
julian,
so
maybe
this
to
susan's
point
it
might
be
helpful
if
we,
if
there's
a
struggle
or
there's
some
kind
of
understanding
as
to
whether.
H
Okay,
so
just
as
to
susan's
point,
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
useful
if
we
had
some
kind
of
straw
poll
or
other
as
to
whether
we
intend
to
take
any
sort
of
action
separate
independent
from
the
city
council,
because
I
think
that's
one
of
the
issues
that's
being
raised
here.
Are
we
essentially.
H
E
And-
and
I
hoped
that
would
be
answered
by
answering
that
first
question-
if
you
positively
react
to
that
question:
yes,
we
want
to
have
it
developed
by
city,
council
and
you're,
suggesting
maybe
add
to
that
that,
while
that
process
is
in
place,
the
rental
housing
committee
will
not
take
separate
action.
H
Mind
in
in
my
mind,
I
I
think
that
the
city.
H
If
they're
taking
a
lead
on
this
now,
I
I
would
be
in
favor
of
taking
a
step
back
with
the
understanding
that
they
are
proceeding
to
take
action,
and
I
would
not
be
in
favor
of
trying
to
accomplish
something
independently
on
our
own
now,
because
I
think
that
might
muddy
the
waters
and
make
it
more
difficult
for
anything
to
be
accomplished.
If
we're,
you
know
it's
almost
like
too
many
cooks
in
the
kitchen,
so
that
would
be
my
take
on
this
issue.
L
A
A
E
Yes,
that
will
that
will
that
will
certainly
be
the
case.
A
C
E
Yeah,
we
will
do
all
we
can
to
help
and
assist
in
getting
this
ready
for
sure.
A
All
right
do
we
have
any
other
questions
from
the
committee
to
staff
before
we
go
to
public
comment
going
once
going
twice,
we
are
now
going
on
to
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raised
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
staff
will
keep
time
and
announce
when
one
minute
remains.
I'm
gonna
give
three
minutes
and
it
looks
like
we
have
a
few
hands
up
so
we're
gonna
start
with
tim
larson.
M
We
also
want
to
express
that
we
would
like
the
rhc
to
provide
clear
direction
about
what
sort
of
modifications
could
be
easily
made
to
the
csfra.
That
would
still
not
add
significant
administrative
burden.
Specifically,
this
would
be
cost
of
living
adjustments
for
fixed
income
or
elderly
residents
in
mobile
homes.
M
Things
of
that
nature
that
you
feel
like
the
city
council
should
have
their
you
know
they
should
have
leeway
to
make
these
modifications
to
improve
on
rent
stabilization
and
help
protect.
Some
of
the
vulnerable
residents
of
mobile
homes
would
be
great.
M
J
Very
hi
there
can
you
hear
me:
yes,
awesome,
hi
there
thanks
everyone
for
the
great
discussion,
so
yeah,
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
plus
one
things
that
tim
was
saying
us.
Mobile
home
residents
are
very,
very,
very
keen
to
get
this
ordinance
done
and
we
definitely
want
to
leverage
both
the
work.
That's
already
been
done
by
all
the
amazing
staff
members
in
the
previous
months
and
years
and
as
well.
J
We
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
something
that
is,
you
know
beneficial
for
for
the
mobile
home
park
residents,
so
yeah.
We
just
ask
that
we
can
cooperate
really
closely
with
the
city
and
be
able
to
get
this
done
by
the
time
frame
that
was
allotted.
So
thank
you.
So
much.
A
Thank
you
molly.
Next
up
we
have
anna
marie.
A
I
Hi
everyone
I
want
to
thank
staff
in
the
rhc
for
all
of
their
hard
work.
The
mobile
home
community
greatly
appreciate
it
appreciates
it.
Mobile
home
residents
have
been
wrongfully
denied
protections
for
far
too
long
and
we're
hopeful,
especially
based
on
city
council's
meeting
last
week,
that
we
have
their
support
and
the
support
of
the
rhc.
N
Hello,
I
am
thrilled
that
this
is
moving
forward
and
as
a
member
of
the
community
who
does
not
live
in
mobile
home
parks,
but
has
been
watching
this
issue
progress,
I'm
sure
I
speak
for
you
know
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
who
are
very
happy
that
rent
protections
for
mobile
home
parks
are
going
to
be
moving
forward.
N
I'm
just
thinking
back
to
the
early
days
of
the
csfra
and
what
was
very
time
consuming
in
the
initial
months
of
that,
and
one
aspect
was
determining
the
fair
rate
of
return
calculation.
Now,
because
you
on
this
committee,
if
you'll
be
also
administering
the
mobile
home
ordinance,
the
council
will
pass.
N
You
know
what
I
mean
in
the
ordinance
itself,
perhaps
specifying
the
mnoi
calculation
and
maybe
with
an
alternate
of
a
capital
improvement
mechanism,
so
that
those
decisions
are
more
set
in
advance
and
less
subject
to
interpretation
further
down
the
road.
O
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you,
the
staff
for
your
efforts
on
this,
and
I
wanted
to
give
the
rhc
some
input.
I
think
on
question
number
one.
The
obvious
answer
is:
yes,
you
enthusiastically
want
to
support
an
ordinance
for
mobile
home
residents.
I
want
to.
I
want
to
give
you
some
input,
because
question
number
two
requested
some
input.
The
first
is
on
the
issue
of
renters
versus
owners.
O
I
think
it's
very
important
that
the
rhc
makes
clear
to
council
that
you
have
people
that
own
their
mobile
home
and
you
have
people
that
rent
their
mobile
home
and
both
both
constituencies
need
protections.
The
the
vocabulary
that
has
been
used
by
staff
and
in
the
recent
study
report
specifically
talked
about
space
rents,
and
I
I
want
everyone
to
be
aware
that
that's
only
part
of
the
picture
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
cover
both
people
that
rent
their
home
and
people
that
own
their
home.
O
O
Those
in
in
that
live
in
mobile
homes
and
also
the
the
current
proxy
that
you
use
for
the
cost
of
living
adjustment
is
really
problematic.
If
you
go
to
patricia's
data,
you
can
see
there's
a
lot
of
people
on
fixed
income,
a
lot
of
seniors.
O
A
lot
of
people
have
been
in
their
homes
for
a
long
time.
If
you
use
a
four
percent
cola,
people's
rents
are
going
to
double
every
17
years
and
for
people
on
social
security,
that's
just
not
sustainable,
so
we
need
a
more
acceptable
cola.
The
other
issue
I
want
to
bring
up
is
we
have
this
window
now
right.
O
So
it's
out
in
the
press,
it's
out
in
the
community
we're
going
to
get
protections,
but
now
we
have
to
wait
until
september
and
who
knows
what
landlords
are
going
to
do
over
the
next
five
months,
so
I'd
I'd.
Ask
you
guys
to
look
at
a
possible
emergency
freeze
or
some
sort
of
emergency
protections,
while
we're
waiting
for
this
ordinance
which,
by
the
way
hundreds
of
cities
in
california,
have
already
implemented.
So
it's
not
like
we're
building
anything
from
scratch
here.
O
K
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
mountain
view
resident
for
those
extensive
comments
that
will
go
really
great
and
I
want
to
thank
anki
vanderson
for
and
patricia
black
for
that
incredible
report.
The
patricia
black's
report
in
particular.
K
It
was
so
ironic
when
I
saw
those
numbers
because
that
those
match
the
certain
the
informal
surveys
that
we've
done
at
mountain
view
mobile
home
we
long
ago
estimated
the
numbers
of
seniors
plus
disabled
people
plus
vets,
and
I
think
something
like
80
percent,
which
you
know
it
tells
you
that
the
population
of
the
mobile
home
parks
is
very
challenged
in
terms
of
income.
K
So
I
I
really
appreciate
that
miss
black
and
and
this
van
dursion
crunching
that
data
so
effectively
and
giving
us
so
much
information
on.
I
also
really
was
interested
in
committee
member
almonds
and
that
his
wife's
these
comments,
but
it
indicates
to
me
that
there
is
some
enthusiasm
on
the
accounts
on
your
committee
to
really
work
with
city
council.
On
that
I
appreciate
that
and
I
appreciated
mr
pardo's
gisela's
comments
as
well
as
not
muddying
the
waters.
K
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
very
good
consideration
to
think
about,
and
so
I
want
to
remind
you
the
last
time
that
we
spoke
about
this
in
a
huge
forum
was
june,
1st
2020.
K
K
So
I
thank
you
for
starting
this
journey
and
I'll
be
interested
to
see
in
here
what
progress
you
make
in
the
next
few
weeks.
Thank
you.
P
All
right,
hey
friends,
oh
boy,
this!
This
feels
good.
It's
gonna
be
a
second
to
savor.
This
yeah,
that's
good,
as
you
can
probably
guess,
I'm
a
very
hopeful.
Fella
I've
been
keeping
the
faith
for
years.
Trusting
that
with
time
and
persistence
we
in
the
mobile
home
community
could
feel
secure
in
our
homes
one
way
or
another.
I
imagine
it
coming
earlier
than
this,
but
hey
better
late
than
never.
It
feels
trite,
but
I'm
honestly
super
grateful
to
the
efforts
of
staff
and
their
outreach
and
analysis
on
this
issue.
P
I
appreciate
the
hard
work
all
of
you
do
not
just
for
us
but
for
all
of
mountain
view.
Thank
you.
Given
how
much
you've
been
able
to
accomplish
with
the
current
funding
I'd
love
to
see
what
you
could
do
with
better
financial
support?
You
know
from
a
bunch
of
new
units
susan.
I
love
the
initiative.
It'd
be
so
much
faster.
That
way,
and
you
know
I'm
down
with
that
nikki
I
would
love
to
watch
or
maybe
participate
in
a
joint
rhc
city
council
session.
P
That
sounds
like
a
great
idea
and
a
good
time.
I
think
that
could
be
very
productive
for
this
item
and
the
questions
posed,
though,
I'd
like
to
encourage
the
committee
to
support
and
cooperate
with
the
city
council
in
developing
a
mobile
home
ordinance,
and
I
would
also
ask
that
you
encourage
the
step
council
to
keep
the
structure
as
close
as
possible
to
the
csf
array
for
administrative
ease
to
provide
at
least
the
minimum
protection
afforded
to
other
renters.
P
P
P
A
A
D
First,
I
think
yes,
we
support,
I
I
would
say
we
should
support
the
decision
of
council
to
develop
the
mobile
home
ordinance
to
be
mostly
modeled
after
the
csfra.
I
have
some
thoughts
on
that
for
question
number
two
and
to
be
administered
by
the
rhc,
ideally
with
some
funding
in
the
same
mechanism
that
would
get
funding
for
our
current
units.
L
L
I
think
I
think
my
main
question
or
concern
there
is
similar
to
what
a
committee
member
part
of
zelda
mentioned
and
how
is
there
anything
that
we
any
mechanism
we
have
with
teeth
to
secure
this
decision
in
a
way
that
any
further
discussion
of
this
item
between
now
and
when
city
council
makes
a
determination
could
could
have
legal
ramifications
or
could
delay
counsel.
So
I
would
be
an
emphatic
yes
on
this,
but
maybe
that
question
is
too
karen,
maybe
of
yeah
I
mean.
Is
there
any
way
to
prevent.
L
G
L
L
This
is
the
initial
decision
I
think
back
in
20
2016-17
and
at
first
we
had
said
we're
not
going
to
take
action
to
write
these
regs
or
to
accept
these
regs
because
of
some
of
the
conflicts
and
and
the
the
public
asked
that
we
specifically
say
no,
that
we
do
not
believe
it's
covered
so
that
you
know
it
could
be
final,
because
if
we
didn't
make
a
decision,
we
just
kind
of
left
it
out
there
right.
So
I
guess
now
is
there?
Is
there
any
more
than
we
could
do
other
than
saying?
G
I
don't
think
you
need
to
reiterate
your
prior
decision
if
you
want
to
put
more
emphasis
on
your
decision,
I
suppose
you
could
say
you
support
the
council
developing
a
mobile
home
ordinance,
but
if
one
isn't
adopted,
you
would
reconsider
your
decision
in
some
period
of
time,
because
I
guess
what
I'm
hearing,
at
least
from
the
the
public
is
some
concern
about
how
long
this
might
take.
G
L
I
thought
I
thought
I'd
ask
so
to
the
chairs
question:
I'm
a
yes
on
number
one
and
number
two
number
two
I
I
could
also
discuss
some
specifics.
Maybe
I'm
not
sure
how
you'd
like
to
address
that,
but
yeah
I'd
have
some
input.
A
Oh,
I
was
going
by
one
question
at
a
time,
but
we
can
address
number
two
once
we
do
our
second
round,
but
I'm
going
to
pop
it
back
because
I
think
committee,
member
haynes
lipstein,
might
have
a
direct
response
actually.
D
I
have
a
question,
but
I
mean
it
can
be
a
response,
so
so
matt
or
what
are
you
trying
to
say?
You'd,
ideally
like
us
to
say
that
we
support
the
decision
of
council
to
develop
the
ordinance
and
that
we
won't
reagentize
our
own
draft
regulations
until
after
xyz
date?
Is
that
kind
of
what
you're
looking
for
for
a
comfort
point
of
view.
L
Yes,
I
I
think
that's
one
option
I
mean
I
think,
that's
an
interesting
option,
but
yeah
I
just
again
provide
clarity.
There
will
you
know
so
there
could
be
changes
on
council.
There
could
be
changes,
maybe
changes
on
the
rxc
and
I
think
that
clarity
in
the
past,
any
any
uncertainty
I
think
has
has
caused
the
way.
So
so
I
mean
my
goal
would
just
be
provide
certainty
as
much
as
possible.
That
sounds
sounds
like
we.
L
I
don't
know.
If
I
go
so
far
as
to
to
say
something
like
we
accept
regs
and
then
let's
say,
can
only
be
repealed
before
some
date,
with
a
with
a
three
four
fifths
vote
or
something
like
that,
I
would
sounds
like
that's
not
an
option
according
to
to
karen,
but
yeah
I
mean
hopefully,
everyone's
operating
in
good
faith,
and
we
with
this
decision,
provide
the
certainty.
The
council
needs
to
go
forward.
C
So
I
guess
that
might
may
be
part
of
question
two
and
as
far
as
what
matt
said,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
courts
actually
made
it
clear
that
it
could
be
quite
legitimate
for
us
to
to
cover
mobile
homes,
but
they
did
not
say
it
was
illegal
for
us
to
to
provide
coverage.
As
far
as
I
know
is
it
is
that
right,
karen.
G
Yes,
so
the
court
decision
was
essentially
that
it
was
within
your
discretion
to
take
the
decision
that
was
made
in
2018,
and
you
have
similar
discretion
to
change
that
decision,
that
the
csfra
left.
That
decision
up
to
you
as
to
whether
mobile
homes
are
covered
or
not
covered.
C
Okay,
so
that
is
an
option.
I
feel
strongly
that
that
we
should
do
whatever
we
can
to
facilitate
this
mobile
home
ordinance.
And
what
concerns
me
is
that
a
lot
of
politicking
will
get
involved
and
there
might
be
pressure
from
owners
to
leave
them
loopholes
so
that
they
don't
have
to
provide
this
coverage
to
residents.
A
A
Let's
do
who
wants
to
make
the
motion
all
right,
I'll
make
the
motion.
I
move
that
the
rhd
supports
the
decision
of
the
council
to
develop
a
city
mobile
home
ordinance
to
be
moder
modeled
after
the
csfra
and
to
be
administered
by
the
rhc,
provided
that
there
is
adequate
funding
available.
A
Do
I
have
a
second
all
second
seconded
by
committee,
member
nicole
haines
libsay
andrea?
Do
you
want
to
do
a
real
call
vote
for
us.
H
A
All
right
question
number
two
y'all
are
ready
for
this.
Who
wants
to
answer
first?
If
no
one
volunteers,
I
will
call
on
someone.
H
So
you
know,
I
think
that
our
our
debate
and
discussion
on
this
point
is,
of
course,
a
part
of
the
public
record
and
city
council
has
all
those
materials
available
to
them.
So
you
know,
I
think
I
don't
know
how
how
helpful
our
input
would
be
beyond
what's
already
in
the
public
record,
where
we've
really
discussed
this
issue
significantly.
I
understand
that
there
might
be
some
nuances
that
some
of
the
participants
who've
called
in,
have
brought
up
as
well
as
other
members
on
the
rhc
some.
A
You
guys
just
want
me
to
call
on
you
all
right.
Vice
chair
almond,.
C
I
think
it
would
really
be
helpful
if
we
could
forward
the
regulations
that
were
developed
by
ken
and
staff
so
that
they
aren't
having
to
start
from
scratch.
I
think
it's
really
key.
We
we
got
pretty
far
into
those
developed
regulations,
and
I
see
no
reason
why
the
council
has
to
use
a
whole
lot
of
staff
time
to
develop
that
structure.
C
So
my
suggestion
would
be
to
keep
the
recommendations
very
clear
and
also
absolutely
not
given
out
to
the
owners
of
properties.
C
C
Mobile
home
parks
should
not
have
the
option
to
opt
out
of
rent
stabilization,
so
if
the
the
ordinance
should
be
developed
very
clearly,
so
that
residents
really
can't
feel
secure
and
have
a
sense
that
that
they're
going
to
be
covered
on
a
consistent
basis.
Without
you
know
the
threat
that
an
owner
might
suddenly
say.
Well,
sorry
we're
not
doing
that.
E
A
C
Well,
I
would
like
to
know
from
karen
what
whether
those
regulations
that
were
developed
for
us
could
be
forwarded
to
council
and
city
staff
so
that
they
don't
feel
I
mean
I
we
have
to
put
it
in
a
light
in
which
they
would
accept
these
recommendations,
but
I
certainly
think
that
it
could
be
a
time
saver
if
they
were
to
see
that
well,
we've
already
gone
through
these
steps
and
we
could
provide
structure
for
the
council.
G
We
certainly
can
provide
them
to
them
they're
a
public
document.
They
were
presented
to
the
rhc
in
2018..
I
don't
know
how
helpful
they
will
be
because
those
regulations
were
really
fitting
mobile
homes
into
our
existing
regulations.
D
With
regards
to
that,
I
do
think
that
our
administrative
cost
burden
goes
down
significantly.
If
we
have
one
program,
if
we're
going
to
say
well
for
this
group,
we
have
a
model
lease
and
for
this
group
we
have
a
memorandum
of
understanding
and
then
for
this
group
over
here
we
have
a
rent,
stabilization
ordinance,
I
think,
just
from
an
economy
of
scale,
point
of
view.
That's
going
to
be
a
nightmare
to
administer,
because
you
have
to
figure
out
like
okay.
D
D
It
covers
all
mobile
home
owners,
all
mobile
home
renters,
meaning
if
you
rent
your
space
or
you
rent
the
unit
on
top
of
the
space.
It
covers
everybody
and
it
is
one
set
of
rules.
Otherwise
I
just
I
don't
like
multiple
playbooks.
That's
just
me.
So
if
that's
what
you
mean
vice
chair
almond,
yes,
I
would.
I
would
be
supportive
of
that.
I
also
think
it
reduces
the
administrative
burden
for
sure.
So,
yes,
and
then
do
we
want
to
continue
discussion
on
that
topic.
Or
would
you
like
me
to
talk
through
my
list?
L
Maybe
not
on
that
specific
item,
but
I'll
I'll
try
to
be
brief
and
then
let
nicole
get
to
her
list.
So
you
know,
I
think,
I
think,
to
a
committee
member
part
of
zella's
point.
We
have
an
extensive
record
and
and
a
lot
of
input
on
former
members
who
are
no
longer
part
of
this
committee
and
current
members.
So
there's
a
lot
there.
L
I
felt
like
the
initial
regs
that
we
developed,
we
were
trying
to
some
extent
fit
a
square
peg
into
a
round
hole
right,
so
we
had
the
csfra
and
we
were
trying
to
make
it
work
for
mobile
homes.
That
was
part
of
the
the
reason
the
decision
was
made.
The
way
it
was
so
I
would,
I
think,
as
a
committee,
I
think
we
should
give
guidance
on
the
administrative
piece,
so
anything
that
we
feel
is
going
to
make
the
administrative
burden
easier
or
more
streamlined.
L
I
think
we
should
try
to
to
align
on
that.
I
think,
regarding
you,
know
those
as
part
of
this
there's
rent
stabilization
questions,
then
there's
also
some
extent
land
use,
questions
and
equity
stabilization
questions
that
the
council
is
going
to
have
to
answer,
and
I
would
I
think
they
probably
want
to
start
that
from
scratch
right
and
the
regs
from
scratch.
But
we
should
have
an
opinion
on
the
best
way
to
administer
this.
If
we're
going
to
be
the
ones
to
do
so
so
yeah
that
I
think
that'd
be.
L
L
I
don't
know
if
we
should
necessarily
give
our
opinion
as
a
committee
on
those
items.
A
Okay,
all
right
committee,
member
haynes
lucy.
Let's
hear
your
list.
D
Okay,
yay:
let's
see,
let
me
get
to
that
page
in
the
book.
Okay
found
the
book,
so
I
think
that
we've
already
covered
the
idea
of
should
we
should
we
talk
about
a
memorandum
of
understanding
and
a
model
lease
and
then
also
rent
control
for
those
or
rent
stabilization
for
those
who
don't
get
on
the
bus.
It
sounds
like
no,
we
were
colloquialism
was
clean
raid.
Here
we
want
just
one
set
of
rulebooks.
D
I
think
that
we
should
remind
the
council-
and
maybe
maybe
other
members
of
the
committee
would
disagree-
that
we
may
need
to
think
about
what
is
the
base
year.
You
know,
2020
has
been
a
was
a
very
weird
year
and
while
the
rakes
are
being
drafted
in
2021,
it
may
make
sense
to
look
back
pre-covet,
I.e,
2019
for
a
base
year,
mostly
because
you
have
seen
some
interesting
actions
in
the
market,
primarily
with
people
purchasing
homes,
moving
out
of
multi-family
dwellings,
etc,
etc.
Is
responses
to
concerns
around
safety?
D
This
has
changed
how
some
of
the
pricing
has
looked
in
our
community,
and
so
maybe
using
2020
as
a
base
year
is
a
bad
idea,
because
it's
a
outlier
here.
So
that's
just
something
I
think
we
may
want
to
consider
suggesting,
since
we
have
some
of
some
more
data
and
hopefully
with
our
rent
registry,
even
more
data
coming
online
soon
to
support
the
idea
of
maybe
using
a
different
base
year
than
2020
and
2021.
D
Also
just
making
sure
that
you
know
all
mobile
home
residents
are
covered
space,
rent
and
unit
rent
and
then
just
basically
that
we
need
a
fee
system
of
some
nature
to
bring
in
revenue
to
cover
the
cost
of
administering
the
program.
It's
really
important
that
the
program
be
able
to
be
paid
for,
and
I
think
when
we
last
talked
about
this
in
february
of
2020,
maybe
I'm
getting
that
wrong.
We
talked
about
the
fact
that
we
need
to
have
the
revenue
to
cover
this.
D
D
So
I
think
we
need
that
and
then
the
other
thing
I
would
think
of
is
just
thinking
about
streamlining
the
capital
improvements
channel
like
we're
working
to
do
with
the
csfra
to
make
it
less
unweldy
and
and
time-consuming
and
ensuring
that
the
residents
and
the
park
owners
have
a
seat
at
the
table
to
talk
about
the
ordinance
before
it's
put
out
there.
D
I
think
it's
important
that
there
be
list
listening
sessions
and
then,
if
I
had
full
druthers
and
I
ruled
the
world,
I
would
probably
talk
about
possibly
considering
a
different
aga
for
the
mobile
home
residents
just
due
to
the
fixed
income
component
and
how
many
of
the
residents
are
on
such
a
fixed
income.
D
You
know,
cpi
is
not
what
you
get
on
social
security,
etc
or
disability
and
therefore
it
might
make
sense
to
tweak
a
little
bit
how
the
aga
is
done
for
the
mobile
home
population,
but
that
was
my
laundry
list
of
desires
and
hopes
and
dreams.
So
there
you
go.
A
Parmy
just
wants
to
say
staff:
did
you
grab
all
that,
but
I
promise
we'll
we'll
try
to
make
this
into
a
motion.
It's
all
right
here.
L
Yeah,
I
mean
one
of
those
items,
I'm
not
sure.
Well,
let
me
know
if
you
want,
if
you'd
like
to
speak
on
one
of
the
items
that
you
spoke
about,
I
have
a
couple
that
we
may
be
able
to
find
alignment
on.
L
Yeah,
that's,
okay,
so
the
fee.
I
definitely
agree
that
we
need
a
fee.
I
mean
I,
the
question
to
karen
is
the
expectation
that
it
could
be
that
all
the
accounting
would
be
done
separately
right,
except
maybe
our
technology
systems,
but
I
mean
do
we?
L
What
what
would
what
questions
do
you
have
about?
What
council
would
want
to
know
about
where
we
would
share
and
where
we
would
like,
keep
things
separate
or
do
you
or
do
you
foresee
or
is
another
option
that
they
were
just
thinking
that
the
fees
would
be
collected
and
then
it's
all
part
of
one
csfra
kind
of
pot
of
budget
and
then
mobile
home?
The
mobile
homes
are
looped
in
there.
G
You
know
and
come
up
with
an
allocation
system
so
that
you
know
the
fees
for
mobile
homes
are
going
for
the
program
for
mobile
homes
and
the
fees
or
csfra
covered
units
are
going
for
csfa
csfra
coverage
units.
I
think
it's
doable,
but
we'll
have
to
come
up
with
certain
accounting
system.
Yeah.
E
So,
since
most
of
the
costs
are
staffing
and
outside
services,
those
just
need
those
hours
just
need
to
keep
getting
tracked
over
the
course
and
that's
something
that
we
can
do
for
sure.
E
F
L
Okay,
so
so
then
I
mean
one
concern
that
I
have
is
with
a
smaller
number
of
units
litigation
costs.
If
there
is
a
disagreement
on
something
you
know,
I'm
concerned
that,
with
such
a
small
number
of
units
that
litigation
costs
could
bring
that
that
fee
up
significantly.
L
So
you
know
one
thing
that
I
would
propose-
and
I
proposed
this
for
the
csfra,
but
that's
not
accepted
early
on
san
francisco,
splits
the
fee,
and
I
think
what
that
what
what
that
might
help
solve
is
that
everyone
has
a
shared
interest
in
the
budget,
not
exploding,
so
it
could
keep
it
could
get
the
parties
interested
to
work
things
out
as
opposed
to
additional
litigation,
and
maybe
it's
just
a
maybe
it's
concerned
that
that's
unfounded
but
yeah.
L
A
C
Almond,
I
don't
understand
what
you
mean
about:
how
would
the
fee
be
split?
How
would
that
make
it
more
universal
to
the
whole
program?
L
Yeah,
sorry,
sorry,
so
if
if
the
landlords
are
paying
half
of
each
fee
and
the
mobile
home
owners
are
paying
half
each
year,
so
if
it's
an
85
fee,
42.50
landlord
paid
40-50
for
each
unit
and
then
the
mobile
home
owners
pay
4250
for
their
unit.
L
But
if,
if
one
side
either
side
were
to,
you
know
pursue
legal
action
that
does
need
to
be
paid
for
by
the
program
as
we
do
today.
Right
we
have.
We
have
significant
legal
legal
fees.
L
L
A
All
right
the
hand
is
down,
so
we
have
the
the
laundry
list
and
some
feedback
did.
Anyone
else
have
feedback
on
nicole's
laundry
list,
and
now
we
can
start
moving
toward
a
form
of
consensus
and
emotion.
So
I
could
go
through
some
of
the
various
things
that
were
listed
out.
A
I
do
support
having
consistency
in
terms
of
the
among
all
the
parks,
and
I
don't
like
the
idea
that
some
parks
will
have
a
different
kind
of
level
of
protections
versus
another
different
kinds.
That
is
a
worrisome
aspect
for
me,
and
I
do
feel
that
that
would
make
things
more
difficult
to
administrate
the
program.
A
I'm
not
really
fond
of
the
fee
schedule
that
committee
member
grin
will
mentioned,
but
if
city
council
wants
to
find
another
way
to
fund
their
program
like
on
a
billionaire
tax
or
something
like
that,
that's
up
to
them
all.
Technically
we
care
about
is
how
we
get
the
money
so
that
that
could
be
a
a
possibility
there.
I
I
just
think
about
how
I
believe
in
the
when
measure
d
was
on
the
ballot
one
mobile
home
park
owner
spent
ninety
thousand
dollars
just
like
that.
A
So
I
don't
know
if
money
works,
kind
of
the
same
way
when
you
think
about
250
dollars
from
one
person
versus
250
from
another.
So
that's
an
another
thing
that
I
was
thinking
about.
I
am
open
for
the
city
council
to
take
into
account
the
additional
vulnerable
nature
of
mobile
home
residents,
where,
if
they
want
to
have
a
lower
aga,
I
am
open
to
that.
A
Although
I
am
cognizant
that
we
can't
dictate
to
council,
we
could
just
recommend,
and
that
would
be
helpful
the
what
else
did
did
nicole
have.
Oh,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
cover
mobile
home
renters,
so
not
only
those
who
are
rent
a
space
rent,
but
I
also
want
to
see
coverage
for
those
renters
who
are
renting
the
mobile
home
itself
from
the
park
owner.
E
One
set
of
rules
for
all
mobile
home
parks,
no
opting
out
for
certain
park
owners.
Second
rule
cover
all
mobile
home
owners
and
renters.
E
E
Five,
streamlining
capital
improvement,
petitions,
six
hold
stakeholder
meetings
and
listen
to
what
is
needed
and
seven
different
aga
considerations,
and
maybe
you
remember,
we
did
provide
some
tables
and
overviews
in
the
past
with
differences
between
agas
for
rental
apartments
versus
mobile
homes,
so
that
is
quite
a
acceptable
way
of
thinking
about
aga.
E
A
Had
that
so
personally
for
me,
but
this
year
I
am
willing
to
go
for
the
lowest
year
as
far
back
as
october
19
2015..
A
I
don't
think
I
can
get
a
clear
consensus
on
that,
but
I'm
I'm
willing
to
go
down
that
low.
So
if
it's,
if
we're
going
to
agree
on
2017
or
when
we
first
had
it
brought
forth
to
the
rhc
or
if
you
want
to
do
2019,
where
we
did
our
study
session
or
or
january
of
2020,
when
council
had
their
study
session,
we
can
negotiate
that
down.
A
C
And
yeah
I
mean
basically
I'm
okay
with
everything
else.
I
think
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
realize
that
this
population
is
different
from
apartments
and
in
the
sense
that
we
can't
base
the
changes
just
directly
on
what
our
data
comes
in
on
apartments,
that
we
have
a
lot
of
very
low
income
people
in
mobile
homes
and
that
should
be
protected.
A
All
right
committee,
member
grunwald,
you
had
a
brief
hand
up.
Did
you
have
any
feedback
about
base
year.
L
No
specific
feedback
about
base
here,
okay
and
then
I
would.
I
would
say
that
I
have
a
dissenting
opinion.
I
think,
on
having
all
rules,
be
the
same,
because
it's
my
understanding
that
there
are
senior
living
senior,
I'm
not
sure
what
they're
called
senior
living
communities
mobile
home
parks.
L
That
are,
you
need
to
be,
I
think,
over
a
certain
age
to
to
be
in,
and
I
don't
know
if
city
council
would
be
I
I
might
leave
it
up
to
them
to
to
determine
whether
there
should
be
different
rules
based
on
if
it's
a
senior
only
park
versus
a
you
know,
a
non-senior
park.
E
To
be
to
prefer
to
clarify,
I
don't
think
there
are
specific
senior
parks
anymore,
but
there
are
parks
where
there
is
a
lot
of
seniors,
but
they
are
not
specifically
assigned
that
label.
C
I
just
wanted
to
say
as
far
I
agree
that
with
anki,
I
think
that
if
there
are
no
longer
any
senior
parks,
so
therefore
we
it
would
make
it
really
difficult
for
staff.
I
think,
if
you
had
to
you
know,
have
one
basis
for
one
type
of
park
and
another.
We
want
to
make
it
as
streamlined
as
possible
so
that
we
don't
have
more
and
more
staff
time
trying
to
decide
which
programs
are
eligible.
I
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
have,
like
nicole,
said,
have
one
set
of
rules.
C
One
program,
all
you
know
under
the
same
rubric.
H
G
Possibly
I
mean
there
are
cases,
there's
a
more
recent
case
with
a
base
year
roll
back
of.
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
three
or
four
years
that
was
upheld
by
the
courts.
H
So
you
know
just
on
a
few
of
the
discrete
points
that
were
raised.
You
know
in
terms
of
the
opting
out,
that's
something
that
in
my
you
know,
I
think
we
really.
I
would
defer
the
city
council
on
something
like
that.
There
very
well
may
be
great
reasons
to
have
certain
areas
opt
out
or
not.
I
I
H
Negotiations
might
take
place
where
there
might
be
something
that
would
be
very
beneficial
if
a
specific
owner
were
allowed
to
opt
out.
So
I
I
don't
know
that
we
can
really
predict
all
of
the
discussions
and
conversations
that
would
surround
that
topic
enough
to
say
that
opting
out
would
just
categorically
be
something
that
we
would
be
opposed
to,
or
at
least
can
only
speak
for
myself.
On
that
point,
I
I
think
matt's
point
about
splitting
the
fees
is
a
is
a
very
good
one
and
I
agree
with
it
in
principle.
H
I
think
the
challenge
is
that
now
we
already
have
a
system
in
place
where
we're
not
doing
a
fee
split
on
existing
covered
units,
and
I
think,
for
the
sake
of
consistency,
I
like
the
idea
of
sticking
with
what
we
currently
have
in
place.
I
think
it's
hard
to
kind
of
say:
well,
we've
got
covered
units
in
mountain
view
and
there's
no
split,
and
then
we
also
got
mobile
homes
and,
for
example,
they're
paying.
H
H
But
I
don't
particularly
like
the
idea
of
just
tacking
that
on
now
to
mobile
home
owners
of
residents
and
not
having
that
apply
to
other
covered
units,
and
then
you
know
my
last
point
would
just
be
and-
and
maybe
I'm
I've
missed
this,
and
so
I
apologize,
but
I
think
kind
of
a
sub
a
subtext
to
all
this
is
when
we,
when
we
provide
our
input
whatever
that
may
be
to
the
city
council.
H
And
I
don't
know
that
we
can
even
answer
that
right
now
or
if
there
is
a
way
to
answer
that.
But
I
think
that's
a
question
that
I
would
potentially
have
if
I
were
on
city
council-
and
I
would
want
to
know,
is
this
input
coming
in
as
friendly
input
and
we
can
choose
to
disregard
it
or
take
it
all
into
account
or
if
we
disregard
it,
is
the
rhc
going
to
go
now,
go
ahead
and
and
do
some
stuff
that
we
might
not
be
expecting
so
the
sense
we
have
any
guidance
at
all.
H
D
Member
haynes
livesay
for
any
of
my
input
that
I
listed
out
on
my
quote:
unquote
laundry
list
that
was
friendly
input.
I'm
not,
I
don't
believe
in
the
do,
as
I
ask
or
I
won't
cooperate
viewpoints.
So
I
would
encourage
us
to
provide
reasonable,
friendly
input,
but
ultimately
we
will
administer
what
the
council
determines
to
be
appropriate
for
our
community
and
that
that
is
what
we
do,
and
that
is
our
duty.
So
that's
my
view.
On
my
input
at
least.
C
Yeah
I
mean
we
are
an
independent
body
we
and
csfra
was
created
so
that
we
are
not
under
the
rubric
of
the
council
in
this
situation.
We're
providing
input-
and
I
think
it's
very
vital
and
and
appropriate
input.
But
I
don't
think
we
should
say
that
throw
up
our
hands
and
say
we
will
never
consider
this
in
the
future,
because
it
could
very
well
be
that
the
city
council
comes
to
an
impasse
and
does
not
go
forward
with
an
ordinance
and
then
the
mobile
home
folks
are
still
out
in
the
cold.
C
L
Thanks
up
I'd
just
like
to
say
that
I
think
I
agree
with
committee
member
partner,
zella
and
hence
lyft
say
in
that
I
guess
if
there
are
items
that
we
feel
strongly
about,
then
I'd
like
I'd
like
to
see
us
actually
do
a
straw
poll
or
or
have
a
majority
if
we're
going
to
put
it
in
as
a
strong
input.
Otherwise
I
would
defer
to
you
know,
saying
it's
friendly
input,
because
I
think
I
mean
on
every
topic:
we've
had
some
differences
of
opinion,
so
yeah.
A
We
we
may
actually
have
to
do
a
straw
poll
anyway,
so
that
we
give
better
guidance
to
staff
based
on
what
staff
needs
to
write
this
letter,
I
do
feel
like
this
is
some
this.
This
this
whole
exercise
is
an
exercise
of
trust
between
the
rhc
and
council.
A
The
rhc
is
trusting
council
to
take
the
steps
necessary
to
protect
our
mobile
home
residents
and
council
is
trusting
us
to
provide
the
the
administration
necessary
to
do
it.
So
I'm
I'm
hoping
that
we
are
all
here,
open
and
willing
to
trust
each
other.
To
do
that,
I
mean
we're.
I
I
don't
want
to.
A
I
think
the
only
the
one
hard
fast
thing
that
I
would
like
to
think
is
that
they
cannot
expect
us
to
administrate
it
without
actually
giving
us
the
money
to
administrate
it
that
that
seems
like
an
obvious
now
go
so
like
I.
I
don't
want
to
do
the
the
nevers
that,
like
no
matter
what
council
we'll
do
we'll
administrate
it,
because
there
are
some
obvious
issues
if
we
do
that,
just
out
of
sheer
responsibleness
to
the
law,
so
we
can
go
through.
A
E
E
Do
them
one
by
one
so
number
one
is
an
ordinance
needs
to
cover
both
mobile
home
owners
and
renters.
E
The
second
one
is,
there
should
only
be
one
set
of
rules,
one
ordinance
and
not
the
option
to
opt
out
for
certain
park
owners.
E
Number
five:
streamlining
capital
improvement
petitions
number
six.
The
ordnance
could
be
subject
to
different
aga
considerations
diverting
from
what
is
in
the
csf
array
and
the
last
one
is.
There
should
be
stakeholder
meetings
to
listen
to
the
needs
of
the
residents
and
park
owners.
F
Is
there
clarification
on
the
capital
improvement
petition
streamlining
at
all?
I
don't
I'm
confused
by
that.
E
What
what
I
understand
from
nicole
is,
please
include
capital,
improvement
petitions,
so
we're
not
stuck
with
an
mnoi
petition
that
is
a
very
been
seen
as
a
cumbersome
process
so
to.
B
K
A
Right
yep,
I
am
going
to
let's
remove
these
shared
screen
so
because
so
I
can
use
like
a
raised
hand,
a
physical
raised
hand
that
will
probably
make
things
a
little
easier
for
everyone
all
right,
all
right,
so
the
first
one
it
should
cover
both
owners
of
mobile
home
mobile
homes
and
the
renters
of
mobile
homes.
Do
we
have
an
agreement
on
that?
Please
raise
your
hand
if
it's
yes,.
A
Unanimous
yay
the
next
one
to
not
include
and
opt
out
or
I
guess
we
may
need
to
discuss
that
more.
If
we
don't
come
to
a
reasonable
consensus
here,
but
I'll
start
with
a
no
opt-out
options
for
coverage
of
mobile
home
parks.
E
E
L
Sorry
would
there
be,
would
there
be
a
case
where
some
of
the
smaller
parks,
where
the
the
mobile
home
owners
and
the
park
owner
would
get
together
like
we
have?
Similarly,
we
we
just
passed
regs
so
that
a
landlord
and
tenant
can
decide.
L
You
know
that
that
that
yes,
a
certain
capital
improvement
coming
in
or
that
they
can
refine
the
lease
I
I
just
wouldn't
want
to.
Maybe
if
we
added
language,
maybe
there's
a
friendly
amendment
to
the
question
emily,
but
if
we
just
added
language,
unless
you
know
somehow
the
park
owners,
sorry.
L
E
L
How
they
work
out
yeah.
E
E
The
rules
that
are
being
set
out
up
front
are
covered
in
a
long-term
lease,
for
instance,
in
sunnyvale.
E
So
most
cities
have
an
ordinance
and
regular
ordinance
that
applies
to
all
the
mobile
home
parks.
E
E
So
they
then
went
back
and
put
an
ordinance
in
place
for
that
one
park
owner
and-
and
you
can
clarify
further
karen-
that
was
to
kind
of
be
able
to
enforce
the
park
owner
into
compliance
with
the
rent
stabilization
regulations
that
they
adopted.
L
L
Sorry
of
mobile
home
owners
within
the
park
can
they,
I
just
wouldn't
want
to
prevent.
If
mobile
home
mobile
homeowners
decided
that
they
wanted
to
negotiate
a
lease
with
their
park
owner
and
they
want
to
opt,
they
say,
keep
us
out
of
everything.
This
is
something
we've
agreed
to.
L
I
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
actually
something
that
would
occur,
but
I
just
wouldn't
want
to
say
that
that
would
be
something
that
we'd
accept.
G
L
A
So
it
is
a
a
no
opt
out
type
of
ordinance
and
I
guess
we
could
frame
this
as
a
uniformity
to
the
csfra.
A
I
I
support
this
no
opt
out
because
I
I
also
now
think
about
like
these
are
meant
to
be
protections
and
rights.
You
kind
of
don't
waive
those,
and
I
I
can't
even
imagine
what
what
would
be
the
case
for
a
renter
like
a
non-mobile
home
renter
like
a
an
apartment,
renter
being
like.
I'm
gonna
sign
this
contract
to
not,
and
there
are
some
things
like
the
capital
improvements
which
we
are
working
with,
which
that's
going
to
be
a
another
question
in
our
list
of
questions.
A
A
All
right,
we
have
four
to
one
next
is
base
year
and
I
feel
like
this
is
not
as
as
as
binary.
I've
already
mentioned,
I'm
down
for
october
19
2015
that
fateful
day.
I
remember
that
council
meeting
as
well,
but
does
anyone
else
have
other
ideas.
D
I
mean
my
initial
was
2019
only
because
I
I
did
have
some
concern
about
going
back
too
far
and
the
potential
of
litigation
about
going
back
too
far,
not
being
a
president,
etc.
I
don't
like
the
idea
of
using
2020,
I
think
2021.
You
won't
have
a
full
year
of
data
for
so
then
I
naturally
fell
on
2019,
but
you
know-
and
maybe
we
don't
present-
that
at
all,
if
we
can't
get
consensus
on
it,
committee.
H
I
have
a
sense,
we're
not
going
to
have
consensus,
and
if
we
don't,
I
would
just
suggest
that
we
impress
upon
the
city
council
that
this
is
a
significant
issue,
at
least
in
my
mind,
that
they
have
to
really
tackle
because
it
there's
some
ramifications
that
are
kind
of
a
ripple
effect
that
comes
out
of
this.
So
if
we
don't
have
agreement
right
now,
assuming
we
don't
that
it's
something
that
they
should
really
kind
of
have
at
the
top
of
the
list
to
figure
out,
because
I
think
it's
a
significant
one.
A
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
quite
a
consensus
just
yet.
Actually
the
only
person
I
haven't
heard
about
a
possible
year
is
committee.
Member
grunwald.
L
I
don't,
I
don't
feel
strongly,
but
I
mean
if
there's,
if
it's
four
to
one
I
I
I
would,
I
would
prevent
it
from
happening.
L
For
what
sorry
sorry,
if,
if
I'm
the
I'm
the
only
detractor,
then
you
know
I
could
I
could
be
willing
to
go
along,
but
I
I'd
also
just
let
council
kind
of
figure
out
what's
reasonable.
A
G
C
G
Yeah
and
I
think
it
depends
on
when
this
actually
gets
adopted-
I
mean
the
main
point
of
rollbacks
is
to
or
base
years
there's
a
couple
points,
but
one
is
once
you
start
talking
about
rent
stabilization.
Sometimes
that
causes
property
owners
to
implement
large
rent
increases
to
try
to
circumvent
it.
So
one
of
the
points
of
a
rollback
is
to
sort
of
take
those
out
of
the
picture.
G
E
And
I
also
do
a
yearly
survey
on
among
the
park
owners
to
see
what
rent
increases
they
have
given
and
the
regular
rent
increases
on
a
for.
Existing
residents
were
pretty
much
in
line
or
with
the
ada,
or
they
gave
a
little
higher
aga
one
year
and
then
no
increase
the
next
year.
But
I
have
that
overview
is
available
in
some
of
the
previous
memos
that
we
provided.
E
E
A
It's
it's
hard
to
say
when
mobile
homes
first
came
up,
because
the
historian
in
me
has
seen
articles
talking
about
it
as
early
as
2001.
I
remember
there
was
a
count.
City
council,
2016,
meeting
measure
v
was
already
on
the
ballot
and
that's
why
council
chose
not
to
move
forward
long
history,
but
it
was
mentioned
there
and
then
we
had
when
mobile
home
park
residents
first
showed
up.
A
When
we
looked
at
it
in
december
of
2017,
then
you
also
had
council
to
take
a
look,
may
2019,
and
then
you
had
council
look
at
january
2020..
So
there
are
a
lot
of
weird
milestones
with
mobile
homes.
Lots
of
discussion,
like
I
said,
I'm
really
hoping
that
we
can
find
a
way
to
agree
on
a
number
or
a
spirit
committee
member
hands,
lipstick.
D
Maybe
if
we
can't
agree
on
a
number,
maybe
to
agree
on
a
spirit,
we
say
pre-2020
pre-pandemic
and
at
least
that
gives
some
guidance
of
we
don't.
We
ideally
don't
want
to
see
anything
from
2021
or
2020
be
invoked,
and
that
gives
council
a
friendly
nudge
in
the
direction
of
let's
look
towards
the
past
without
really
hemming
them
in
on
what
they
consider
to
be
the
appropriate
base
year,
and
maybe
maybe
we
could
get
consensus
on
that
idea.
A
A
We
I
did
not
specify
a
year.
I
guess
we
could.
We
can
go
far
back
as
pre-pandemic
is
what
nicole
says,
but
I
want
to
emphasize
pass
as
I'm
I'm
okay
with
as
early
as
defensible.
A
Sorry,
all
right,
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
go
backwards
here;
okay,
how
many
people
are
okay
with
looking
to
the
past
pre-pandemic.
A
A
C
E
C
E
Well,
it
doesn't
hurt,
but
it
is
also,
I
think,
makes
a
stronger
case
if
you
can
unanimously
make
some
recommendations
to
the
rental
housing
committee.
But
that's
up
to
you
how
you
would
like
to
approach
it.
A
So,
okay,
okay,
it
is
important
to
me
that
we
get
as
much
consensus
as
possible,
so
we
are
going
to
go
with
at
least
2019,
because
that,
as
far
as
our
consensus
has
gone
nod
your
heads-
if
that's
all,
right.
F
System
for
my
own
clarification
purposes:
yes,
was
that
for
the
rollback
and
the
base
year.
E
A
So
I
guess
the
the
the
fee
system,
I
guess
the
biggest
thing
is
like
please
make
sure
that's
paid
for
is,
is,
can
we
all
agree
on
that
council?
Please
pay
for
it,
hands,
hands,
hands!
Wonderful!
Now
I
guess:
how
much
do
we
want
to
delve
into
the
thesis
and
do
we
want
to
be
how
prescriptive?
How
not
prescriptive?
I
guess
to
the
point
that
we
can
come
to
a
consensus
on.
I
am
personally
rather
habit
to
be
the
same
system
as
we
do
with
the
csfra.
A
Does
anyone
have
a
different
sense
or
modification
to
that?
I
have
a
hand
up
from
vice
chair.
A
D
You
know
in
thinking
about
this,
I
think,
because
of
the
unique
component
of
having
your
mobile
home
owners
of
their
unit
and
renters
of
their
own
it
unit.
We
may
not
want
to
get
too
prescriptive
on
the
fees,
especially
around
how
they're
subdivided
only
because
I
could
see
a
situation
whereby,
if
it
was
to
become
allowable,
someone
was
to
own
their
unit
but
decide
to
rent
or
sublease
to
someone
else,
and
then
you
get
into
the
discussion
of
what
does
that?
D
Look
like
from
a
fee
splits
point
of
view:
do
we
get
thirdsies,
you
know
what?
What
is
that
going
to
do
with
the
fee
split?
So
maybe
we
let
we
kind
of
stay
quiet
on
that
component
and
let
council
at
least
take
a
crack
at
how
they
think
the
fee
should
be
charged
and
handled
and
then,
ideally,
maybe
we
get
to
get
more
input
in
the
future.
And
you
know
if
we
feel
like
we,
we
need
to
nudge
or
tap
in
a
direction.
We
can
do
that,
but
maybe
we
stay
a
little
high
level
on.
A
That
does
that
seem
reasonable
direction
of
stuff
that
we
can
take
a
vote
on
yep
all
right.
Does
everyone
agree
with
that
assessment
from
the
committee
member
haynes
liv
say,
raise
your
hand.
A
All
right,
that's
unanimous
next
is
capital
improvements,
and
forgive
me
I
totally
don't
remember
what
the
fine.
E
A
All
right
we're
unanimous,
okay,
the
next
one
is
the
aga
and
I
believe
the
differentiation
was
being
open
to
the
possibility
of
taking
into
account
the
increased
vulnerability
status
of
some
mobile
home
park
residents
to
have
a
possible
lower
aga.
L
A
I
I
don't
feel
entirely
comfortable
dictating
to
counsel
on
that.
Nor
do
I
believe
that
they
would
actually
like
listen
to
us.
If
we
say
you
have
to
have
it
like
that,
so
it's
just
a
a
suggestion
that
they
can
take
that
into
account.
Okay,
thank
you.
Yes,
then
seven
stakeholders
are
reaching
out
to
stakeholder
groups.
That
seems
pretty
easy
to
me.
So
do
we
all
agree
that
there
should
be
outreach
to
stakeholder
groups?
F
Did
hold
them
last
year
during
the
previous
discussions
in
what
was
that
february
and
january
as
we've
shared,
and
we
were
able
to
organize
those
relatively
quickly
during
that
process
anki,
can
you
have
any
insight
into
that.
E
Yeah
we
could
even
send
together
with
this
letter
we
could
send
a
copy
of
the
survey
and
we
could
send
the
the
the
summary
of
the
past
stakeholder
meetings.
I
don't
think
a
lot
has
changed
since
then
last
year
and
we
could
definitely
send
that
along,
and
so
maybe
you
want
to
reword-
take
into
account
input
from
the
stakeholders.
A
All
right,
so
are
we
in
agreement
of
stakeholder
meetings
with
the
additional
resources
we
have
granted
accumulated
to
give
to
council,
I'm
also
partial,
to
not
slow
down
the
process
either.
A
So
I
guess
the
way
I
would
ask
this
question
is:
are
we
in
support
of
stakeholder
meetings
that
do
not
slow
this
process
down,
but
also,
and
also
give
our
resources
that
we
have
in
relation
to
that
to
council
and
council
staff
that
that
that
sounded
like
a
really
long
question?
But
how
do
we
feel
about
that.
L
I
guess
maybe
well
maybe
friendly
comment
or
consideration.
First
I
mean
I
would,
I
think,
council's
typical,
routine
or
or
playbook
is
to
to
get
stakeholder
input
and
if
we
feel
like
we're,
they're
already
gonna.
Take
that
maybe
maybe
not
do
we
have
to
have
this
bullet
item
in
our
list.
I
don't
want
to
try
to
require
something
of
them
and
then
make
them
feel
as
though
they're
very
cool.
E
A
E
And
I
need
one
last
question
answered:
is
everybody
okay,
that
emily
finalized
that
letter
and
send
it
on
behalf
of
the
rental
housing
committee.
L
Quick
question
again:
are
we?
Are
we
saying
this
is
friendly?
Do
we
agree
that
we're
going
to
say
this
is
friendly
input,
yes,
and
that
no?
This
is
a
pre
prerequisite
for
this
to
to
move
forward.
A
I
think
that
is
everything.
How
do
we
feel
we're
good
all
right?
I'm
gonna
end
this
agenda
item,
so
we
are
going
to
our
next.
E
Yeah
emily,
do
you
want
to
consider
skipping
the
second
agenda
item
and
go
over
the
other
two
or
do
you
want
to
definitely
go
over
the
capital
improvements
regulations
now,
and
that
probably
will
mean
we
are.
We
have
to
postpone
the
other
agenda
items
which
ones
would
you
like
to
give
priority.
A
I
guess
how
is
how
I
feel
like
we
can
push
8.4
back
again,
like
we
had
for
the
past,
like
10
months.
E
A
All
right
so
I'll
make
oh.
C
A
Was
going
to
postpone
8.4
for
sure,
but
then
there's
a
question
of
whether
or
not
we
post
postpone
8.3.
C
A
Sorry
8.4
is
the
cpi
indexes
taking
a
look
at
that?
That's,
I
believe,
that's
that's
mostly
a
report
with
questions
and
deliberation
and
feedback.
A
A
Does
anyone
have
any
specific
preferences
committee,
member
grunwall.
L
Sure,
I'm
not
since
we're
in
between
agenda
items.
I'm
not
sure
this
is
deliberation
or
where
we're
at,
but
my
I
would
prefer
8.2
we've
had
a
lot
of
meeting
study
sessions
on
I'd,
prefer
to
move
8.3
and
8.4
and
and
get
that
you
know
done.
L
Oh,
is
that
sorry,
for
for
susan,
it's
8.2
would
be
the
capital
or
sorry
actually
yeah,
capital
capital
improvements.
Sorry,
the
title
of
it
didn't
say:
kaplan,
capital,
impermanence,
but
it'd,
be
capital
improvements,
keep
that
make
a
decision
there
and
then
move
move
the
financial
expenditures
and
a
fair
return
calculation,
which
are
just
informative
discussions
to
the
next
meeting.
L
Yes,
I
will
make
that.
Oh
sorry,.
C
Go
ahead,
I
would
prefer
that
we
postpone
the
capital
improvements,
because
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
really
meaty
lengthy
discussion.
I
think
it
would
be
better
for
us
to
put
it
in
the
next
agenda.
L
I'll
make
a
motion
to
keep
keep
a
move,
8.3
and
8.4
to
our
next
to
our
next
meeting
agenda.
A
H
B
A
All
right
we're
moving
on
with
8.3
and
8.4
push
back
another
meeting
one
day
we
will
get
to
it,
but
until
then
we
are
now
at
8.2
draft
regulations,
amending
chapter
6
upward
adjustments
and
we
have
a
staff
presentation.
F
Its
recommendation
is
to
review
the
draft
regulations
regarding
specified
capital,
improvement,
petitions
and
joint
petitions
for
new
and
additional
housing
services
and
either
provide
further
direction
to
staff
or
adopt
a
resolution
of
proving
regulations.
Quick
background
here.
We've
discussed
this
in
previous
meetings,
but
the
csfra
it
stabilizes
the
community
by
reducing
rental
housing
turnover
by
stabilizing
rents,
providing
eviction
protections
and
ensuring
a
fair
rate
of
return
on
investment,
which
is
what
we're
discussing
this
evening.
F
F
The
second
is
through
vacancy
decontrol
and
finally,
we
have
an
option
for
individual
petitions
for
upward
adjustment
of
rent,
using
a
fair
return
standard
section,
1708,
17,
10
and
1711
of
the
csfra
charge,
the
rhc
with
premier
communicating
regulations
to
establish
rules
and
regulations
for
the
administration
and
enforcement
of
the
csfra,
implementing
the
petition
process
and
providing
landlords
with
a
mechanism
for
achieving
a
fair
rate
of
return.
That
addresses
individualized
circumstances.
F
In
august
of
2020,
the
rhc
considered
adopting
potential
regulations,
and
at
that
time
you
requested
staff
hold
community
meetings
related
to
this
topic
in
january
of
2021.
After
those
community
meetings
were
held,
the
rhc
held
a
study
session
and
provided
feedback
on
policy
options,
as
well
as
requesting
an
additional
study
session
on
february
22nd
2021.
The
second
study
session
on
this
topic
was
held
and
you
provided
additional
policy
direction
and
requested
regulations
for
a
capital,
improvement
petition
process
and
a
joint
petition
process
for
new
and
additional
housing
services.
F
We're
going
to
go
over
the
capital
improvement
regulations
first,
so
the
first.
The
first
thing
to
point
out
are
the
reasons
for
these
petitions.
They
encourage
landlords
to
proactively,
maintain
their
property,
promote
safe
and
healthy
housing
for
tenants,
reduce
potential,
large-scale
displacement
and
preserve
the
affordable
housing
stock
in
the
city.
The
policy
basics
are
as
follows.
The
csf
array
limits
capital
improvements
to
improvements
necessary
to
bring
the
property
into
compliance
with
applicable
building
codes
and
cannot
include
costs
that
could
have
been
avoided
by
the
exercise
of
reasonable
diligence
in
maintaining
the
property
specified.
F
Capital
improvements
are
generally
major
capital
improvements
that
significantly
extend
the
life
of
the
property,
and
they
must
also
meet
the
definition
of
capital
improvements
that
are
already
part
of
chapter
6..
We're
going
to
go
through
some
of
the
details
of
the
regulations
now,
but
we
will
not
be
reading
the
regulations
in
full
this
evening.
There
are
two
features
for
our
fair
return,
and
this
is
in
section
b
of
chapter
six.
F
The
two
methods
are
of
maintaining
net
operating
income
and
the
recovery
of
specified
capital
improvements.
F
Capital
improvements
in
the
definitions
section
of
chapter
six,
which
is
section
c,
are
those
improvements
that
are
necessary
to
bring
the
property
into
compliance
or
maintain
compliance
with
applicable
building
or
housing
codes,
including
seismic
upgrades
required
by
code,
excluding
costs,
avoidable
through
exercise
of
reasonable
diligence
and
maintaining
or
repairing
rental
units
or
property,
and
you
can
find
the
full
list
of
qualifications
and
exclusions
in
this
definition
in
section
c,
and
also
in
schedule
a
so
as
requested
by
the
rhc.
F
There
are
two
schedules,
and
these
will
be
presented
with
their
appropriate
petition
when
the
actual
materials
for
the
program
are
developed.
So
at
no
time
would
a
potential
petitioner
or
a
tenant
see
these
presented
together
the
actual
schedules
for
amortization
and
approved
expenses
to
reduce
confusion.
They
would
always
only
be
with
their
applicable
petition.
F
Specified
capital
improvements
are
included
in
c10
and
schedule
b.
They
have
more
categories
that
have
an
additional
qualification
as
well
and
from
those
categories.
There
is
a
more
refined
list
of
improved
expenses,
so
specified
capital
improvements
shall
be
limited
to
capital
improvements
that
meet
the
requirements
as
defined
in
subsection
c3
and
are
necessary
to
significantly
extend
the
useful
life
of
the
covered
rental
unit
or
property.
F
F
This
is
an
expedited
petition
process.
Landlords
need
to
complete
the
petition
and
provide
the
type
and
cost
of
capital
improvements,
including
third-party
verification
of
costs.
They'll
need
to
provide
a
tenant,
rent
role,
an
initial
occupancy
date
and
rent
and
be
sure
to
include
applicable
permits
or
approvals,
and
this
can
be
found
in
chapter
six
f3
and
of
the
csfra
itself
in
1710
a3d,
the
hearing
process
is
truncated
and
a
petition
request
can
be
made
for
future
or
current
specified
capital
improvements
any
awarded
future
capital
improvement.
F
F
We
are
at
the
request
of
the
rhc,
providing
clarification
on
the
last
policy
decision
point
that
was
still
up
in
the
up
to
be
discussed
last
study
session,
which
is
to
limit
the
increase
to
five
percent
of
rent
current
rent,
not
inclusive
of
the
aga.
It's
not
considered
part
of
rent
is
defined
in
the
csfra
and
not
subject
to
the
aga,
and
I
want
to
mention
here
that
staff
is
making
this
recommendation
so
that
it's
easier
to
administer
the
petitions
and
less
confusing
across
the
multiple
petitions
that
we
have.
F
There
is
a
share
of
costs
that
are
split
between
tenants
and
landlords
based
on
the
number
of
units
on
the
property,
and
the
increases
sunset
at
the
end
of
amortization
period
are
at
the
vacancy
of
the
unit,
and
this
is
a
pro
router
allocation
to
all
benefits
bene
to
all
units
benefited
by
the
special
capital
improvement
petition,
and
this
can
be
found
in
sections
f5
and
that
schedule
b,
otherwise
known
as
the
specified
capital
improvement,
authorized
expenses
and
amortization
schedule.
F
The
timeline
for
uncontested
specified
capital
improvement
petition
is
30
days
for
notice
to
tenants
if
no
tenant
requests
a
hearing
and
then
30
days
for
the
hearing
officer
to
issue
a
decision
which
is
60
days,
total
from
the
acceptance
of
the
petition
to
the
decision
for
contested,
specified
capital
improvement.
Petitions
30
days
for
tenants
to
request
a
hearing
30
days
to
hold
the
hearing
from
the
time
the
tenant
requests,
the
hearing
and
30
days
for
the
hearing
officer
to
issue
a
decision.
F
This
would
be
approximately
90
days
from
the
acceptance
of
the
petition
to
the
hearing
and
decision
for
the
additional
new
and
additional
housing
services
petition.
We'll
go
over
those
regulations
quickly
as
well.
F
F
The
rhc
provided
feedback
that
they
wanted
to
ensure
that
tenants
were
not
burying
the
full
cost
of
something
that
ultimately
would
be
a
benefit
to
the
landlord,
and
this
provides
that
that
option
for
to
alleviate
that
concern
that
you
had
previously
shared,
and
it
also
brings
it
in
line
with
the
specified
capital
improvement
petitions
for
ease
of
administration,
and
this
information
can
all
be
found
in
section
g1
and
schedules.
F
A
and
b
the
upward
adjustment
of
rent
has
a
maximum
amount
of
award
allowed
for
a
joint
petition
limited
to
five
percent
of
the
current
rent
for
the
covered
rental
unit,
and
the
maximum
amount
of
a
one-time
payment
allowed
is
limited
to
five
percent
as
well.
This
is
similar
to
what
other
jurisdictions
allow
in
their
joint
petitions
for
new
and
additional
housing
services
and
also
keep
it
in
line
with
all
of
the
other
petitions
that
we're
looking
at
for
for
these
regulations,
and
this
can
be
found
in
g2.
F
These
petitions
may
only
be
filed,
may
be
filed
jointly
with
the
landlord,
but
the
tenant
must
initiate
the
process
with
their
landlord
and
tenants
are
responsible
for
obtaining
the
landlord's
review
and
signature
on
the
petition.
The
completed
petition
must
be
signed
by
both
the
tenant
and
the
landlord,
along
with
a
copy
of
the
written
rental
housing
agreement
and
those
must
be
submitted
to
the
rhc.
F
This
can
all
be
found
in
g4
to
further
clarify
the
increase
is
only
effective
after
the
tenant
has
been
provided,
no
less
than
the
greater
of
60
days
notice
prior
to
the
due
date
of
the
first
payment
of
upward
adjustment
or
the
notice
period
required
by
the
civil
code.
Section
827
and
has
no
upward
adjustment
pursuant
to
a
joint
petition
shall
be
effective
until
at
least
12
months
has
expired,
since
the
last
rent
increase
for
the
covered
rental
unit.
F
This
makes
it
so
that
it
is
allowable
under
the
csf
array
and
any
upward
adjustment
authorized
pursuant
to
section
g1b,
which
is
that
one,
that's
specific
for
something
similar
to
a
specified
capital
improvement
shall
not
be
considered
rent
when
determining
any
annual
general
adjustment
pursuant
to
1707
of
the
csfra,
and
this
is
for
found
in
chapter
six
g5,
and
we
do
want
to
clarify
that,
just
as
the
amortization
schedules
state.
F
The
recommendation
from
staff
is
to
review
these
draft
regulations
regarding
specified
capital,
improvement,
petitions
and
joint
petitions
for
new
and
additional
housing
services
and
either
provide
further
direction
to
staff
or
adopt
a
resolution
approving
regulations.
The
final
recommendation
is
to
adopt
a
resolution
amending
chapter
six
upward
adjustments,
and
that
is
the
end
of
staff's
presentation.
We'll
take
questions
at
this
time.
A
C
F
So
the
there
are,
as
we
mentioned
two
schedules,
so
only
one
that's
applicable
for
tonight's
discussion
is
the
one
for
specified
capital
improvements.
I
can
pull
that
schedule
up
if
you
would
like
that
schedule.
We
have
reviewed
and
was
approved
at
the
last
meeting,
but
we
can
certainly
look
at
it
again
if
you
would
prefer.
G
Well-
and
I
think
the
things
like
stoves
and
appliances
aren't
part
of
that
schedule-
that's
correct,
so
specified
capital
improvements
do
only
include
the
larger
items,
so
there
is
a
difference
between
appendix
a
and
appendix
b
and,
like
appliances
are
not
part
of
appendix
b,
which
are
the
specified
capital
improvements.
H
N
F
So,
as
staff
mentioned,
the
categories
here
are
the
you
know
things
to
focus
on.
F
These
are
the
big
items
that
all
of
the
other,
that
the
actual
amortization
schedule
spells
out
and
and
because
of
that,
this
is
really
the
section
that
is
is,
I
would
say,
you
know
something
to
to
be
focused
on.
So
it's
really
your
big
ticket
items
for
this
new
roof
covering
that
covers
new
roof
covering
all
or
substantially
all
of
the
building
and
again
the
rhc
has
reviewed
and
approved.
F
These
has
reviewed
and
approved
these
in
in
the
past
two
meetings:
new
roof
covering
all
or
substantially
all
of
a
building
or
a
structurally
independent
portion
of
a
building
and
or
significant
upgrade
to
the
foundation
of
all
or
substantially
all
of
a
building
or
a
structurally
independent
portion
of
a
building,
including
seismic
retrofits
and
or
newer
substantially
new,
plumbing
electrical
heating
ventilation
and
air
conditioning
system
for
all
or
substantially
all
of
a
building
and
or
exterior
painting
or
replacement
of
siding
on
all
or
substantially
all
of
a
building
and
or
repairs
reasonably
related
to
correcting
and
are
preventing
the
spread
of
defects,
which
are
noted
as
findings
in
a
wood,
destroying
pest
and
organisms,
inspection
report
and
or
the
installation
of
water
conservation
devices
intended
to
reduce
the
use
of
water
or
energy
efficient
devices
such
as
solar
roof
systems
and
or
improvements
that
or
upgrades
to
the
rental
unit
or
the
building
complex
that
meet
or
exceed
disability
and
accessibility
standards,
as
required
by
law.
F
So
those
are
the
the
only
categories
of
improvements
that
are
allowed
in
this
petition,
and
then
we
have
our
amortization
schedule,
which
provides
guidance
to
petitioners
on
what
will
be
allowed.
But
the
hearing
officer
still
has
the
ability
to
allow
for
additional
improvements
that
might
fall
outside
of
these
specific
items.
So
the
categories
are
really
the
the
big
overarching
umbrella.
So
it's
kind
of
like
you,
have
the
the
big
roof
of
the
qualifications,
which
are
what
are
in
the
definitions
in
chapter
six.
F
So
they
all
the
capital
improvement.
Petitions
have
to
be
items
that
are
necessary
to
bring
the
property
or
covered
rental
unit
into
compliance
or
to
maintain
compliance
with
applicable
building
or
housing
codes,
and
they
must
primarily
benefit
the
tenant
rather
than
the
landlord,
and
they
must
be
permanently
affixed
in
place
or
relatively
immobile
and
have
a
useful
life
of
more
than
five
years
and
appreciably
prolong
the
useful
life
of
the
property
and
not
be
excluded
pursuant
to
chapter
six
subsection
c3.
F
Green
building
standards
is
codified
in
chapter
4,
residential,
mandatory
measures
of
part
11
of
title
24
of
the
california
code
of
regulations
and
any
required
seismic
upgrades
required
by
local
or
state
codes
as
each
may
be
amended
or
revised.
So
this
has
been
our
text
for
a
very
long
time
and
then
primarily
benefit
the
tenant.
Have
a
useful
life
of
more
than
five
years
and
be
permanently
fixed
in
place
are
relatively
immobile.
So
that
is
always
the
capital
improvement
definition
for
these
ones.
F
For
and-
and
we
have
very
specific
exclusions
as
well
so
capital
improvements
cannot
be
costs
of
additions
or
modifications
of
a
physical
feature
or
portions
of
additions
or
modifications
that
could
have
been
avoided
by
a
landlord's
exercise
of
reasonable
diligence
in
maintaining
and
making
timely
repairs.
After
the
landlord
knew,
or
should
reasonably
have
known
of
the
problem
that
caused
the
damage
leading
to
the
additional
modification,
they
cannot
be
for
the
use
or
installation
of
the
landlord's,
personal
appliance
furniture
or
other
items
that
are
inherited
or
borrowed.
F
They
cannot
be
ordinary
or
routine
repair
replacement
or
maintenance
to
a
covered
rental
unit
or
property
containing
a
covered
rental
unit.
So
this
is
an
important
one
this
and
then
they
can't
be
over
improvements,
for
example,
replacing
the
standard
bathtub
with
the
jacuzzi
bathtub
unless
the
tenant
approved
the
improvement
in
writing.
Pursuant
to
a
joint
petition,
this
is
updated
for
the
joint
petition
process.
F
The
improvement
brought
the
coverage
rental
unit
up
to
current
building
or
housing
codes,
or
the
improvement
was
necessary
to
meet
california
green
building
standards
or
the
improvement
did
not
cost
more
than
a
substantially
equivalent
replacement.
So
the
only
change
in
this
portion
of
this
regulation
is
this
here
that
I've
highlighted
on
the
screen
unless
the
tenant
approved
the
improvement
in
writing.
Pursuant
to
a
joint
petition
pursuant
to
subsection
l
below,
nothing
else
has
changed
in
this
for
the
capital
improvement
petitions
that
we're
discussing
tonight.
F
F
A
Shaking
head
shaking
head
see
four
shaking
three
shaking
heads:
all
right:
we're
gonna
go
to
public
comment,
then
all
right
would
any
member
on
the
line
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raised
hand
button
in
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
staff
will
keep
time
and
announce
when
one
minute
remains
all
right.
We
have
a
hand,
wonderful,
so
ed
keating.
N
N
It
asks
to
trust
the
tenant
and
the
landlord
to
work
things
out
more
than
the
current
chapter
six
allows
in
the
joint
petition.
You
don't
want
things
to
be
done
under
the
table.
If
there's
a
more
substantial
improvement
that
the
tenant
wants
and
it
the
landlord
is
willing.
If
they're
paid
right
away,
then
that'll
be
a
check
directly
from
the
tenant
to
the
landlord
and
you'll
never
know
about
it.
So
I
don't
know
it
just
seems.
N
N
So
and,
as
we
all
know
where
we
all
have
been
very
transparent
in
our
conversations-
is
that
seismic
retrofits
are
not
currently
required.
N
They
may
be
in
the
future,
so
I
think
it's
worthwhile
to
authorize
staff
to
maintain
an
asterisk.
That
says
these
are
the
items
that
may
be
authorized
in
the
future
as
specified
capital
improvements,
but
not
currently,
because
they
are
not
currently
approved
by
code,
and
I
also
sent
a
timely
email
I
received
today
that
there
is
legislation
being
sought
at
the
state
level
to
have
some
triggers
for
adding
electric
car
chargers
at
apartments,
and
you
know
that's
certainly
something
that
many
apartment
dwellers
would
like
to
have.
N
So
I
hope
you
will
consider
my
text
suggestions,
perhaps
refer
them
to
whoever
will
be
finalizing
these
regulations
and
ask
them
to
incorporate
the
changes
if
they
feel
they
clarify
the
intent
of
this,
and
I
think
many
tenants
will
be
happy
to
have
the
joint
petition
process.
Thank.
P
A
Thank
you,
alexander
brown.
We
will
bring
it
back
to
the
committee,
so
any
motions
to
approve
should
include
reading
the
following
item
to
adopt
the
resolution
amending
chapter
8
upward
adjustment
regulations
regarding
specified
capital,
improvement,
petitions
and
joint
petition
for
new
and
additional
housing
services.
A
But
I
assume
that
there
might
be
some
discussion
first
so
who
wants
to
go?
First.
A
I
guess
I'll
start
with
what
edie
mentioned
about
an
asterisk
on
the
capital.
Improvement
thing
is
that
that
should
be
easy
to
act.
I
like
I
say
it
should
be,
but
I
don't
know.
F
I'm
actually
going
into
explicitly
for
staff
to
go
into
all
of
the
applicable
state,
and
local
and
federal
housing
codes
could
be
quite
cumbersome,
which
is
why
we
have
left
those
items
in
in
the
previous
amortization
schedule
and
provided
guidance
to
petitioners
throughout
the
process
for
the
mnoi
petitions.
F
Obviously,
for
big
items
where
we
definitely
know
the
that
that
it
is
absolutely
not
yet
applicable,
we
can.
We
can
do
that.
We
were
planning
on
making
a
guide
and
providing
guidance,
as
requested
by
the
rhc
in
previous
meetings,
to
support
this
petition
during
the
process,
and
that
was
where
what
staff
was
leaning
toward.
A
D
A
So
one
another
question:
I
have
the
public
commenter
edie
sent
us
an
email
with
a
bunch
of
edits.
Has
staff
looked
at
that.
G
Yes,
we
have
gone
through
those
edits,
I'm
pulling
them
up
right
now.
I
had
them
open.
If
you
just
want
to
run
through
them,
we
can
go
through
them
pretty
quickly.
G
So
the
first
comment
was
to
change
the
language
in
one
of
the
opening
paragraphs
from
additionally
to.
Alternatively,
we
actually
don't
think
that
is
an
appropriate
change,
because
it's
not
one
or
the
other.
G
There
could
be
property
owners
that
do
a
maintenance
and
operating
petition
and
then
later
do
a
specified
capital
improvement
petition,
and
the
use
of
the
word,
alternatively,
could
lead
to
a
determination
that
they
can't
do
that
comment
two
was
to
remove
some
language
from
the
definition
of
capital
improvement,
in
particular
the
exclusion
language
under
over
improvement,
the
language
that
the
suggested
removed,
the
language
that
was
suggested
to
be
removed
is
actually
what
is
currently
in
your
regulations,
and
we
do
think
it's
helpful
just
to
clarify
over
improvement
issues.
G
Comment
three.
I
think
that
patricia
addressed.
I
think
this
was
a
little
bit
of
a
misunderstanding.
The
categories
so
to
be
a
specified
capital
improvement.
The
capital
improvement
must
fit
with
within
one
of
those
categories
listed
on
appendix
b,
and
then
the
specific
list
of
items
are
potentially
items
that
fit
in
those
categories.
G
Comment
four
is,
I
think,
a
question
for
the
rhc.
There
is
currently
a
five
percent
of
one
month's
rent
limitation
on
a
one-time
pass-through.
The
rhc
may
want
to
consider
increasing
that
amount.
Based
on
that
comment
comment
five.
I
think
once
again
as
a
policy
decision
for
the
rhc.
G
What
the
regulations
currently
say
is
if,
in
a
joint
petition,
the
tenant
and
the
landlord
agree
on
an
improvement
that
the
tenant
wants,
that
it
would
be
subject
to
the
amortization
schedules
that
apply
to
other
capital
improvements,
but
that
is
a
policy
decision
and
whether
you
want
to
continue
that
comment.
Six
was
whether
language
in
appendix
b
should
be
deleted.
That
language
says
additionally,
capital
improvements
that
adhere
to
the
above
qualifications
and
also
improve
the
environmental
sustainability
of
the
property,
while
reducing
cost
attendance
may
be
considered.
G
G
This
language
doesn't
necessarily
add
a
lot,
but
it
does
keep
environmental
sustainability
sort
of
at
in
the
consciousness
of
everyone.
Should
those
items
become
subject
to
code
and
then
comment?
Seven,
I
think,
we've
already
discussed.
There
are
items
on
the
list
that
may
not
be
required
by
code
right
at
the
moment,
but
in
the
future
maybe
and
would
be
continued
to
be
listed
so
that
what
we
had
just
addressing
it.
For
that.
A
Yep,
okay,
I
guess
the
only
one
when
you
mentioned
it
was
a
policy
decision.
I
believe
was
comment.
Four
everything
else
seemed
to
have
been
explained
already.
A
So
I
have
a
hand
raised
by
committee
member
hayes,
livesay.
D
Instead,
that
being
said,
if
it's
going
to
kill
the
overall
deal
to
take
that
five
percent
cap
off,
I
just
don't
think
it's
worth
it.
I
think
everyone
can
just
go
with
the
amortization
approach.
Instead,
if
they
really
want
to
make
an
agreement,
I
I
think
that
there
are
a
few
landlords
who
are
going
to
say.
D
A
L
A
Steph,
can
you
share
that
on
the
screen?
It
should
be
from
the
staff.
A
F
Karen,
can
we
go
with
the
simplified
yep
yep.
G
A
O
A
Side
we
finally
did
it
all.
Congratulations
all
right.
So,
let's
move
on
we're
going
to
skip
8.3
and
8.4
to
council
staff
committee
reports.
So
we
have
a
staff
presentation
on
monthly
activity
report
february
2021.
F
Good
evening
committee
members,
I'm
getting
I'm
sure
ready
to
stop
hearing
me
talk.
We
have
an
update
on
the
monthly
status
report
for
february
of
2021,
and
this
is
just
a
high
level
overview.
We'll
do
the
in-depth
one
for
the
end
of
the
quarter,
which
is
next
we'll
be
presented
at
the
next
committee
meeting.
F
So
we
had
576
public
inquiries
made.
We
will
see
a
difference
in
a
substantial
increase
in
this
number
in
march,
because
we
will
be
reporting
on
all
of
the
work.
Your
csfra
rent
stabilization
program
staff
does
with
public
inquiries
as
well
right
now.
This
information
is
only
compiled
from
the
mountain
view.
Rental
housing
helpline
so
just
keep
in
mind
that
next
month
this
will
look
substantially
different
because
you'll
be
receiving
our
data.
F
For
the
first
time
we
have
and
21
of
all
inquiries
were
in
need
of
bilingual
support
and
as
far
as
public
inquiry
topics
go
right
now
you
still
see
other
csfra
topics
as
our
biggest
bucket
here.
That
has
to
do
right
now,
with
landlord
registrations
primarily,
and
we
are
receiving
quite
a
few
inquiries
about
eviction,
protections
and.
F
Rent
relief
and
people
who
are
unable
to
pay
rent
related
to
cobit
19.,
we've
held
20
workshops
through
the
end
of
february,
and
this
does
not
include
our
eviction,
moratorium
workshops
and
we've
had
166
attendees.
All
of
this
has
been
virtual.
We've
held
31
clinics,
we
held
them
every
friday.
Now
our
office
hours
are
every
friday
and
we
will
have
our
first
one
tomorrow
in
the
morning
for
small
property
owners.
So
we
do
have
some
people
signed
up,
so
we're
hopeful
that
we'll
get
some
more
contact
with
our
small
property
owners.
F
This
way,
we've
pushed
out
three
mailings
and
had
23
email
updates
this
year.
So
far,
11
mountain
view,
voice
ads
and
we've
reached
550
contacts
through
our
email
subscribers
there
have
been
86,
mediations
and
conciliations
with
75
of
those
being
resolved.
We
have
seven
that
are
still
pending
for
require,
noticing
we've
received
418
termination
notices,
the
bulk
of
those
are
failure
to
pay
rent
notices
again.
F
This
is
you
see
that
increase
there,
because
the
eviction
moratorium
before
q2
of
20
2021
restricted
landlords
from
giving
those
notices
and
they
have
to
give
them
now
for
their
tenants
to
be
covered
by
the
statewide
eviction
moratorium.
F
F
However,
nothing
compared
to
what
we
saw
in
the
past
before
sv330,
and
there
are
three
properties
on
the
market
for
our
mnoi
consumer
price
index.
You
can
see
here
that
there
is,
as
mentioned,
when
reviewing
the
consumer
price
index
in
the
past.
There
is
more
volatility
in
the
market
for
the
rent
index.
It
has
stabilized
for
lack
of
a
better
word.
It's
not
dropping
substantially,
but
it's
also
not
increasing
at
this
time,
like
we
had
seen
an
increase
in
the
past,
and
we
do
want
to
mention
that
a
newsletter
four
page
newsletter.
F
B
All
right,
so
I
just
wanted
to
talk
just
briefly
about
the
rent
registry
and
the
fees,
because
we
are
still
sort
of
in
the
middle
of
trying
to
get
the
word
out
and
get
people
to
register
their
properties
online.
B
But
to
date,
we've
had
a
total
of
239
properties
register
so
that
it's
about
34
of
our
csf
rate
covered
properties,
and
that
makes
up
over
6
000
of
our
units.
So
that's
44
percent
of
our
total
units.
So
you
can
see
since
last
time
we
gave
the
numbers
out.
Some
of
our
bigger
properties
have
finished
their
registration
and
submitted
that
to
us.
B
B
We
have
17
properties
that
are
registered
as
exempt,
and
those
are
mostly
our
government
subsidized
properties,
which
is
one
or
two
being
properties
that
were
built
after
the
csf
rate,
went
into
effect
and
then
just
a
quick
note
here
on
how
many
fees
we've
collected.
So
far,
so
we
have
1
million
75
000
so
far
collected,
which
is
about
85
of
our
fees.
So,
as
usual,
we're
doing
well
in
that
department
and
we
are
still
working
with
our
finance
department
to
update
incorrect
addresses
and
send
out
any
delinquent
reminders
to
people.
A
On
that,
I
do
have
a
quick
question:
are
we
getting
fees
paid
by
people
who
still
haven't
registered
like
we?
We
do
have
some
sense
of
contact
information
for
them.
Have
they
given
a
reason,
or
we
just
have
been
unable
to
get
a
response.
B
So
definitely
we've
had
fees
paid
by
people
who
haven't
registered
and
we
do,
of
course
send
out
with
it
mentions
it
in
a
couple
places
on
on
the
fee
invoice
itself
and
we
send
out
sort
of
like
an
information
sheet
with
the
invoice
that
mentions
it.
So
they
get
it
kind
of
twice
in
the
same
spot.
I
haven't
had
any
any
contact
with
any
landlords
who
are
just
flat
out
refusing
to
do
it.
I'm
thinking
it's
more
that
they're
not
reading
the
information
that
we're
providing
there.
B
So
we
were
hoping
that
maybe
the
newsletter
providing
the
information
in
different
ways
right,
newsletters
we've
sent
out
postcards
so
different
things
to
try
to
catch
people's
attention
is
what
we're
trying
to
do,
but
a
lot
of
the
people.
We
only
have
a
mailing
address.
We
don't
have
email
or
phone
numbers
to
reach
out
to
them,
so
we're
limited
somewhat
in
that
way
that
we
can
reach
out.
A
B
Aspect,
I
know
we
had
this
discussion
with
you
all.
I
can't
remember
exactly
when
and
we
sort
of
landed
on,
at
least
for
the
the
fee,
that
we
would
send
out
just
sort
of
a
gentle
reminder
notice
and
we
will
start
adding
in
that
one
percent
a
month
fee
for
the
invoice
is
not
being
paid
through
our
finance
department.
But
at
this
point
that's
all
we
have
permission
to
do
from
the
committee
and
I
and
I
think,
we're
at
least
for
the
fee.
B
You
know
we're
getting
to
a
point
where
they've
a
lot
of
landlords-
it's
been
around
for
a
while,
so
I
think
it
might
be
something
you
would
all
want
to
consider
again-
and
I
know
for
probably
for
property
registration,
we're
still
really
trying
to
get
the
word
out
and
push
that
this
is
something
that
is
required,
since
that
is
very,
very
new,
and
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
bigger
push
for
our
landlords.
A
L
Thank
you
yeah.
I
was
just
wondering
andrea
where
for
last
year,
where
did
we
net
out
on
percentage
attainment?
I
guess
of
of
fees
paid.
B
B
L
Okay
and
to
some
of
the
85,
are
they
also
you
know?
Do
we've
been
recording
the
one
percent
fee
for
some
landlords
since
last
year,
yeah
our?
I
guess
how
much
of
that
85
the
portion
who
haven't
paid
from
last
year,
so
I
haven't
paid
paid
this
year.
B
So
the
85
is
just
looking
at
the
current
year
repayment.
So
that's
not
taking
into
consideration
any
of
the
past
years,
people
who
have
not
paid,
but
we
are
if
they
haven't
paid
last
year
when
we're
sending
out
our
delinquent
notices
for
them
this
year,
we're
including
their
prior
bills
and
those
are
accumulating,
play
fees.
L
Okay,
great
yeah,
I
mean
yeah,
I
would
be
open,
as
other
members
have
mentioned,
I'd
be
open
to
figuring
out
how
we're
going
to
handle
that.
D
The
the
registration
in
the
in
the
database,
I
believe
we
said,
and
I
could
be
wrong,
it's
late.
So
if
I'm
wrong
just
correct
me,
I
believe
we
said
that
that
was
going
to
represent
non-compliance
and
impact
the
ability
to
take
the
aga
after
march.
1St,
that's
correct:
have
we
thought
about
ensuring
I'm
trying
to
think
of
how
to
do
this,
but
I
feel
like
we
get
a
bit
of
press
coverage
in
the
agenda
leading
up
to
the
setting
of
the
aga
every
year.
B
Yeah,
I
think
that's
definitely
a
good
idea
and-
and
it's
important
for
both
landlords
to
know
that
and
tends
to
know
that.
So
we've
been
mentioning
that
when
we're
mentioning
registration
in
general
because
our
pro
our
program
really
is
complaint
based
in
a
way.
So
we're
not
going
to
know
unless
the
tenants
even
know
that
this
is
something
that's
not
allowed
right.
So
they
can't
bring
it
to
us.
Otherwise,.
F
And
we,
the
staff,
is
planning
in
our
june
newsletter
to
which
usually
has
the
aga
in
it
to
make
sure
that
that
information
is
stated.
We
always
include
in
that
section.
You
know
this
is
what
the
aga
is
going
to
be
and
you
it
can't.
You
can't
have
your
rent
increased
if
you
know
you're,
not
in
compliance
with
the
law,
your
unit's,
not
in
compliance
with
the
law,
so
hopefully
that
will
help
too
and
we'll
we'll
add
that
into
the
list
of
reasons
for
non-compliance.
F
F
All
right
we'll
go
over
it
really
quickly.
As
you
know,
there's
an
eviction
moratorium
in
place
does
not
end
until
june
30th.
No
one
can
be
evicted
for
not
paying
their
rent
due
to
covet
19.
At
this
point,
we've
provided
the
details
on
that,
so
I'm
not
going
to
provide
them
again
tonight.
If
you'd
like
to
join
us,
we
will
have
workshops
covering
this
topic.
We
have
two
coming
up
next
week,
one
on
march
30th
that
is
specifically
geared
toward
landlords
and
one
that
is
specifically
geared
toward
tenants.
F
The
tenant
one
is
bilingual
and
we
will
be
providing
information
on
the
various
rent
relief
programs
that
have
just
been
released
from
the
state
and
the
county,
as
well
as
our
own
rent
relief
program
through
the
city
of
mountain
view,
and
just
to
give
a
quick
overview.
As
I
mentioned
there
is
now-
and
this
is
on
our
website
for
the
eviction
moratorium.
There
is
now
a
california
coven
19,
rent
relief
program
for
landlords
to
apply
for
tenants
can
apply
for
it
as
well.
F
Pay
for
both
past
due
rent
and
future
payments
for
rent
and
utilities,
tenants
and
landlords
are
able
to
apply
for
the
assistance
through
the
program
and
landlords
and
tenants
can
check
their
eligibility
and
apply
at
housing
is
key.com
or
they
can
call
this
phone
number
on
the
screen
to
learn
more
tenants.
Must
income
qualify
and
be
financially
pan
impacted
by
the
pandemic?
They
have
to
make
80
or
less
of
the
area
median
income,
but
tenants
are
who
make
fifty
percent
of
the
area
income
area
median
income
or
less
are
prioritized.
F
So
this
is
similar
to
the
mountain
view
program
requirements.
It's
an
extensive
application.
The
landlord
application
part
is
nine
pages.
The
tenant
application
part
is
36.,
so
we
definitely
are
providing
information
about
this
program
and
we
we
are
hosting
the
small
landlord
catch-ups
and
every
office
hour,
people
that
we
have
on
fridays.
Any
landlord
can
come
and
join
us
and
we
will
help
them
kind
of
start
the
process
rolling
and
see
how
we
can
help
them
as
much
as
possible.
Project
sentinel
is
doing
a
lot
of
work
around
this
as
well.
F
The
county
is
about
to
have
a
program
too,
to
help
distribute
1.5
billion
dollars
in
rent
relief,
and
that
is
for
very
low
income
eligible
tenants.
I
think
it's
30
of
the
area
in
median
income
or
less
that
program
will
be
released.
We're
thinking
we'll
get
more
details
out
about
it
tomorrow
at
from
the
board
of
supervisors
meeting
and
then
we'll
start
being
able
to
promote
what
their
actual
website
is
and
application
processes
as
soon
as
possible.
So
our
materials
are
being
updated
to
reflect
these
programs.
F
Also,
we
have
the
community
services
agency
that
has
rent
relief
programs,
including
the
city
of
mountain
view's,
coven
19,
rent
relief
program
and
we're
looking
at
some
additional
ways
to
assist
in
in
that
application
process.
For
the
mountain
view,
one
and
tenants
must
income
qualify.
The
rental
assistance
is
paid
directly
to
the
landlord
for
these
programs
and
tenants
who
are
interested
need
to
email,
renthelp
csacares.org.
F
Additionally,
there's
the
homelessness
prevention
system,
which
provides
rental
and
legal
assistance
for
households
at
very
high
risk
of
homelessness
and
the
rental.
The
homeless
prevention
system
is
going
to
be
the
main
distributor
of
that
big
bulk
of
funds
that
I
just
mentioned
that
the
county
will
be
distributing
to
tenants.
F
So
the
federal
monies
cannot
be
distributed
to
governmental
entities
that
are
less
than
200
000
people,
which
is
why
mountain
view
won't
receive
its
own
allocation
and
funding
for
that
big
program.
Tenants
will
have
to
apply
through
the
county's
portal
and
san
jose.
F
San
jose
would
have
received
its
own
funding,
but
they
decided
to
become
part
of
this
bigger
county
consortium
with
their
funds,
so
every
tenant,
that's
eligible
in
the
county,
will
apply
through
that
one
portal,
and
then
there
is
mortgage
relief
available
for
landlords.
We
actually
have
a
hud
certified
mortgage
counseling
workshop
tomorrow
at
three.
F
F
Next,
we
still
have
the
utility
relief
program
for
attendance
who
qualify
any
resident,
who
qualifies
actually
in
the
city
of
mountain
view,
can
receive
that
fifty
dollar
one-time
credit
for
those
utility
bills
that
the
city
covers,
and
then
this
is
what
our
month
of
workshops
looks
like
in
addition
to
those
eviction,
moratorium
and
rent
relief,
webinars
we're
also
running
these
workshops.
Like
I
mentioned,
we
have
the
one
at
four
o'clock
tomorrow
for
mortgage
counseling
and
financial
assistance.
We
have
one
on
on
thursday
at
three
for
property
registration.
F
We
have
one
on
april
1st
for
rental
protections
in
mountain
view.
That's
seniors
focused,
and
we
have
one
on
april
15th
for
maintaining
habitability
for
landlords,
and
we
have
our
virtual
office
hours
every
friday
from
1
to
3
p.m,
and
a
virtual
coffee
catch
up
with
small
landlords.
F
A
I
don't
see
any
questions
or
hands
raised,
so
thank
you,
miss
patricia,
and
I
guess
if
there
is
nothing
else,
I'm
going
to
call
the
meeting
to
adjourn.
So
this
meeting
is
adjourned
at
10
06
pm.
The
next
rental
housing
committee
meeting
is
scheduled
to
be
held
on
monday
april.
19Th
2021
at
7
pm
have
a.