►
Description
Live teleconference meeting of the Mountain View Rental Housing Committee Meeting scheduled for Monday, June 28, 2021.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
B
D
A
A
Not
seeing
any
is
there
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes.
A
Okay,
andre,
you
want
to
call
the
way
for
the
promotion.
B
A
Okay,
that
was
easy,
we'll
go
to
oral
communications,
we'll
now
open
the
meeting
for
oral
communications
from
the
public.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
committee
on
any
matter,
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
A
A
I
don't
see
any
hands
raised.
Do
you
andrew
one
hand
raised
by
mr
goldstein?
Okay,
mr
goldstein
go
ahead.
F
Thank
you
for
giving
me
your
attention.
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
point
regarding
the
current
news
in
florida
with
regards
to
that
condo
collapse.
F
At
this
point
of
time,
I'm
involved
with
another
issue
that
is
very
similar
to
that
scenario,
and
what
I'm
thinking
about
is
that
currently
at
this
point
in
time,
there
simply
is
no
proactive
work
being
done
regarding
safety
of
apartment
buildings
and
or
rentals
in
the
city
of
mountain
view,
and
so
what
I'm
suspecting
is
that
there
is
probably
a
wide
range
of
issues
regarding
structural
safety
of
the
current
stock
of
apartments
here
and
at
this
point
of
time,
I'm
simply
saying
it
may
be
very
important
to
actually
hire
an
independent
maintenance
inspection
company
by
for
the
rit
to
provide
proactive
inspections
of
all
the
apartments,
so
that
one
it
could
be
used
as
evidence
to
support
that
the
apartments
are
being
properly
maintained
so
that
any
rent
reductions
petitions
could
be
in
effect,
nullified
because
there'd
be
evidence
to
prove
that
there
was
good
maintenance
or
two.
F
It
could
be
a
case
of
this.
It
could
end
up
being
evidence
to
show
that
maintenance
has
not
been
performed
in
apartments,
and
at
that
point
then
it
would
in
effect
also
be
able
to
be
used
to
communicate
to
the
tenants
of
those
apartments
to
say
hey.
We
have
discovered
this
issue
here
and
you
should
be
notified
of
it
because
it's
it's
an
issue
of
your
safety,
and
so
all
I'm
saying
is
at
this
point.
F
I
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
for
the
rhc
to
actually
hire
out
a
independent
auditor
so
that
all
the
rental
units
are
in
fact
being
maintained
properly
and
thus
also
proactively
giving
landlords
the
information
necessary
to
get
their
buildings
up
to
proper
code
or
up
to
standard
so
that
they
can
in
effect
defend
themselves
from
rent
reduction
to
petitions,
which
in
this
case
they
are,
I
think,
very
vulnerable.
At
this
point
of
time.
F
I
again
I've
sent
a
example,
video
of
some
information
that
I've
been
able
to
provide,
and
I'm
thinking
that
it's
not
a
isolated
incident
and
I
think,
with
the
issue
of
the
florida
condo
complex
collapsing
and
similar
problems
that
can
be
detected
here.
I
say
at
this
point
in
time
it's
very,
very
important
to
get
that
underway
so
that
we
can
avoid
a
likely
similar
situation
here.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
C
A
And
bear
with
me,
I
have
a
lot
to
read
here:
the
rental
housing
committee
in
hearing
the
appeal
is
acting
in
a
clay-side
judicial
fashion
and
will
conduct
the
hearing
in
accordance
with
these
standards.
This
hearing
is
being
held
pursuant
to
section
1711
j
of
the
csfra
and
chapter
5,
section
h
of
the
regulations
adopted
by
the
rhc
in
accordance
with
section
1711
of
the
csf.
A
any
party
to
a
petitioner
who
disagrees
with
the
hearing
officer's
decision
may
appeal
to
the
full
rhc
for
review.
A
In
this
case
the
petitioner
ananda
church
of
self-realization
of
palo
alto
filed
for
a
downward
adjustment
of
rent
and
the
respondents.
The
property
owner
submitted
an
appeal.
Accordingly,
the
property
owner
is
referred
to
as
the
respondent
and
will
present.
First,
the
hearing
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
set
forth
in
chapter
5
of
the
regulations.
A
A
A
Upon
conclusion
of
both
the
presentations,
each
party
will
be
given
up
to
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal
with
the
respondent
presenting
rebuttal.
First
upon
conclusion
of
the
party's
rebuttal,
the
rhc
members
will
be
given
a
chance
to
ask
questions
of
staff
first
and
then
of
the
respondent
and
the
petitioner.
A
A
Rhc
members
are
required
to
disclose
any
communications
they
have
had
with
any
of
the
parties
to
the
petition
or
the
party's
representatives
and
the
substance
of
those
communications
since
the
date
that
the
petition
was
filed,
the
decision
of
the
rhc
is
to
be
based
on
the
record
presented
to
the
hearing
officer.
Information
disclosed
to
an
rhc
member
that
is
not
part
of
the
record
is
not
to
be
considered
in
the
hearing.
A
Disclosed
okay,
I'm
not
hearing
or
seeing
anybody,
so
I'm
gonna
go!
Go
on
we'll
now
proceed
with
the
hearing.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
are
not
parties
to
the
petition?
Who
would
like
to
speak?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone.
The
speech
timer
will
be
displayed
on
the
screen.
You
will
each
be
given
3
minutes.
A
D
Yes,
so
good
evening,
everyone,
I'm
gonna,
walk
you
through
both
the
procedures
for
this
appeal
here
and
then
also
the
appeal
itself
and
the
tentative
decision
that
has
been
provided
to
all
of
you.
So,
as
I
said,
we're
first
going
to
go
through
the
process,
we're
going
to
also
go
through
the
schedule.
This
has
been
a
lengthy
procedural
matter,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody's
aware
of
the
procedures
and
then
I'll
go
through
the
petition
and
the
appeal
and
the
decision
summary
next
slide.
D
D
D
There's
a
couple
reasons
not
to
recommend
a
de
novo
review.
First
of
all,
there's
been
extensive
hearings
on
the
evidentiary
matters.
In
this
petition,
the
evidence
is
pretty
voluminous,
as
you
saw
from
the
record
to
reopen
the
hearing
and
do
a
full
evidentiary
review
would
require
quite
a
bit
of
time
and
preparation
for
the
rhc
and
then
finally,
in
this
case,
unlike
a
lot
of
other
cases,
although
there
is
a
lot
of
evidence
in
the
record,
most
of
the
elements
on
appeal
are
really
legal
issues
rather
than
evidentiary
issues.
D
There
are
some
evidentiary
issues
linked
to
those
legal
issues,
but
for
the
most
part,
the
evidence
there's
no
need
for
additional
evidence
in
this
record
at
this
moment
next
slide
please.
D
So
I
just
want
to
go
over
the
scope
of
the
decision
and
the
scope
of
your
appeal
hearing
and
what
issues
you
can
consider.
So
when
we
have
a
petition,
the
petition
defines
the
scope
as
a
hearing
officer
decision.
D
D
Those
may
be
issues
that
would
have
been
interesting
to
consider,
but
if
they
weren't
raised
by
either
of
the
parties
they're,
not
the
proper
subject
matter
of
this
appeal,
so
we're
really
limited
to
what
was
appealed
and
addressing
those
matters
wholly
on
the
appeal
next
slide.
Please
so
we've
gone
over
this
before,
but
just
to
go
over
it
again,
just
so
we're
all
clear
on
the
process.
D
That
decision
is
what
gets
appealed
when
a
decision
is
appealed.
You,
as
the
rental
housing
committee,
have
a
couple
of
options.
You
can
affirm
or
modify
that
decision
and
that
would
give
us
a
final
decision
depending
on
whether
you
affirm
or
modify,
or
you
can't
always
remand
the
decision
back
to
the
hearing
officer.
Although
we're
not
recommending
that
tonight
once
there
is
a
final
decision
that
either
of
the
parties
can
challenge
the
decision
in
court,
but
only
once
there
is
a
final
decision.
D
So
if
there
is
a
remand
like
the
last
appeal
hearing,
we
had
we
had
a
remand
that
decision
wasn't
final
and
so
until
it
became
final,
it
couldn't
be
challenged
in
court.
If
there
is
a
remand,
there
is
a
possibility
that
there
could
be
other
appeals,
so
this
process
can
continue
through
several
rounds.
D
D
The
petitioner
will
then
be
given
10
minutes
for
a
presentation.
The
respondent
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
rebut,
and
then
the
petitioners
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
rebut
we'll
then
have
questions.
We
will
try
to
break
them
into
questions
for
staff,
questions
for
the
respondent
and
questions
for
the
petitioner
and
then
we'll
move
into
deliberations.
D
So,
as
I
mentioned,
this
has
been
a
fairly
lengthy
hearing
process.
The
petition
was
originally
filed.
In
august
there
was
a
pre-hearing
telephone
conference
held
in
october.
At
that
pre-hearing
telephone
conference.
It
became
clear
that
there
were
some
questions
as
to
the
application
of
the
csfra
to
this
petition
and
to
the
party's
relationship
and
the
parties
with
the
hearing
officer
came
to
the
agreement
that
there
would
be
a
hearing
on
a
motion
to
dismiss
filed
by
the
respondent.
D
D
An
evidentiary
hearing
was
opened
on
january
28th.
Both
parties
presented
their
evidence.
It
was
a
lengthy
hearing.
D
The
hearing
officer
at
the
end
of
that
evidentiary
hearing
gave
the
parties
until
february
5th,
to
submit
additional
evidence
and
until
february
12th,
to
submit
closing
arguments
based
on
the
additional
evidence
that
was
submitted.
There
was
a
dispute
between
the
parties
as
to
whether
the
additional
evidence
should
be
allowed
in
the
record.
D
So
on
february
12,
the
hearing
officer
held
another
telephone
conference
with
the
parties
to
discuss
the
additional
evidence
and
after
that
telephone
conference,
the
hearing
officer
issued
a
new
post-hearing
order.
Reopening
the
hearing
and
an
additional
evidentiary
hearing
was
held
on
march
3rd
to
discuss
the
new
evidence
that
had
been
presented.
D
D
The
unique
aspect
about
this
petition
is
the
petitioner
is
the
master
tenant
of
a
72
unit.
Building
the
petitioner,
then
sublets,
the
72
dwelling
units
to
individual
sub-tenants,
so
the
property
owner
or
the
respondent
appealed
the
hearing
officer's
decision.
D
So
the
first
issue
that
was
raised
by
the
respondent
was
that
the
property
owner
was
not
afforded
due
process,
because
the
petition
was
served
on
the
property
manager
and
just
so
everybody's
clear
respondent
is
the
property
manager,
as
identified
in
the
tentative
decision
and
property
owner
is
identified
as
the
property
owner.
D
The
master
lease
calls
for
all
notices
to
go
to
the
property
manager,
the
respondent
and
which
is
where
the
petition
was
served.
The
property
manager
is
also
the
manager
for
the
tenancy
in
common
that
owns
the
property
and
acts
as
their
agent.
D
So
the
next
part
of
the
appeal
and
the
decision
deals
with
really
the
significant
part
of
the
decisions
and
the
issue
that
was
the
subject
of
the
motion
to
dismiss,
and
that
issue
is:
does
the
csfra
actually
apply
to
this
relationship
between
the
respondent
and
the
petitioner?
D
So
the
relationship
between
the
property
owners
and
the
master
tenant?
The
respondent
argues
that
the
csfra
doesn't
apply
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
including
that
the
property
is
not
a
rental
unit.
The
master
lease
doesn't
call
for
the
payment
of
rent.
The
master
lease
is
into
rental
housing
agreement,
the
petitioner,
not
a
tenant,
the
property
owner
and
the
respondents
are
not
landlords
and
the
property
owner
and
the
respondents
do
not
provide
housing
services.
D
D
D
The
dispute
appears
to
be
whether
the
master
lease
is
for
residential
purposes,
because
the
master
lease
is
between
the
owner
group
and
the
petitioner,
which
is
a
corporation,
and
so
the
respondent
argues
that
the
petitioner
can't
reside
in
the
property
as
a
corporation
and
therefore
the
property
is
not
a
rental
unit.
There
isn't
any
requirement
in
the
csfra
that
for
residing
in
the
unit
and
if
you
go
through
the
decisions,
there's
quite
a
lengthy
discussion
of
what
it
means
to
use
or
occupy
property.
D
D
D
This
definition
doesn't
require
that
it
requires
user
occupancy
next
slide.
So,
for
the
reasons
we
just
discussed,
the
finding
in
the
tentative
is
that
the
property
in
the
master
lease
is
subject
to
the
csfra.
D
D
This
is
a
bit
of
a
challenging
argument.
In
terms
of
all
of
the
evidence,
the
property
is
owned
by
a
tenancy
in
common.
There
are
different
entities
that
own
a
portion
of
the
property
as
a
tenant
in
common.
D
There
is
some
evidence
in
the
records
introduced
by
the
respondent,
primarily
that
the
the
church
has
an
ownership
interest
in
some
of
those
entities,
but
even
the
respondent
acknowledges
that
at
best,
the
church's
interest
is
a
6.5
interest
in
the
property.
D
When
you
break
it
down
and
work
your
way
through,
the
various
entities
that
own
parts
of
the
property,
so
the
church
doesn't
have
a
controlling
interest
in
any
way
in
the
property,
and
additionally,
the
csfra
doesn't
really
say
that
a
tenant
can't
have
any
legal
or
equitable
interest
in
the
property
that
it
does
not
comport
with
the
definition
of
tenant,
and
it
is
clear
if
the
petitioner
had
a
controlling
interest
in
the
property
owner.
We
wouldn't
presumably
be
having
this
hearing
today
next
slide.
D
D
D
The
csfra
at
section
1713
prevents
a
waiver
as
a
matter
of
public
policy
and
as
discussed
in
the
tentative
decision,
the
estoppel
argument
is
really
not
supported
by
case
law
next.
D
D
D
But
the
hearing
officer
did
find
that
the
respondent
is
a
landlord
as
we've
discussed
earlier,
and
that
the
registration
requirements
in
chapter
11
require
landlords
to
register
their
covered
rental
units.
As
we've
discussed,
the
property
meets
that
definition.
D
The
hearing
officer
also
discussed
the
purposes
of
registration
which
are
in
part
to
communicate
with
the
landlord.
So,
although
the
property
is
already
registered
by
the
petitioner,
there
was
a
finding
that
the
landlord
also
needs
to
register
for
purposes
of
allowing
the
rental
housing
committee
staff
to
communicate
with
the
landlord
next
slide.
D
D
Their
argument
is
based
on
a
couple
premises,
one
that
the
rent
reduction
in
refund
will
cause
them
to
be
unable
to
maintain
a
fair
return
on
their
property,
that
they
are
entitled
to
a
vega
adjustment,
because
they've
kept
the
rents
unreasonably
low,
but
respondent
hasn't
provided
any
evidence
to
that
effect
and
respondent
has
not
filed
a
petition
for
an
upward
adjustment
which
would
be
the
proper
procedure.
D
Next
slide,
you
did
receive
from
the
respondent
a
response
to
the
tentative
decision.
The
response,
essentially,
is
that
the
application
of
the
csfra
to
this
relationship
doesn't
further
the
purposes
of
the
csfra.
D
A
G
G
As
the
honorable
ms
allman
stated
earlier,
the
property
owners
that
responded,
however,
uniquely
the
property
owners,
are
not
named
in
the
petition.
The
property
owners
are
not
named
in
the
order
after
hearing
and
the
property
orders
are
not
named
in
the
time
decision.
Enlightened
investment
inc
is,
and
so
it
raises
the
question
of
without
being
named.
How
do
the
owners
know
what
claims
are
against
them?
What
happens
if,
tomorrow,
the
owners
were
to
go
out
and
terminate
enlighten
investment
inc
as
a
property
manager?
G
G
The
purpose
of
the
csfra
is
to
promote
neighborhood
stability
and
affordability
of
renters
for
controlling
excessive
rent
increases
in
arbitrary
evictions.
It
was
implemented
to
address
a
specific
goal,
which
was
the
growing
growth
and
affordability
gap
between
incomes
and
rents
and
address
rent
increases
that
resulted
in
homelessness.
G
The
purpose
and
the
reason
it
was
implemented
in
the
goal
had
no
bearing
whatsoever
on
this
case.
Anon,
the
palo
alto
is
a
corporation,
not
a
person.
It
negotiated
with
the
owners
as
part
of
a
arm's
length
transaction
to
obtain
the
revised
master
release
for
which
it
makes
money.
It
makes
money
that
it
can
then
funnel
to
its
own
corporate
goods,
and
it
raises
the
question
of
how
far
do
we
go
on
this?
What
happens
if.
G
C
G
G
I
noted
in
the
time
that
there
was
a
concern
that
if
the
csfra
were
not
applied
to
the
revised
master
lease,
then
the
unit
or
the
property
owners
could
increase
the
rent
on
ananda
to
such
a
level
that
ananda
would
have
to
quit
the
lease
and,
as
a
result,
it
would
displace
the
72
individual
unit
owners.
Well,
that's
simply
not
true.
California
law
is
very
clear
that
if
you
take
over
for
release
or
if
you
take
over
the
property,
that
would
be
the
situation
here,
then
it
would
be.
G
G
The
next
issue,
I'd
like
to
touch
upon
is
the
estoppel
issue,
and
the
tentative
decision
noted
that
the
estoppel
issue
only
applies
in
cases
of
statute
limitations.
Well,
respectfully,
that's
just
wrong
as
a
matter
of
law.
The
doctrine
of
equitable
stoppal
applies
in
a
whole
bevy
of
cases,
for
example,
a
very
common
theme
in
which
it
happens
is
where
say,
you
have
individual
a
an
individual,
a
notices
that
individual
b
is
building
improvements
on
land.
G
That
individual
b
believes
belongs
to
him
in
reality,
individual
a
knows
that
that
land
belongs
to
him
individual
a
would
be
equally
as
stopped
from
claiming
ownership
over
those
improvements,
because,
even
though
individual
a
knew
the
facts,
as
they
stood,
failed
to
inform
individual
b
of
those
facts
and
allowed
individual
b
to
continue
to
act,
that's
essentially
what
happened
here.
It
is
uncontroverted
that
another
palo
alto
understood
and
knew
that
the
csfra
was
in
existence
at
the
time
it
was
negotiating
these
leases
with
the
owners-
and
I
know
there's
this
this
semblance.
G
This
was
something
that
was
negotiated
and
they
did
this
despite
knowing
that
the
csfra
was
in
existence
and
never
said
anything,
and
then
several
years
later
suddenly
claimed
application
of
the
csfra
which
has
damaged
our
client,
because
our
clients
obviously
did
not
hold
up
the
reserve
of
funds
that
they
needed
in
order
to
deal
with
this
issue,
they
planned
their
finances
and
moving
forward
based
on
what
the
rent
increases
were
for
that
year.
As
most
businesses
do.
G
G
There
is
the
argument
that
it's
not
procedurally
proper,
because
we
had
to
bring
a
separate
petitioner.
The
owners
had
to
bring
a
separate
petition
as
a
initial
matter.
That
is
contrary
to
standard
concepts
of
of
civil
litigation
and
the
law
in
that.
If
someone
brings
a
claim
against
you,
you
are
entitled,
as
a
form
of
defense,
to
assert
all
counter
claims
that
you
may
have.
In
fact,
you
are
often
required
to
do
so
so
when
they
brought
this
claim
against.
G
When
ananda
brought
this
claim
against
the
owners,
they
were
entitled
to
state
hold
on
a
second.
If
you
bring
this
claim
against
us,
you
are
seeking
a
rent
reduction
which
will
deprive
us
of
the
ability
of
a
fair
market
return
and
the
extent
that
we
should
have
brought
a
petition
for
the
ownership
of
the
petition
for
upward
adjustment.
How
could
they
have
done
that
until
there
actually
was
an
order
that
reduced
their
their
rental
income?
G
Until
that
point,
there
was
no
need
for
an
upward
rental
petition
and,
to
the
extent
that
there
is
not
a
record
of
this,
I
mean
part
of
that.
Respectfully
was
because
every
time
that
we
discussed
or
tried
to
raise
this
topic,
we
were
told
that
it
was
an
improper
form
to
do
so.
G
The
evidence
is
uncontroverted
that
when
ananda
palo
alto
initially
entered
into
the
revised
mass
release,
the
amount
of
rent
was
for
a
depressed
amount
that
did
not
match
fair
market
value,
and
if
you
look
at
some
of
the
documentary
evidence,
you
have
the
2
october
2015
rent
roll
from
anon
to
palo
alto
itself,
which
shows
that
they
were
charging
their
tenants
far
more
rent
than
the
map.
The
owners
were
charging
at
the
end
of
palo
alto.
I
would
also
note.
G
Brought
up
in
testimony
during
the
hearing
again
because
it
was
deemed
procedurally
out
of
place,
we
did
submit
into
the
record
the
owners
did
submit
into
the
record
their
operating
expenses
and
budgets,
for
I
believe
it
was
2015,
2016
2018
and,
I
believe
2019..
So
those
documentation
is
in
the
record
and
again
the
fact.
G
It's
sort
of
a
catch-22
on
one
hand:
there's
no
reason
for
us
to
create
a
petition
for
upward
adjustment
until
the
order
comes
in
and
then
on
the
other
hand,
we
can't
do
that
until
that
order
comes
in
we're
told
that
it's
procedurally
improper.
We
try
to
raise
that
as
a
completely
proper
affirmative
defense
and
to
require
two
different
petitions.
Frankly,
it's
a
waste
of
judicial
resources.
These
are
matters
that
should
be
heard
together
so
that
there
could
be
a
single
decision
that
gets
the
job
right
and
with
that
I'll
send
it.
A
I'll
get
better
at
that.
Okay,
it's
now
10
minutes
for
the
petitioner.
A
Let
me
see,
raise
your
hand
and
zoom
if
you'd
like
to
speak
and
staff,
will
temporarily
promote
you
to
a
panelist.
Please
introduce
yourself.
The
speech
timer
will
be
displayed
on
the
screen
and
you
will
have
10.
A
H
Good
evening
to
the
committee,
members
and
staff
council
and
the
parties
themselves,
of
course,
many
representatives
of
which
I
understand
are
participating
by
zoom.
My
name
is
emily,
charlie,
I'm
the
attorney
for
the
church,
which
is
the
original
petitioner.
H
Thank
you
first
for
the
opportunity
to
be
heard,
though
I
hope
to
not
take
up
too
much
of
your
time.
Indeed,
there
are
only
a
couple
of
arguments
made
by
council
for
the
owner
respondent,
to
which
I'd
like
to
respond.
First,
though,
I
believe
that
it
bears
noting
that
is
one
who
is
new
to
this
matter.
I
had
the
benefit
of
reviewing
the
hearing
officers,
two
decisions
with
a
fresh
eye.
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
care
the
hearing
officer
took.
H
Every
opportunity
was
afforded
to
ensure
the
record
was
complete
and
the
parties
were
fairly
heard.
I
frankly
do
not
believe
there
can
be
any
credible
argument
that
the
hearing
officer's
decisions
were
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
Excuse
me
next.
I
just
would
like
to
briefly
turn
to
the
arguments
offered
by
the
owner.
The
owner's
position
on
appeal
is
outlined
in
its
request
for
appeal,
and
those
were
the
same
arguments
presented
during
the
underlying
petition
review.
They
were
amply
considered
and
addressed
in
the
hearing
officers
decisions
as
well
as
in
this
committee's
tentative
decisions.
H
H
Embedded
in
this
argument
is
a
suggestion
in
the
suggestion
is
an
acknowledgment
that
the
individuals
are
indeed
residential
occupants
subject
to
the
protections
of
the
act.
But
then
the
suggestion
doubles
down
on
the
notion
that
the
intention
of
the
act
might
be
so
easily
thwarted
by
focusing
on
the
relationship
between
the
landlord
and
the
master
tenant
rather
than
the
property's
usage.
H
H
If,
for
example,
conjuring
up
something,
we
might
all
be
able
to
imagine,
a
college
student
is
a
master
tenant
in
a
premises
and
leaves
for
a
summer
abroad
and
sublets
to
a
friend
of
his
for
a
lesser
amount,
because
the
master
tenant
has
left
their
cat
or
some
other
situation
arises.
If
that
master
tenant
does
not
pay
the
rent
and
cannot
the
landlord
doesn't
evict
the
master
tenant
and
then
somehow
adopt
the
sub
lease
for
the
lower
amount
as
the
permitted
new
contractual
relationship.
H
H
Furthermore,
the
revised
lease
expressly
envisions
how
excess
rent
is
to
be
used
by
the
church
for
expenses
and
costs
for
which
the
church
is
responsible
and
those
include
renting
and
managing
the
residential
units,
repairing
and
repeat,
and
approving
the
units,
landscaping,
grounds,
maintenance
and
other
expenses
related
to
keeping
this
very
special
community.
Thriving.
H
However,
if
the
owner,
having
access
to
the
books,
believes
there
is
excess
rent
that
is
not
being
put
back
into
the
property
for
necessary
repairs
and
upkeep
and
wishes
to
make
a
claim
that
the
rent
charged
to
the
church
is
not
reflective
of
the
fair
return
the
act
provides.
A
remedy
for
that
is
that
the
owner
may
file
a
petition
seeking
an
upward
adjustment.
I
feel
confident.
No
such
upward
adjustment
is
warranted,
but
pursuing
that
option
exists
outside
of
this
appeal.
It
is
not
appropriate
here.
H
H
To
address
this
overpayment,
the
hearing
officer
permitted
the
church
to
not
pay
may
rent
and
to
take
a
reduction
in
june
rent.
However,
the
owner's
request
for
appeal
was
received
before
may,
rent
came
due
and
therefore
out
in
abundance
of
caution.
The
church
continued
to
pay
the
full
larger
sum
of
rent
it
was
being
charged
beforehand
and
from
which
the
church
had
originally
petitioned
that
amount
of
rent
was
134
500..
H
A
G
Thank
you.
I
will
be
brief.
I
want
to
address
first
the
assertion
that
new
arguments
have
been
raised
and
respectfully
I
disagree
with
that
contention.
These
are
issues
that
were
addressed
specifically
in
the
court
or
in
the
tenant
decision
on
appeal,
and
we
therefore
have
the
right
to
respond
to
them.
G
There
was
a
statement
in
the
attendant
decision
on
appeal
that
if
we
were
to
allow
ananda
palo
alto
to
if
we
were
to
increase
rents
to
such
an
extent
that
a
nanda
palo
alto
were
to
vacate,
it
would
result
in
a
displacement
of
the
unit
holders.
Our
position
is
a
direct
response
to
that
and
we
actually
submitted
that
in
our
supplemental
brief
on
appeal
to
to
this
tribunal
that
that
would
not
be
the
result.
I
disagree
with
respectfully
with
miss
charlie's
recitation
of
law.
G
I
believe
the
case
dci
properties
llc.
The
hill
is
directly
on
point
in
which
they
looked
at
the
use
of
successor
under
black
law
dictionary,
and
it
means
successor,
is
one
who
takes
the
place
after
another.
Well,
if
the
owners
were
to
terminate
the
lease
with
ananda
palo
alto,
then
they'd
clearly
take
their
place.
They
would
follow
after
nanda
palo
alto
and
would
be
subject
to
the
leases
of
the
sub-tenants,
and
I
I'm
not
with
any
law
that
says
otherwise.
G
I
also
want
to
respond
to
this
theory
because
also
raised
in
the
original
opposition
to
the
motion
to
dismiss
that.
If
we
would
allow
this
to
happen,
it
would
create
a
situation
in
which
landlords
would
form
straw.
Man,
corporations
solely
for
the
purpose
of
being
able
to
you
know,
terminate
all
their
sub-tenants
at
the
whims
end.
I
mean
as
an
initial
matter.
That's
not
the
case
here.
This
isn't
a
straw
man
corporation
that
has
joined.
I
mean
we
have
to
look
at
the
facts
that
are
in
the
record.
G
It
is
very
clear
that
in
on
the
palo
alto,
it
is
a
separate
standalone
corporation.
It
is
very
clear
that
the
revised
master
release
was
negotiated
and
arms.
It
was
an
arms
like
transaction.
Both
sides
were
sophisticated
and
it's
also
wrong,
because
there
clearly
would
be
a
remedy.
In
those
cases
it
would
be
fraud.
G
But
if
that
were
to
occur,
that
clearly
would
be
fraud,
and
I
believe
that
it
would
be
appropriate
for
a
a
tribunal,
in
that
case
defined
as
such
and
state
that
you
cannot
do.
That.
A
H
A
Okay,
rhc
members,
do
you
have
questions
for.
A
C
Good
evening
I
have
a
question
for
a
petitioner's
attorney.
Ms
charlie,
my
first
question
is
why,
if
the
these
units
are
clearly
covered
units
under
the
csfra,
why
did
the
petitioner
wait
so
many
years
before
filing
for
a
downward
adjustment.
H
Thank
you
for
that
question.
So
respectfully
I
I
assuming
this
is
going
to
a
waiver
argument
which
has
been
addressed
in
the
fact
that
it's
it's
not
the
obligation
of
the
petitioner
to
advise
accordingly
of
the
law,
but
also,
I
think
I
think
candidly
there
was
internal
discussions.
There
was
some
communion.
This
is
a
group,
a
very
was
cohesive
group
of
friends,
and
I
don't
believe
that
this
issue
had
come
up
earlier.
H
There
certainly
was
not
and
has
been
no
evidence
that
anybody
sat
on
their
hands
and
lured
another
party
into
believing
that
this
was
acceptable.
Behavior
oftentimes
parties
are
made
aware
of
their
rights
at
different
times
than
than
others
are,
and
they
promptly
brought
this
up
when
it
became
relevant
that
it
was
necessary
to
do
so-
and
I
hope
that's
answered
your
question-
it
might
seem
rather
vague.
This
has
been
a
very
long
relationship
and-
and
I
can,
I
can
simply
represent-
that
no
one
deliberately
sat
on
their
hands
on
this.
C
Some
of
what
we've
heard
is
that,
where
you've
got
a
statue
of
limitations,
issue
estoppel
might
might
apply.
But
if
you
don't
have
statute
limitations
issue,
then
estoppel
is
not
a
doctrine
that
comes
into
play.
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
are
you
aware
of
any
instances
where
an
estoppel
argument
can
be
made
even
when
there's
no
applicable
statute
of
limitations
at
issue.
H
I
like
that
question.
I
am,
however,
not
a
not
a
college
professor
on
this
one
I
do
believe
in
fairness
outside
of
the
equitable
collateral
estoppel.
I
do
think
I
have
seen
it
applied.
Nothing
comes
directly
to
mind
and
certainly
not
on
the
facts
here.
H
It's
not
appropriate,
but
any
lawyer
that
is
hoping
to
be
honest
would
have
a
hard
time
saying
that
something
has
never
happened,
but
it
certainly
is
not
applicable
here
and
you're
accurate
that
it's
linked
to
under
the
the
facts
here,
a
claim
of
statute
limitations,
which
has
not
been
made.
C
Okay
and
then
I
guess
my
my
final
question
is:
if
there
were
a
downward
adjustment
made
now,
would
there
be
any
direct,
direct
or
immediate
impact
on
the
rents
that
would
be
paid
by
these
72
or
so
individuals.
H
Are
you
asking
if
they
would
receive
if
there
would
be
a
pass
through
accommodating
or
providing
them
with
reduced
rent
as
well.
C
Well,
yeah,
I
guess
in
an
ordinary
circumstance
or
a
typical
situation
that
comes
before
us,
it's
very
clear-cut,
where
there's
a
downward
adjustment
and
there's
a
dollar
amount
that
clearly
very
clearly
is
going
to
be
set
forth
as
to
how
how
much
each
individual's
rent
is
going
to
be
affected.
And
so
I
guess
my
question
here,
because
I
know
the
facts
are
a
bit
more
complicated.
C
H
Certainly-
and
thank
you
for
that
question
and
both
a
concern,
because
indeed
that
is
also
our
concern.
Those
are
the
members
of
the
church,
most
of
them,
many
of
them,
so
the
what
will
happen
is-
and
it's
actually
a
little
bit
of
the
converse
if
the
decision
were
not
affirmed
very
shortly.
H
The
church
and
therefore
the
sub-tenants
would
be
priced
out.
So
this
is
the
stopping
of
that
less
about
a
receiving
extra
funds
from
the
overpayment
in
the
past.
But
I
have
to
know
this
is
over
four
acres
of
property
and
there's
a
long
and
list
a
long
list
of
obligations
that
the
church
has
for
maintenance
and
repair
and
other
upkeep,
and
that
money
is
to
be
used
and
is
well
used
on
the
property.
H
So
this
would
be
highly
beneficial,
but
again
it's
less
about
what
the
a
refund
would
do
for
the
tenants
living
in
the
units
and
more
about.
If
this
didn't
happen,
if
this
decision
weren't
affirmed,
they
would
be
priced
out
and
likely
displaced,
because
the
church
is
unable
to
afford
this
extra
increase
of
excessive
rent.
A
E
I
do
mr
marsh
you've
mentioned
several
times
in
your
arguments
that
this
is
an
arms
length
business
arrangement.
However,
I
do
believe
that
the
non-profit,
501c3
church
entity
actually
has
some
level
of
ownership
interest
in
here.
E
G
Thank
you
for
your
question.
That's
a
very
good
one
and
unfortunately
I
don't
have
the
ticket
agreement
up
in
front
of
me.
I
know
the
way
the
ticket
agreement
was
drafted.
There
was
a
lot
of
hand-holding
and
concern
about
ensuring
the
benefit
or
not
ensuring
the
benefit,
but
with
a
nanda
palo
alto
in
mind,
and
I
believe
many
of
the
decisions
had
to
be
made
unanimously.
G
I
do
not
know,
however,
whether
to
renew
the
lease
each
year
it
required
unanimous
as
opposed
to
majority
consent.
I
believe
it
always
was
unanimous
consent,
and
I
can
tell
you
the
record
will
reflect
that.
There
were
communications
prior
to
submitting
the
the
rent
increase
amount
for
a
boat
to
the
owners
between.
G
It
was
a
mr
bonin
who
acted
as
the
property
manager
for
amanda
palo
alto,
as
well
as
miss
fisher,
who
was
the
property
manager
for
the
owners,
and
they
did
have
a
very
good
relationship
with
each
other
for
the
most
part
and
those
discussions
and
the
different
rents
that
went
back
and
forth
or
ideas
were
supported
by
rent
surveys.
E
Is
okay?
My
other
question
is,
and
this
charlie,
this
is,
for
you
are
all
tenants
all
of
the
sub-tenants
entitled
to
the
to
equal
access
to
the
property,
meaning
this
is
about
of.
I
believe
you
said
about
a
4.9
acre
property,
there's,
as
I
recall,
some
community
center
or
community
gathering
spaces
kitchens
and
the
like
on
the
property.
E
H
So
that
the
church
is
inviting
and
inclusive
of
both
the
members
and
those
that
aren't
members
and
in
fact
those
that
that
aren't
members
but
enjoy
that
community
are,
I
think,
highly
embraced.
So
I
asked
that
same
question
and
I
know
of
no
area-
that's
blocked
off
to
only
members
of
the
church,
so
there's
playgrounds
and
beautiful
grounds
in
general
and
that
are
enjoyed
by
both
members
and
non-members.
I
It
might
be
for
karen
actually
in
the
in
the
situat.
If
this
decision
is
affirmed
and
a
downward
adjustment
is
granted,
and
it
doesn't
pass
through
to
the
tenants
the
sub
tenants
rent
directly
in
the
future.
If
and
there
it
sounds
like
there
is
maintenance
that
needs
to
be
done
on
the
property
in
the
future.
If
this,
if
a
sub-tenant
believes
that
services
have
been
reduced
to
a
point,
that
they
would
want
a
downward
adjustment
up
rent
and
they
filed
a
petition,
who
would
that
petition
go
to.
I
D
There
a
lot
actually
I'm
trying
to
think
of
all
the
hearings.
I
do
I'm
sorry.
D
D
I
And
maybe
maybe
I'll
fall
out
there?
I
guess
do
you
feel,
do
you
feel
there
are
provisions?
I
know
that
there's
there's
some
limited
wording
in
the
csf
array
regarding
the
rights
of
tenants,
sub-tenants
under
tenants,
based
on
what
you
heard.
Do
you
feel
as
though
there
was
adequate
discussion
of
those
items
in
response
to.
I
The
the
property
owner's
arguments.
D
A
D
D
And
I
did
mr
marsh:
can
you
just
confirm
that
the
rent
refunds
have
not
been
taken
that.
G
Was
correct,
as
we
filed
this
appeal,
we
continued
to
take
the
same
amount
of
runs.
We
did
before.
A
Okay,
so
now
we
can
go
ahead
and
deliberate
and
it
would
be
appropriate
at
this
point
to
entertain
a
motion
to
adopt
the
tentative
decision
after
which
we
can
discuss
it.
A
First.
Is
there
any
motion
to
go
ahead
and
approve.
J
D
We
do
not
have
that
in
a
slide.
I
think
your
options
are
to
make
a
motion
to
adopt
the
tentative
decision,
and
I
can
provide
you
with
language
if
you
want
to
make
that
motion
in
terms
of
reforming
the
refund
provisions
of
the
hearing
officer's
decision
or
you
can
make
an
alternative
motion
to
modify
the
tentative
decision
and
give
us
direction
on
how
to
modify
okay.
J
So
I
I
moved
to
adopt
the
tentative
appeal
decision
with
modifications
to
include
this
will
be
the
time
where
I
yell
line.
A
Okay
at
this
point,
what
I
want
to
find
out
from
the
from
the
committee
do
we
have
a
consensus
to
move
forward
with
the
motion
as
it
stands,.
J
I
I
have
a
question
okay,
I
guess
so
it's
very
quiet.
If
anyone
actually
has
any
issues
with
the
motion
on
the
table,
I
would
like
to
know
about
that.
Now
I
see
committee
vice
chair,
haynes
livestay's
hand
is
up.
Let
the
chair
fall
in
her.
E
Regardless
of
my
viewpoint
on
the
motion
itself,
I
believe
that
there's
further
modifications
necessary.
If
I
am
understanding
the
intention
of
the
motion
number
one.
I
believe
that
there
would
need
to
be
a
rebate
for
the
may
and
june
rents,
which
the
overpayment
of
the
may
and
june
would
need
to
be
rebated
as
well,
because
my
understanding
is
that
we
have
a
potential
overpayment
in
those
months
and
potentially
also
july,
since
that's
due
very
soon
so
that
is
something
to
consider.
E
If
we're
going
to
use
this
motion,
we
may
need
to
tweak
it
a
bit.
D
D
What
we've
heard
is
that
the
petitioners
paid
134
500
for
may
and
june,
and
the
lawful
rent
was
131
200
for
those
two
months,
so
there
should
be
an
additional
refund
of
that
amount.
I'm
gonna
just
check
the
math
to
make
sure
I
do
it
right.
D
It
is,
I
do
think
that
vice
chair,
haynes
lipsy,
is
raising
a
good
argument
as
to
whether
the
refunds
should
be
implemented
in
august
and
september.
We
are
june
28th.
D
We
do
need
to
get
an
order
out.
We
will
do
that
expeditiously,
but
rent
technically
is
due
on
july.
1St
and
petitioners
may
feel
the
need
to
continue
to
pay
the
130
4500
until
they
receive
the
order,
and
I
just
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
guarantee
that
everybody
gets
the
order
before
rent
is
paid.
E
I
would
like
to
say
that
we
need
to
have
the
rebate
completed
by
year-end,
but
I'd
like
to
give
them
the
flexibility,
especially
since
some
of
the
tenants
in
common
within
this
arrangement
are
also
residents
on
the
property
and
also
employees
of
the
501c3
entity.
I'd
like
to
give
them
the
ability
to
do
that
in
a
manner
that
they
have
some
control
over.
Since
there
is
a
lot
of
cross-pollination
between
the
parties,
it
seems
and
say
that
the
rebate
must
be
fully
completed
by
december
31st
of
2021.
E
D
Can
I
ask
a
question:
would
you
like
to
give
any
further
direction
on
how
it
you
know?
Equally
amongst
the
remaining
months,
one
of
the
issues
we've
sometimes
run
into
is
the
petitioners
don't
have
clarity
and
it
raises
additional
issues
in
the
future
when
they
take
their
refund
and
the
respondent
doesn't
agree.
Sure.
E
I
would
tend
to
not
only
because
I
believe
these
two
be
too
sophisticated
business
entities
and
I
do
believe
that
they
both
have
their
own
knowledge
of
how
they
each
do
their
own
accounting
and
some
cross-pollination
there.
So
I
feel
that,
unlike
a
standard
matter
that
might
come
between
before
us,
these
two
parties
are
uniquely
situated
to
come
to
an
amicable
agreement
with
one
another.
E
However,
we
could
make
a
recommendation
or
an
encouragement
or
suggest
potential
payment
options,
such
as
considering
it
over
two
quarters,
considering
it
month
to
month,
considering
it
various
different
ways,
but
I
genuinely
believe
that
two
entities
of
this
level
of
sophistication
who
have
been
doing
business
for
what
is
it
almost
32
years
together,
can
probably
figure
out
how
to
handle
the
rebate
between
the
two
of
them.
But
I
would
not
normally
feel
that
way
with
most
of
our
cases.
E
D
A
I
would
agree
with
all
of
that,
but
I
think,
given
that
it's
gone
back
and
forth
and
now
for
some
time
that
there
may
be
a
strain
in
relationships
and
if
we
can
make
a
recommendation
that
it'd
be
equally
divided
from
september
through
the
end
of
the
year.
I
think
that
direction
would
be
helpful.
Is
that's
my
feeling,
I
think.
If
we
leave
it
too
open-ended,
we
then
may
be
open
to
more
petitions
back
to
appeal.
It.
A
That's
just
my
feeling,
committee
member
part
of
gisela:
did
you
want
to
speak.
C
Yeah
my
comments
are
just
more
general
they're,
not
as
nitty
gritty.
Although
I
appreciate
those,
of
course
you
know,
I
guess
two
thoughts
I
have
one
is
that
you
know
I
do
think,
there's
perhaps
something
to
the
establishment.
G
C
Idea
that
you
know
you
have
to
take
some
sort
of
action
to
assert
your
rights
and
if
you
wait
long
enough,
you
you
should
be
barred
and
I
don't
think,
there's
a
lot
of
appetite
on
this
committee.
For
that
argument,
I
I
would
venture
to
say,
but
I
think
from
what
I
see
in
the
papers.
I
think
there's
a
good
argument
about
that
that
you
know
there's.
C
There
was
ample
time
to
to
petition
for
downward
adjustment,
and
I
think
at
some
point
in
time
you
just
have
to
you
know:
people
have
to
stake
their
claim
and
and
make
their
case
or
or
they
they
can't
make
it
any
longer,
and
I
think
we
could
all.
C
I
think
some
of
us
would
say
you
know
you
wait.
10
years,
you
can't,
you
know
you're
stopped
from
bringing
a
petition.
So
there's
there's
got
to
be
some
point
and
maybe
a
lot
of
us
don't
think
it's
happened
yet
in
this
instance,
but
I
certainly
don't
want
to
encourage
anyone
to
think
that
they
should
just
kind
of
delay
in
filing
petitions
that
are
really
ripe
and
that
need
to
be
addressed
now
and
then.
C
My
only
other
comment
really
is
that
you
know
my
general
sense
is
that
technically
this
these
are
covered
units
based
on
the
language
of
the
csfra
and
the
materials
we've
seen,
but
I
think
it's
an
undete
unintended
consequence
of
the
csfra
and
I
think
it's
another
example:
we've
seen
where
something's
either
covered
or
not
covered
likely,
contrary
to
what
the
drafters
may
have
thought
they
intended-
and
I
think
you
know
in
an
instance
here,
where
you're
looking
at
an
agreement
between
the
parties
going
back
to
1989
or
thereabouts,
concerning
establishing
a
religious,
a
community
of
sorts
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
housing
and
to
have
that
relationship
going
on
for
decades
and
decades
and
then
suddenly
the
csfra
kind
of
comes
in
and
disrupts
all
of
that
understanding.
C
Between
many
you
know
many
of
the
parties.
I
think
it's
something
that
we
have
to
be
aware
of,
that.
C
That's
that's
what's
happening
and
it's
not
a
minor
issue
and
I
think
it's
it's
an
unintended
consequence
of
the
csfra
that
essentially
a
church
in
a
religious
community
which
was
an
agreement
that
was
not
even
for
profit
if
I'm
understanding
it
properly,
but
was
not
even
your
typical
residential
lease
for
profit,
but
the
intent
of
the
relationship
was
really
more
of
a
religious
community-based
one
for
the
cf
csfra
to
come
in
now
and
to
disrupt
that
or
undo.
C
That,
I
think,
is
it's
it's
a
flaw
with
the
csfra,
but
I
think
likely
from
a
technical
standpoint.
I
Sure,
thank
you
similar
to
julian's
point.
I
I
think,
I'm
not
sure,
based
off
of
all
of
the
discussion.
That's
been
had
and
documented
the
the
whether
whether
the
middleman
argument
is
is
net
new
and
if
it
is
that
that
whether
or
not
we
can
debate
that,
but
personally
I
find
it
a
pretty
compelling
argument.
I
I
I
think
what
the
property
owner
is
saying
in
the
as
I
read
the
appeal
is:
is
making
the
argument
that
the
petitioner
is
also
potentially
a
landlord
and,
as
karen
said,
you
know,
a
sub-tenant
could
then
petition
ananda,
the
petitioner,
who
then
becomes
a
landlord,
and
I
think
that
that
seems
to
be
a
tough
precedent
right
that
we
could
potentially
have
a
middleman
who
can
can
decide
when
to
be
a
tenant
when
to
be
a
landlord,
as
opposed
to
going
to.
I
I
believe
the
spirit
of
csfr
is
to
protect
the
sub-tenants
that
you
know,
and
then
you
have
to
have
someone
that
they
answer
to.
Who
is
the
landlord
again?
I
don't.
I
want
to
be
cognizant
of
not
bringing
up
new
evidence,
but,
as
I
read
the
appeal
that
does
speak,
I
think
to
the
heart
of
what
the
petition
would
be.
Sorry.
The
property
owner
is
saying
in
the
appeal
that
ananda's
essentially
middleman
I'll
leave
it
there,
but
it
just.
I
J
Yeah,
so
I
raised
my
hand
to
wrap
this
all
up
so
addressing
some
points
I
do
think
we
may
want
to
revisit
some
of
our
our
master.
Lease
regulations
see
what
can
be
done
to
make
this
clearer,
prevent
any
shenanigans
and
whatnot
so
that
upcoming
work
plan
possible
items.
Thanks,
always
we're
always
piling
on
work
to
you.
I'm
really
sorry
about
that.
The
other
thing
is
that
I
can't
pronounce
it
because
it's
a
legal
jargon
term
committee
member
part
of
the
zella
mentioned
it.
The
estoppel
is
stopping
stop
him.
J
I
I
I
mean
I
get
where
you're
going,
that,
like
there's
going
to
be
such
a
large
amount
of
time
that
we
that
that
it
may
seem
kind
of
ridiculous,
but
at
the
same
breath
the
csfra
is
a
complaint
based
enforcement,
and
that
makes
putting
those
kinds
of
deadlines
a
little
bit
more
onerous
than
I'm
comfortable
with,
because
it's
not
like.
We
are
constantly
watching
to
make
sure
that
people
follow
this
law.
J
J
But
until
then
I
I
think
that
that
that
argument
by
the
respondent
is
is
probably
I
mean
they
put
this
argument
in
2018
or
that's
when
they
started
dealing
with
this
and
they
were
tenants
for
30
years
and
yeah.
Yes
to
some
people.
J
The
csfra
was
like
a
big
thing
and
you
couldn't
stop
hearing
about
it,
but
for
other
people
were
like
what's
rent
control,
and
so
we
just
have
to
deal
with
all
kinds
of
people
and-
and
I
I
don't
think
that
would
be
grounds
for
the
law
not
applying
to
them,
and
that
is
that
is
my
wrap
up.
But
it
looks
like
hands
suddenly
went
popping
up
again
so
round
two
ready
to
go.
E
E
That
is
independent
of
my
personal
views
on
whether
or
not
that
argument
could
have
been
made
successfully,
but
based
on
the
evidentiary
record,
it
seems
that
that
argument
was
not
supported
with
clear
evidence
to
indicate
that
there
there
was
knowledge
and
and
concrete
actions
taken
to
trigger
an
estop
argument
here.
Based
on
what
I
reviewed.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
I'm
not
saying
anything
on
the
merit
of
the
argument,
but
just
on
the
evidentiary
record.
A
D
C
A
Right:
okay,
are
there
any
other
questions,
comments
from
the.
D
F
A
B
I
only
wanted
to
bring
my
it's
just
a
comment
that
I
think
that
csfra
was
created
in
the
perspective
of
like
of
the
renter's
view
and
the
landlord's
view
that
I
think
the
csfra
is
a
way
to
create
consciousness
and
understanding
that
the
landlord
have
a
huge
power
in
their
hands
where
it
should
not
be
abused,
and
I
think
when
you
or
the
person
entity
wants
to
be
considered
or
is
considered
or
is
potentially
considered
a
landlord.
B
Then
it's
a
responsibility,
you're
you're
you're,
taking
on
right-
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
that
I
I
do
think
being
a
landlord
here.
In
mountain
view,
it
is
a
huge
responsibility
because
it
affects
people's
lives.
I
have
seen
the
negative
effects
of
people
being
pushed
out
from
a
long
time.
Residents
here,
living
in
mountain,
be
making
mount
to
be
what
it
is
today
and
because
some
people
decided
to
abuse
certain
liberties
they
that
other
people
suffered.
B
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
into
into
the
perspective,
and
I
guess
bring
back
the
essence
of
csfra.
E
A
Muted
tonight
is
my
night
for
not
clicking
on
that
sorry,
I
would
apologize
everybody.
Thank
you
committee,
member
rosas.
I
I'm
wondering.
Can
we
go
back
to
our
original
motion
with
its
modifications
and
see
if
we
can
come
to
any
agreement?
A
Let's
see
vice
chair
haynes,
let's
see,
let's
see,
do
you
want
to
take
a
stab
at
restating
it?
I
will
give
it
a.
E
D
A
I
think
committee
member
ramos
is
in
agreement
with
that.
I
think
that
we
also
were
touching
on
the
idea
that
we
should
define
the
time
in
which
that
rebate
would
take
place.
So
my
suggestion
would
be
that
it
take
place
between
september
and
and
december.
E
I
got
excited
and
hit
my
mute
button.
Okay,
but
if
we
give
them
the
flexibility
to
do
the
rebate
in
august,
then
they
could
be.
The
ownership
entity
could
be
in
substantial
compliance
by
september
to
take
their
increase,
whereas
if
we
tell
them
it
must
be
september
through
december.
We
in
essence
have
made
them
out
of
compliance
by
our
own
action,
which
I
think
is
a
tenuous
position.
E
A
E
A
A
D
A
A
So
andrea,
do
you
want
to
call
the
role.
C
J
A
I
just
want
to
thank
the
committee
as
well
as
the
presenters,
but
I
this
was
a
lot
less
painful
than
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be,
and
I
I
really
respect
all
of
your
opinions
and
your
input
and
we
came
up
with.
I
think
what
is
a
really
workable
solution.
Let
me
see.
D
A
This-
and
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
your
careful
analysis
and
and
tentative
decision
that
you
came
up
with
it
was
it
was
a
lot
for
all
of
us
to
absorb
in
the
last
week
and
a
lot
of
deliberations
that
went
on
and
I
wasn't
sure
I
could
hold
all
the
information
in
my
brain,
but
somehow
I
think
we
came
up
with
a
good
solution
and
I
really
appreciate
the
staff's
work
on
that.
As
far
as
I
can
tell,
we
are
ready
for
adjournment
because
I
don't
see
anything
else
on
my
script.
J
Yes,
and
I
know
we
obviously
don't
have
an
update
today,
but
I'm
still
hearing
about
it
and
I
just
learned
recently
when
I
looked
up,
I
found
out
recently
someone
sent
me
information
that
the
city
of
san
jose
actually
banned
services
like
that,
and
so
I
I
would
really
like
to
see.
Maybe
something
come
up
in
future.
Rhc
means
added
to
the
work
plan.
I
like
I
said,
I'm
so
sorry,
I'm
just
adding
piles
onto
you
all,
but
it's
not
going
away.
J
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
add
to
committee
member
ramos.
I
think
the
community
is
definitely
being
affected
by
the
conservatives,
so
I
would
I
apologized
to
the
staff
for
bringing
more
things
to
do,
but
I
think
this
issue
is
is:
is
hurting
our
community
greatly,
so
if
we
can,
you
know
get
something
done
would
be
great
and
we
would
really
really
appreciate
it
staff.
Thank
you.
B
I
apologize
for
the
extra
work,
just
like
council
committee
member
ramos.