►
From YouTube: 08-24-2020: Rental Housing Committee
Description
Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26
7:00 p.m. Monday, August 24, 2020
A
A
Then
the
regulations
also
include
a
process
for
allocating
the
total
cost
of
the
capital
improvement
across
all
the
units
that
are
benefited
only
units
that
are
benefited
by
the
capital
improvement
can
be
subject
to
an
upward
adjustment,
and
the
hearing
officer
can
take
into
account
the
provisions
that
you
have
previously
adopted.
With
regard
to
allocation
of
upward
adjustments
that
allows
the
hearing
officer
to
take
into
account
such
things
as
the
size
of
the
units
and
the
duration
of
the
tendencies
on
the
assumption.
The
more
recent
tenancies
may
have
higher
rents
next
slide.
A
Whoops
there
we
go
okay,
so
the
hearing
process,
as
I
said,
is
designed
to
be
faster
than
a
fair
return
hearing
process
where
the
maintenance
of
net
operating
income
standard
is
used.
So
once
a
petition
is
submitted
and
accepted
by
the
rhc
notice
would
be
given
to
the
tenants.
The
tenants
will
have
30
days
to
request
a
hearing.
A
A
A
A
A
A
The
rent
of
primary
residence
is
a
single
item
index
for
an
inelastic
good
and
tends
to
increase
at
a
much
higher
rate
than
the
all
items,
and
then
we
also
have
updated
the
amortization
schedule
for
capital
improvement
schedule.
A
you
had
previously
adopted
a
schedule,
a
for
capital
improvements
when
they
were
being
considered
as
part
of
a
maintenance
of
net
operating
income
petition,
and
we
have
updated
that
schedule
for
when
capital
improvements
are
considered
as
part
of
the
maintenance
of
net
operating
income
next
slide.
A
A
A
I
will
try
to
elaborate
on
other
staff
may
have
comments
as
well.
It's
being
brought
up
now,
because
this
has
been
a
concern
when
we
look
at
the
way
each
of
these
indices
perform
and
the
random
primary
residence
is
essentially
rent,
but
it
also
the
way
it's
set.
Is
home
owners
are
asked
to
estimate
what
they
think
their
homes
are
rented
for,
so
it
isn't
the
most
accurate
of
indexes
for
determining
how
costs
actually
fluctuate
it.
A
Also,
it
only
measures
that
which,
as
we
know,
housing
is
sort
of
a
limited
good,
it's
a
inelastic
good,
which
means
that
there
isn't
a
lot
of
competition,
so
it
doesn't
necessarily
accurately
measure
the
increased
cost.
The
all
items
index
measures
all
items,
and
you
know
the
reality
is
when
you're
providing
housing
for
your
tenants.
What
you're
providing
is
a
bundle
of
goods,
you're,
providing
services,
you're,
providing
repairs,
etc.
Those
fluctuate
more
accurately,
with
the
all
items.
A
D
My
question
is
just
also
on
the
rent
of
primary
residents.
Changing
the
cpi
index
that
we
are
using
do
we
perceive
any
risks
around
petitions
that
have
already
been
decided
if
we
should
change
how
we
the
index
on
what
we
base
our
calculations
do
we
believe,
there's
any
litigation,
risk
and
or
any
other
risks
there.
A
E
A
A
It's
been
brought
up
today
because
we
were
looking
at
chapter
six,
which
is
where
we
have
put
the
specified
capital
improvement
process
and
looking
at
it
overall
to
see
if
there
were
other
changes.
If
you
looked
at
the
at
the
red
line
copy,
there
were
a
few
other
cleanup
changes,
and
this
was
just
one
of
those
that
we
thought
we
would
propose.
E
I
think
there
are
other
jurisdictions
that
we
were
looking
at
a
while
back
that
have
zero
petitions
now,
after
many
years
of
having
rent
control
and
that
we
were
going
to
revisit
it.
If
the
number
of
petitions
or
anything
seemed
like
it
was.
Oh
sorry,
this
is
more
commentary,
I
guess
but,
but
I
guess
could
you
we
were
monitoring
this
and
had
decided
as
an
rhc
to
monitor
this
occasionally
or
to
come
back
to
it.
A
Yes,
we
have
been
monitoring
it.
I
do
believe
that
when
this
was
originally
adopted,
there
was
some
discussion
of
looking
at
it,
and
you
know
in
terms
of
incentivizing
petitions.
I
think
what
we
are
finding
in
mountain
view
is
similar
to
the
experience
in
other
jurisdictions
that,
because
of
vacant
cd
control,
the
volume
of
petitions
is
much
lower
than
people
might
expect.
A
F
Yeah
and
may
I
add
that
also
by
adding
this
capital
improvement
process,
maybe
that
would
help
certain
landlords.
We
cover
certain
specific
costs
and
before
they
were
hesitant
to
file
a
fair
return
petition.
So
hopefully
this
will
alleviate
that
problem
at
the
same
time,
bringing
the
cpi
more
in
line
with
what
other
jurisdictions
are
doing
and
with
the
aga
that
is
in
the
csf
area.
G
And
additionally,
a
lot
of
the
rent
stabilized
jurisdictions
have
a
much
older
law
than
ours,
and
what
they've
found
is
that
the
longer
away
from
their
base
year,
they
are
the
less
applicable
rent.
Increased
petition
related
to
an
mnoi
concept
is
for
those
tenancies,
because
alky
said,
as
karen
said,
because
of
vacancy
control,
and
also
because
of
just
the
ability
to
keep
and
maintain
records
over
that
long
period
of
time
I
mean
san
jose's
is
from
1979,
and
so
they
don't
see
a
lot
of
mnoi
based
petitions
in
general
because
of
that.
E
E
E
E
B
C
If
we're
looking
at
something
like
seismic
seismic
upgrades
with
these
draft
regulations,
would
landlords
still
have
to
demonstrate
that
a
seismic
upgrade
kind
of
met,
this
criteria
of
primarily
benefiting
a
tenant
and
having
a
useful
life
with
more
than
one
year
and
kind
of
still
have
to
meet
all
of
that
criteria
in
order
to
get
the
benefit
of
the
designation
of
a
specified
capital
improvement?
In
other
words,
it
wouldn't
be,
is
it
wouldn't
be
automatic
if
a
landlord
just
said?
C
A
C
I
just
have
a
few
other
questions
with
some
of
these
regs,
I
mean
I'm
looking
at
the
language
about
primarily
benefiting
the
tenant,
for
example,
and
then
also,
for
example,
limitations
on
no
over
improvements
and
here's.
My
question
and
my
concern
is
in
your
mind:
karen.
Does
this
give
a
lot
of
additional
discretion
to
hearing
officers
to
kind
of
navigate
these
gray
areas?
What
seems
like,
there's
not
a
real,
clear
standard
of,
for
example,
what
benefits
attending
or
what's
an
over
improvement
and
are
we
are
we
should
we
expect
that?
A
It
has
not
I'm
just
trying
to
think
it
has
not
been
a
significant
subject
of
any
of
the
petitions
that
we
have
seen.
I
think
we
had.
I
remember,
maybe
one
petition
that
touched
on
capital
improvements,
so
we
haven't
really
tested
this
language
a
lot
you
know
so
benefiting
the
primarily
benefiting
the
tenants.
A
I
think
there
probably
is
some
room
there.
The
over
improvement
standard
is,
although
I
think,
there's
some
discretion
there.
It's
a
pretty
basic
standard
that
is
in
most
of
the
rent
control
jurisdictions
that
we
looked
at
you
know.
Essentially
it
is
designed
to
ensure
that
landlords,
don't
gold
plate
the
unit
as
a
way
to
get
the
tenants
out,
because
that
is
what
what
jurisdictions
we're
seeing
sometimes
is
I'm
going
to
put
in
a
lot
of
fancy
stuff
and
try
to
recoup
for
it,
and
you
won't
be
able
to
pay
for
it.
A
G
And
it,
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
the
definition
of
capital
improvements
that
we've
been
utilizing
for
the
fair
return
petitions
already
include
those
factors
in
their
definition.
So
the
the
new
portions
of
this
are
not
necessarily
related
to
the
actual
definition:
the
bigger
definition
of
capital
improvement.
Those
have
already
existed
in
the
breaks.
C
So
let
me
put
this
way
if
I
were
a
hearing
officer
and
I
wanted
to
know
how
to
figure
out
if
something
primarily
benefits
a
tenant.
Is
there
anywhere
in
the
csfra?
I
can
look
at
that's
going
to
tell
me
that,
or
am
I
just
sitting
there
and
saying
I'm
going
to
decide
in
my
own
mind,
based
on
my
own
ideas,
of
what's
fair
and
just
in
my
own
worldview,
what
benefits
a
tenant
and
what
benefits
a
landlord.
C
My
other
question,
if
I
have
the
time
here,
is
kind
of
a
minor
one,
but
there's
some
language
about
when
a
tenant
vacates
a
unit
that
the
specified
capital
improvements,
adjustment
will
expire,
and
this
might
be
a
remote
possibility.
But
do
we
have
any
sense
if
there's
just
one
tenant
that
leaves
so
you've
got
two
people
on
a
lease
and
then
just
one
person
vacates
who
have
any
sense?
C
A
A
E
A
A
F
G
C
So
is
there
any
reason,
for
example,
why
we
didn't
simply
I
mean
so
obviously
measured
didn't
pass,
so
is
it?
Is
it
that
the
primary
reason
why
we
haven't
wholesale
adopted
measure
d
that
language
as
a
starting
point
to
talk
about
these
regs?
I'm
just
trying
to
determine
kind
of
you
know
why
there's
any
differences
between
what
we're
discussing
now
and
what
measure
d
said
and
and
how
we,
how
we
got
to
where
we
are,
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
that
out.
A
Right,
so
major
d
was
actually
amending
the
csfra
to
accomplish
what
it
wanted
to
do.
We
don't
have
that
luxury.
We
can
only
amend
major
the
csfro
with
a
vote
of
the
voters,
so
what
we
did
was
take
the
premise
for
the
capital
improvement
petition
process
from
measure
d
and
make
it
work
within
the
limitations
of
the
csfra.
A
So
one
of
those
limitations
is
that
the
capital
improvements
have
to
be
necessary
to
bring
it
the
property
into
compliance
with
code.
That
was
one
of
the
things
that
would
have
been
changed
in
measure
d.
To
make
this
a
little
easier
to
work
with.
So
that's
been
sort
of
the
struggle
is
the
limitations
in
measuring.
G
And
I
would
like
to
mention
that
it
does
say
bring
it
into
coder
to
maintain
code
and
hearing
officers
have
routinely
allowed
capital
improvements
that
maintain
code
for
end
health
and
safety.
There
has
been
a
strong
precedent
for
that
additionally,
matt
to
answer
your
question
about
the
amortization
schedule
for
san
jose.
We
do
cover
everything.
That's
in
san
jose's,
capital,
improvement,
specific
petition,
amortization
schedule,
and
we
also
include
things
that
they
do
not
including
re-piping
of
buildings
and
exterior
painting,
plastering
and
siding
repair
and
replacement.
B
F
At
the
time
it
was
decided
to
for
the
building
department
to
do
a
thorough
review
of
the
inventory
in
the
city
of
all
the
buildings
that
do
need
seismic
retrofitting,
so
they're
in
the
middle
of
that
study.
What
I
remember
is
that
they
were
going
to
bring
it
back
within
one
and
a
half
two
years
and
then
adopt
possibly
an
ordinance
to
take
care
of
that.
B
Thank
you
for
that.
If
we
don't
have
any
more
questions
from
committee
members,
we
will
now
go
to
the
public.
So
let's
get
to
that
part.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
online
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.
Let's
take
a.
H
Also,
what
I
find
confusing
is
that,
given
the
fact
that,
again,
as
someone
mentioned
since
measure
d
was
actually
rejected
by
the
voters
and
the
voters
are
the
ones
that
can
make
amendments
to
the
csfra
that
there
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
language
in
this
regulation,
that
is,
in
effect,
attempting
to
redefine
the
csfra
through
your
your
actions
and
technically
from
what
I'm
again
listening
carefully.
That's
not
allowed.
H
That's
only
allowed
when
the
voters
will
give
approval
to
that
situation
through
ballot
measure
to
amend
the
the
charter,
so
this
is
going
into
a
very
ugly
potential
environment
here.
Finally,
I
do
agree
that
there
should
be
a
lot
more
clear
definitions
regarding
how
the
hearing
officers
are
going
to
do
their
job,
because
again,
I
think
it
should
be
very
well
defined
what
is
approvable
and
what
is
not
approvable.
H
I
just
wanted
to
make
those
points
because
it
just
seems
like
the
idea
of
making
it
extending
the
usefulness
of
the
the
the
property
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
it's
a
capital
improvement,
it's
in
maintenance
and
in.
If
that's
the
case,
then
you.
I
would
think
that,
oh
by
the
way,
one
last
thing
it
looks
like
you
can
potentially
bank
the
the
10
increases
over
multiple
years.
H
I
think
that
there's
nothing
in
this
language
that
actually
said
that
this
only
happens
in
one
year,
which
means
this
person
could
potentially
do
something
like
make
a
major
improvement
and
then
ask
for
another
10
in
increase
the
next
following
year
and
the
next
following
year
and
the
next
following
year.
If
they
can
manage
to
get
the
hearing
officer
to
sign
off
on
it,
I
think
that
right
there
is
a
very
big
problem,
so
I
think
it's
there's
some
language
that
needs
to
be
really
well
edited
and
revised.
I
Hi
edie
keating.
There
are
aspects
of
this
ordinance
that
I
agree
with,
and
there
are
other
aspects
that
I
think
are
far
too
broad
on
the
aga.
I
think
if
there
were
ever
a
landlord-friendly
time
to
switch
to
the
general
aga
rather
than
the
housing
one,
it
might
be
now
in
advance
of
a
potential
recession.
I
My
carpet
where
I
live
in
my
apartment
is
very
old
and
it
is
not
a
health
and
safety
problem,
but
carpet
is
one
of
the
approved
capital
improvements,
so
I
just
don't
see
the
compliance
without
proving
a
health
and
safety
link
there.
The
same
with
solar
improvements,
you
know
putting
solar
on
the
roof.
Is
that
being
considered
a
health
and
safety
risk?
I
I
mean,
even
if
global
warming
is
considered
health
and
safety,
I
can
have
other
ways
to
have
that
compliance
such
as
buying
green
energy
for
my
electric,
so
I
think
this
should
come
back
again.
I
think
you
should
also
hold
study
sessions.
That
was
done
the
last
time.
The
fair
rate
of
return
was
being
established,
there
were
tenant,
focus
landlord
focused,
and
you
might
also
consider
a
hearing
officer
focused
study
session
on
this
another
phrase
maintain
opera,
extend
the
life
of
the
property.
I
I
That
could
be
some
really
nice
carpet.
That
could
be
some
jacuzzi
level
carpet,
but
it
would
still
meet
that
criteria.
I
think
for
seismic
upgrades.
I
think
this
makes
total
sense
to
have
seismic
upgrades
be
allowed
as
a
pass-through,
temporary
increase,
and
but
there
are
too
many
other
things
on
this
list
and
that
needs
further
review.
J
Hey
everybody,
it's
been
a
while,
I'm
glad
to
be
back.
I
think
I
want
to
express
my
appreciation
for
staff
for
taking
the
opportunity
to
bring
this
up
and
to
better
the
purposes
of
the
csfra
in
trying
to
maintain
stable
housing
for
people
and
stable
housing
means
housing.
That
is
livable
and
I
think
that's
up
to
code
that
it
works
for
the
people
living
in
it
because
without
residents
without
the
renters,
it's
not
housing.
It's
just
a
building.
B
B
Are
there
any
additional
members
on
of
the
public
on
the
line
who
have
indicated
they
wanted
to
speak
on
this
item?
They're?
Not
all
right,
so
we're
going
to
bring
it
back
to
the
committee
for
deliberation,
motions
are
in
order,
but
I'm
assuming
that
people
will
probably
want
to
do
some
deliberating
now.
So
does
anyone
want
to
go?
First.
C
You
know
my
concern
with
this
is
that
in
my
understanding
of
the
region
that
allow
some
of
these,
the
recovery
of
these
capital
improvement
costs
for
landlords
is
because
a
lot
of
landlords
are
finding
mountain
view
not
to
be
a
very
friendly
place
to
own
property,
and
we
don't
want
them
to
sell
rental
units
and
have
them
torn
down
and
turned
into
town
homes.
So
to
me,
that's
how
I
look
at
all
of
this.
C
What
are
we
doing
to
try
to
keep
rent
control
units
in
operation
rather
than
leaving
the
market
as
they
have
been
doing,
and
it's
not
reported
often,
but
it
happens
in
mountain
view,
and
I
know
personally
landlords
that
have
told
me
that
they
are
taking
their
properties
and
selling
them
because
of
measure
v.
So
when
I
look
at
capital
improvements,
I
think
this
is
one
of
our
last
opportunities
to
try
to
get
to
landlords
who
might
be
sitting
on
the
fence
who
are
thinking.
C
You
know
this
has
been
a
rough
couple
years,
I'm
having
a
hard
time
with
a
lot
of
this
rent
control,
but
maybe
if
I
can
get
a
little
something
back
through
the
couple,
the
capital
improvements.
Maybe
I'm
going
to
stick
this
thing
out
and
I
think
we
want
those
landlords
who
are
on
the
fence
to
be
willing
to
stick
with
us
and
the
way
these
regs
are
drafted.
My
concern
is
that
they're
not
really
going
to
be
enough
for
a
landlord.
C
I
think,
if
anything,
you
look
at
them
and
there
are
more
hoops
to
jump
through,
which
is
always
a
complaint
that
I
think
landlords
and
tenants
have.
But
it's
more
hoops
to
jump
through.
I
think
it
does
give
more
discretion
a
huge
amount
of
discretion
to
hearing
officers,
because
there
is
a
lot
of
gray
area.
We've
had
landlords
that
have
repeatedly
come
in
front
of
us
and
complained
about
the
hearing
officers
and
not
just
the
hearing
officers,
but
the
fact
that
they
felt
like
they
were
targeting
the
landlords
and
biased
against
them.
C
Whether
that's
true
or
not,
is
almost
besides
a
point,
because
there's
still
that
perspective
by
some
people-
and
so
you
know
I
get
concerned
when
you
look
at
this-
where
you're
essentially
saying
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
material,
that's
very
subjective!
That's
going
to
be
decided
by
hearing
officers,
they're
primarily
benefiting
the
tenant
language.
Maybe
other
jurisdictions.
Have
it
that's
fine,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
they
also
don't
have
hearing
officers
making
very
subjective
decisions
along
those
lines.
So
just
because
other
jurisdictions
have
it
doesn't
mean
they
don't
also
have
problems
with
it.
C
So
there's
a
lot
of
ambiguity
here
and
there's
not
a
lot
in
this
for
landlords,
and
so
my
concern
just
kind
of
top
level
without
going
into
all
the
nuances
that
you
know
we
may
or
may
not
need
to
get
to.
But
my
concern
is
that
this
is
not
really
doing
much
at
all
for
landlords
who
who
may
be
on
the
fence
and
who
are
thinking
hey.
Somebody
came
by
and
offered
to
buy
my
car
apartment
complex
for
a
lot
of
money,
but
I'm
trying
to
stay
in
this
and
stick
with
it.
B
D
So
in
looking
at
this,
I
think
it's
a
fair
first
attempt
at
streamlining
a
petition
process
that
would
ideally
allow
for
some
pass-through
of
capital
improvements.
I
think
that's
a
worthy
goal
and
I
do
think
that
it's
important
to
develop
a
way
to
do
that,
where
you
don't
necessarily
need
to
open
your
books
to
a
full
financial
review.
D
You
know
I
I
look
at
this
and
I
think
we
maybe
are
writing
a
regulation
for
the
past,
not
for
the
future,
and
that
concerns
me.
I
am
maybe
very
bearish
in
saying
this,
but
I
don't
believe
that
the
economic,
the
point
in
the
economic
cycle
we
have
been
in
while
measure
v
has
been
in
existence,
is
going
to
necessarily
continue
in
the
upcoming
18
to
24
months
and
possibly
longer.
D
D
D
E
Thank
you
similar
to
committee
member
haines
lipsay's
comments.
I
do
think
this
is
a
good,
a
good
step.
I,
what
jumped
out
to
me
was
the
change
in
the
rate
for
for
all
petitions.
You
know,
as
I
recall,
our
conversations
were
when
we
set
that
rate.
It
was
a
compromise,
at
least
as
far
as
I
remember
where
we
were,
we
were
considering
anything
from
a
fixed
rate
of
return
to
cap
based
calculations,
all
the
way
down
to
partial
cpi.
E
So
I
my
I
would
like
us
to
you
know
my
personal,
I
guess
ask
of
the
committee-
is
to
continue
to
monitor
that
and
not
necessarily
make
that
change,
but
otherwise,
I
think
the
other
comments
from
the
committee
so
far
to
take
this
as
a
first
step
and
go
back
and
revise
it
a
bit
for
all
the
individual,
maybe
clarify
the
language.
That's
that
resonates
with
me.
B
If
not,
I
will
provide
my
comment,
so
I
I
I
was
following
what
everyone
was
saying
some
I
agreed
with
some
not
so
much,
but
so
I
I
do
like
committee
member
haines,
livestay's
idea
of
and
and
that
this
might
be
just
the
starting
point.
We
may
want
to
dig
into
this
a
little
bit
deeper
and
perhaps
even
more
than
looking
for
ways
this
I
this
is
a
broader
conversation.
B
B
It
was
interesting
it
we
had
a
few
landlords.
There,
I
don't
remember
exact
amount,
but
it
was
a
nice,
steady
stream
of
of
a
few
and
one
thing
that
did
really
resonate
with
me,
not
necessarily
a
resume,
but
I
I
I
mull
over
it
since
then,
and
it
was
months
ago,
one
of
the
landlords
that
was
taking
this
workshop.
B
Really
she
did
the
workshop.
She
learned
how
to
register
her
property
got
her
little
exemption
for
her
one
unit
or
so,
and
then
she
she
talked
about
how
she
thought
that
the
petition
process
was
onerous
and
the
the
staff
asked
her
is
like.
Oh,
why
don't
we
work
with
you
and
she
actually
hadn't
even
looked
at
the
petition
process?
It's
just
that
the
the
what
I'm
gonna
call
it.
The
the
perception
is
out
there
that
the
that
is
onerous
and
it
did
bring
me
back
to
committee.
B
Member
pardon
dezela's
comment,
whether
it's
true
or
not
as
perspective.
Now.
I
personally
believe
that
the
truth,
it
always
matters,
and
it's
on
us
to
spread
that
truth.
But
what
we,
this,
the
capital
we
can
create
regulations
to
create
better
capital
improvement
processes,
but
if
landlords
and
housing
providers
feel
that
it's
still
too
onerous,
they
won't
do
it.
So
I
think
there's
going
to
be.
It
is
a
good
starting
point
to
work
on
these
regulations
to
make
them
easier,
but
I
think
there's
also
something
else.
B
We
need
to
take
a
look
at
I.
I
would
actually
like
committee
member
greenwald's
more
thoughts
on
this,
particularly
because
you're,
the
only
one
that
owns
property,
so
so
that
would
be
one
thing
there
is
I'm
not
too
concerned,
at
least
for
now,
or
at
least
next
five
years
about
essentially
demolitions
is
what
committee
member
part
of
the
zella
talked
about
because
of
the
state
law,
sb
330,
which
actually
nancy
skin
state.
B
Senator
nancy
skinner's
bill
they
passed
last
year
and
basically
it
prevents
if
you
demolish
a
rent
control
property,
you
have
to
replace
it
with
rent
controlled
units
and
or
affordable
housing
units.
The
the
the
interesting
thing
with
mountain
view
is
that
people
who
turned
in
their
applications
for
their
those
demolitions
they
had
to
be
complete
before
a
certain
deadline
which
was
last
year
and
so
we're
just
trickling
in
the
last
of
those.
B
So
we
don't
really
tell
state
law
ex
on
that
so
some
time
to
really
work
through
this
and
delve
through
it
unless
they
extend
it
and
then
we
have
even
more
time
to
deal
through
it.
But
it's
not
particularly
a
fear.
I
think
the
greater
fear
is,
is
the
perception
and
and
what
we
can
do
to
spread.
One
truth
that
it
is
that
that
it's
not
so
onerous
and
staff
does
an
amazing
job
because
they
they
work
hand
in
hand
with
any
landlord
that
reaches
out
to
them.
B
Saying
like
I,
don't
understand
this
process,
so
staff
could
probably
give
us
some
more
ideas
on
how
to
do
that,
and
that
might
be
something
we
may
want
to
explore
in
the
future.
So
those
were
my
comments,
particularly
with
the
capital
improvements.
It's
a
good
starting
point.
I
would
like
to
go
back
to
committee
member
runewald,
I'm
so
sorry.
To
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
like
as
we
continue
to
explore
more
ideas
to
make
this
more
better
for
our
lack
of
a
better
term.
B
E
E
E
So
I
mean
I
can't
begin
to
you
know
I
can
only
try
to
have
the
perspective
of
somebody
who
has
a
larger
building,
but
I
would
imagine
you
have
tenants
that
you
have
really
good
relationships
with
and
tenants
that
you
don't,
and
so
I
just
think,
there's
a
definite
disincentive
if
you
were
going
to
it.
You
know
if
you're,
using
that
lower
cpi
rate
same
as
the
aga.
E
I
think
the
intent
was
to
try
to
encourage
it
to
be
worthwhile.
If
you're
close,
you
know
on
the
financials
for
your
building
that
that
we
would
try
that
higher
rate,
because
there's
it's
not
just
as
easy
as
just
filing
it
filing
the
the
petition.
Even
if
the
process
is
easy,
they're
just
disincentives,
you
know
you're
just
going
to
welcome
a
lot
of
conversations
and
then
and
and
time
from
accountants
and
things
of
those
nature
digging
up
old
bills.
E
E
D
E
I
see
so
yeah.
Actually
you
know,
maybe
maybe
that
probably
actually
proves
the
counterpoint
that
if
you
try
to
make
it
too
specific
and
we
said
always
papers
are
going
to
be
accepted.
There
might
be
some
reason
like
aba,
that
I
hadn't
even
thought
of
that
that
comes
into
it,
because
I
think,
on
the
surface,
all
I
recalled
was
they
spent
a
lot
of
money
on
pavers
and
pavers.
Don't
seem
like
something
that's
kind
of
that's
a
luxury
or
cadillac
upgrade
right,
but
thank
you
patricia
patricia
remembers
the
details
better.
E
So
I
do.
I
do
generally
trust
our
hearing
officers.
I
think
we
can
give
them
the
fewer
huge
gray
areas
that
we
have
the
better
but
but
yeah
as
I've
been
looking
through
this.
That's
why
I
kind
of
use
san
jose
as
a
as
you
see
from
the
jurisdictions
and
thank
you
to
the
team
for
putting
all
that
together
with
the
different
jurisdictions
and
what
each
of
them
have
for
capital
improvements.
G
G
G
To
essentially
shift
this
over
to
the
rhc,
it
was
in
measure
d.
It
was
with
the
the
guidance
that
had
already
been
provided
by
by
staff,
time
and
staff
research,
so
all
of
the
jurisdictional
research
and
all
of
the
streamlining
of
the
regulations
and
the
writing
of
the
regulations
are
already
pulling
together.
The
information
from
the
other
jurisdictions.
A
A
So
in
terms
of
the
documentation,
it
was
very
similar.
The
documentation
that's
required
for
the
specified
capital
improvement
is
pretty
minimal.
I
mean
they
do
have
to
prove
either
that
they've
installed
it
or
if
they
haven't
installed
it,
that
they
have
a
bid
or
some
sort
of
estimate
and
then
once
it
is
installed,
they
have
to
give
us
evidence
that
it's
actually
been
installed
before
the
upward
adjustment
goes
into
effect,
but
that
is
really
the
only
documentation
that
is
required.
E
A
E
Okay
and
we'll
read
and
registration
is
updated
every
year,
based
on
what
we
passed
last
time:
yes,
okay,
okay,
so
what
we
would
we
would
then
I
guess
to
simplify
the
process.
We
could
just
ask
them
if
anything
has
changed
since
that
registration
and
we'll
need
to
require
registration
right
for
you
know,
even
for
a
petition
to
be
filed.
I
assume
that
we
require
now
registration.
A
They
cannot
get
an
upward
adjustment
if
they
fail
to
comply
with
an
order
of
the
committee
or
with
any
provisions
of
the
committee,
or
they
have
not
maintained
the
unit
in
accordance
with
habitability
standards.
We
didn't
add
anything
additional
to
that.
So
technically
they
would
have
to
have
gotten
an
order
from
you
to.
E
D
D
D
So
the
idea
of
passing
that
through
to
me
and
saying,
hey
landlord,
will
you
buy
this
really
nice
samsung
washer
dryer
that
we
really
would
like
to
use
as
opposed
to
the
one
we
keep
having
to
buy
parts
off
of
ebay?
To
keep
going
sounds
awesome
to
me.
I
would
even
go
as
far
as
to
say
that
I
could
see
an
expedited
petition
process
where
my
landlord
could
say:
hey
nicole.
We
want
to
do
this
and
I
go
great
and
I
sign
something
saying
that
it
is
not
contested
whatsoever.
D
So
now
you
eliminate
the
30-day
waiting
period
for
the
for
the
tenant
to
contest
the
improvement.
I
think
that
by
going
in
this
in
doing
a
study
session
and
getting
a
little
bit
more
tactical
here,
we
could
build
out
stuff
like
that,
where,
when
we
have
consensus
when
a
landlord
and
their
tenants
are
on
the
same
page,
about
an
improvement
that
is
desired,
it
could
be
ready,
set
go
and
we
could
just
get
it
done.
D
Get
it
papered,
show
the
receipt,
show
the
rent
roll
get
it
in
place,
and
we
even
have
built
already
in
that
you
can
get
pre-approval.
Where
you
already
know
you
can
pass
through
the
cost.
So
there's
not
going
to
be
any
hiccups
when
you
get
into
the
process
of
actually
getting
the
improvement
done
and
just
move
it
along
like
that,
and
I
think
a
streamlined
process
where
we
can
remind
people
that
that
a
landlord
and
attendant
can
be
on
the
same
side
of
the
table
will
do
a
lot
for
perceptions
as
well.
C
Yeah,
I
just
briefly
want
to
go
back
to
the
the
papers
that
matt
and
patricia
were
talking
about,
because
that
was
a
property
that
was
before
us
multiple
times
on
appeals,
and
that
was
a
property.
That's
across
from
crittenden
middle
school
was
1555
middle
field
road,
it's
called
the
meadow
woods
and
that's
a
property,
and
if
it's
not
the
one
about
the
pavers
and
you're
talking
about
something
else,
but
the
one
I
was
referencing
had
to
do
with
paving
in
the
parking
lot.
Among
other
things,
and
the
end
result
of
that
property.
C
Owner's
interactions
with
us
was
that
she
decided
to
sell
that
complex,
which
has
116
units
that
were
all
covered
by
rent
control
and
she
sold
them
so
that
they
could
be
converted
to
townhomes.
And
you
can
drive
by
right
now
and
there's
a
big
notice
of
redu
development
proposal.
That's
there
on
the
site-
and
this
was
not
stopped
because
of
the
legislation
that
emily
talked
about
because
they
got
the
papers
in
filed
before
the
end
of
the
year,
just
in
time
actually
from
their
perspective.
C
And
we
had
the
owner
come
in
front
of
our
committee
multiple
times
complaining,
whether
correctly
or
not,
that
she
was
not
getting
a
fair
shake
by
the
hearing
officer
and
that
she
felt
that
she
was
subjected
to
bias
by
the
hearing
officer.
And
we
heard
about
it
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that
owner
decided
that
she
had
enough
that
she
wasn't
being
treated
fairly
by
rent
control
by
her
regs
or
by
her
hearing
officers
and
she
sold
her
property.
And
so
now,
there's
116
families
or
units
that
now
are
going
to
be
vacated.
C
And
I
don't
know
where
those
people
are
going
to
go.
But
they're
probably
not
going
to
be
buying
the
1.5
million
townhouses
that
are
going
to
go
in
place
of
those
apartments
and
that
that
land
owner
told
me
that
she
sold
this
whole
complex
because
of
this.
So
this
is
not
a
secret.
You
won't
read
about
in
the
voice,
because
if
voice
doesn't
want
to
say
this,
but
that's
what
happened.
C
I
mean.
There's
no
reason
why
you
would
do
anything
to
it.
It's
like
when
you
have
an
old
car
you
just
run
into
the
ground.
You
don't
give
your
15
year
old
car,
a
new
paint
job
you
run
into
the
ground.
So
that's
kind
of
my
concern
and
I
think
that's
what
I
hope
we
all
lose
sight
of
that
none
of
us,
I
think,
want
to
see
more
units
taken
off
the
market
and
when
I
look
at
this,
I
don't
know
that
that's
going
to
help
prevent
that
in
any
meaningful
way.
That's
all.
B
G
B
Do
follow
pretty
much
all
the
demolition
project
projects,
because
I
watch
all
the
city
council
meetings.
I
I
do
like.
I
have
different
opinions
about
some
of
those
decisions
that
were
made
about
those
demolitions.
I
don't
because
of
sb
330.
It
is
less
likely
that
that
will
happen
again,
at
least
for
the
next
five
years.
B
C
C
Well,
my
only
point
was
whether
it
was
1555
or
not
specifically
in
the
petition
it's
the
same
owner
who
came
before
us
said
she
felt
mistreated.
She
said
this
multiple
times
and
thereafter
sold
a
property
at
that
location
and
said
specifically
to
me
and
multiple
people
that
the
reason
she
was
doing
it
was
because
of
measure
v
and
the
regs
and
the
treatment
of
the
hearing
officer.
So
I
just
that's
kind
of
the
point
that
our
regs
have
consequences
and
we
don't
want
to
have
less
units
on
the
market
because
of
what
we
do.
C
I
think
that's
just.
I
think
we
can
agree
on
that,
and
so
that's
my
concern
and
now
I
think
that,
even
if
it's
not
just
less
units
you're
going
to
have
a
depreciation
in
the
quality
of
units
when
land
owners
have
no
incentive
to
make
any
kind
of
capital
improvements
to
the
property,
and
so
you
know
I
don't
know
how
it
benefits.
Anyone
to
have
properties
that
that
aren't,
you
know
meaningfully
improved
in
the
near
term,.
E
E
E
A
Yeah-
and
I
just
want
to
say
I
mean
I,
you
know-
I
think
we
hear
what
everybody's
saying
and
the
real
intent
of
this
was
to
create
a
streamlined
process
for
the
very
reasons
that
committee
member,
puerto
desella
were
saying.
We
want
to
incentivize
property
owners
to
maintain
their
property,
but
we
are
a
little
hamstrung
by
the
csf
array.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
That's
karen!
I
guess
now
would
be
a
good
point
for
us
to
start
wrapping
up
what
we
want
the
committee
not
the
to
direct
staff
to
do
next.
So
are
we
at
a
point
where
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
or
do
we
have
a
a
point
where
we
have
a
straw
motion
of
general
direction,
so
we
can
start
with
that.
Does
anyone
have
that
up?
B
A
Okay,
can
I
just
interject-
I
mean
we
set
this
up
so
either
to
give
us
direction
or
to
pass
emotion.
So
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
have
a
motion,
but
you
know
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
good
direction.
Here
I
mean
I'm
kind
of
my
head
is
a
little
spinning
about
how
we're
going
to
meet
it
all,
but
if
there
is,
if
there's
anything
else,
more
specific
that
people
have,
I
think
that
would
be
really
helpful
for
us,
and
certainly
you
know
as
you've
molded
over
more.
A
B
Okay,
I
I
I
would
hate
to
leave
staff
with
just
like
we
all
talk
and
then
we're
like
the
staff
have
what
they
need.
They
I've
seen
this
a
lot
of
times,
and
I
want
to
prevent
us
from
doing
that.
So
maybe
could
we
do
a
summary
of
what
the
direction
staff
thinks
that
they
have
and
then
we
can
be
like
everyone
not,
and
everyone
not
nod.
My
understanding
is
that
we're
not
passing
any
resolutions
to
tonight
on
capital
improvements.
B
B
F
G
B
D
Just
wanted
to
say
on
the
faqs
I
I
really
would
love
to
see
those
and
even
and
it
is
kind
of
marketing,
but
even
to
the
point
of
and
and
I've
probably
gone
insane
from
the
shelter
in
place.
But
if
anyone
remembers
schoolhouse
rock
how
a
bill
becomes
a
law
and
how
easy
and
fun
it
made
it
look,
I
would
love
to
have
something
easy
and
fun.
D
That's
like
you
literally
just
register
your
rent
roll
and
you
submit
your
receipts
and
in
30
days
we
will
get
back
to
you
with
an
approval
of
what
you
want
to
do,
and
it's
like
a
presumptive
close
that
we're
going
to
approve
the
capital
improvement
so
that
it
doesn't
seem
odorous
and
it
seems
super
easy.
I
would
love
to
have
that
level
of
like
happy
joyful.
This
is
going
to
work
out.
Don't
despair
in
the
faqs.
G
D
I
just
think
that
things
seem
really
daunting
when
you
read
them
in
regulation
form
and
they
can
seem
a
lot
less
daunting
when
somebody
sits
down
and
goes
okay,
here's
how
it
works
and
explains
it
to
you
or
has
like
a
easy,
visual
or
schematic
it
can
make
it
a
lot
less
scary
and
challenging,
and
I
just
think
that
gets
to
the
idea
of
oh.
This
is
going
to
be
an
onerous
process
when
really
we're
only
asking
for
a
rent
roll
in
receipts
really
really
or
bid.
G
B
E
My
point
may
be
moot
now
because
the
last
part
of
that
I
think
you
read
my
mind,
but
the
sorry
not
the
costume
part,
but
what
nicole
was
saying
about
yeah
it'd
be
great.
To
have
an
example
of
specifically,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
reason.
A
lot
of
the
impetus
for
this
rule
was
the
city's
discussion
and
planning
for
the
soft
story
retrofit
right.
So
they've
already
identified
a
lot
of
buildings
that
will
need
it
they'd
kind
of
had
some
broad.
I
think
estimates
for
cost.
E
We
have
some
estimates
for
average
rents,
so
you
know
if
we
kind
of
took
the
average
as
an
example,
I'd
love
to
see
some
financials.
You
know,
let's
say
it's:
average
cost
of
5000
per
unit
for
your
average
10
unit
saw
story.
Retrofit
that's
required,
and
average
income
per
unit
is,
you
know
two
thousand
dollars
something
like
that
really
put
real
numbers
behind
it
and
then
say:
here's
what
the
go
through
that
example,
to
its
end
of
how
long
the
process
would
take.
B
Thank
you,
committee,
member
grunwald.
I
think
we
have
beaten
this
horse
to
death
in
schoolhouse
rock
fashion.
So
I
think
if
there
are
no
more
comments,
I
see
no
other
hands
from
committee
members.
The
staff
have
what
they
need
all
right.
I
see
nods
all
right.
Thank
you.
Let's,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
item:
8.2
quarterly
financial
expenditures
for
fiscal
year
2019
through
20
through
june
30th
2020,
and
we
have
a
staff
presentation.
F
F
If
we
look
at
the
non-personal
services,
a
total
of
34
was
expanded
over
the
year
and
a
further
for
43
encumbered.
This
is
clearly
below
budget,
mostly
due
to
not
receiving
yet
the
fourth
quarter.
Billing
of
service
providers
before
the
end
of
the
year,
lower
than
anticipated
legal
fields
and
also
few
fewer
petition
hearings,
resulted
in
lower
hearing
officer
costs
for
capital
outlay.
F
This
is
used
for
to
finance
our
database,
so
this
year
we
did
not
receive
any
bill
because
we
are
still
working
on
the
same
deliverables
for
the
database
and
invoices
will
be
received
upon
completion
of
these
phases.
The
phases
we're
working
on
currently
are
the
petition
process
built
in
into
the
database.
F
B
I'm
seeing
none
all
right
we're
going
to
go
to
public
comment
on
this
item.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
public
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.
Let's
take
a
look
at
this
attendee
list.
I
see
no
hands
up
so
city
staff.
Did
you
receive
public
comment
on
this
email
on
this
item
by
email
since
5
pm?
B
D
My
feedback
is
very
simple,
awesome
job
everyone,
I'm
really
glad
that
we
came
in
under
budget.
I
understand
that
that
48
is
going
to
go
lower
because
we
have
some
things
that
will
rebuild,
etc,
etc.
But
this
makes
me
feel
cautiously
optimistic
that
the
budget
that
we
set
for
2020
into
2021-
maybe
we
won't
have
to
dip
into
our
reserves
as
direly
as
we
initially
thought.
We
may
so
good
job.
B
F
Yes,
we're
we're
hoping
to
set
the
meeting
schedule
for
the
rental
housing
committee
for
the
year,
the
calendar
year
2021
and
we're
also
giving
you
an
overview
of
what
we
have
scheduled
for
the
rest
of
2020..
An
overview
of
the
proposed
schedule,
yeah
all
meetings
on
monday,
7
pm.
Unless
you
want
to
change
that
and
we
keep
at
as
a
webinar
until
we
get
further
notice
that
in-person
meetings
can
happen
again.
B
Any
questions
from
the
committee?
Sorry,
all
right,
we'll
now
bring
it
to
public
comment.
Would
any
members
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
taking
a
brief
look.
We
do
have
a
hand
up
that
is
edie
keating,
please
step
forward.
B
B
B
C
E
H
B
G
And
the
last
piece
that
I
want
to
mention
here
for
the
previous
fiscal
year
was
really
highlighting
those
failure
to
pay
rent
notices
and
how
how
much
they've
decreased
due
to
the
eviction
moratorium.
So
you
see
there
in
quarter
the
difference
between
quarter
three
of
20,
19
20
and
quarter
four
of
20
19
20,
where
there
was
a
about
a
94
decrease
in
failure
to
pay
rent
notices
because
of
the
eviction
moratorium.
G
There
will
be
another
page
added
to
this
report
that
shows
all
of
the
different
work
that
is
being
done
in
that
space,
and
so
now
I'm
going
to
go
through
it
piece
by
piece.
So
here
you
see,
for
the
month
of
july,
we
had
95
inquiries,
18
of
which
were
in
spanish's
primary
language,
and
then
you
see
all
the
different
topics
here
for
what
what
we're
being
requested,
the
most
of
and
right
now,
a
lot
of
it
has
to
do
with
covid19
related
information
requests,
including
the
inability
to
pay
rent
and
the
eviction
moratorium.
G
In
july
we
had
two
workshops:
one
was
tenant
focus
and
one
was
landlord-focused.
The
landlord-focused
one
was
an
in
an
interactive
workshop
where
landlords
could
join
us
for
a
workshop
that
helped
them
fill
out.
The
rent
increase
forms.
The
city
provides
as
a
template
for
people
that
actually
helped
them
calculate
the
aga,
and
then
we
had
a
general
overview
workshop
for
tenants
focused
on
the
basics
of
the
csfra,
the
eviction
protections.
G
What
the
allowed
annual
rent
increases
this
year
and
tenant
hardship
petitions.
We
also
included
in
both
of
those
workshops,
information
on
the
copin,
19
related
programs
that
the
city
is
doing
and
we
are
working
closely
with
project
sentinel,
who
is
doing
the
mediation
program
for
the
city.
For
the
month
of
july,
there
were
18,
mediations
and
conciliations
that
were
requested,
and
so
far
of
that
number
six
of
the
18
have
been
resolved
and
that
number
will
likely
go
up.
G
G
And
then
here's
some
detailed
breakdown
of
notices
filed
with
the
city
for
just
those
infections
submittals.
We
have
received
no
no
fault
notices
for
the
new
fiscal
year,
no
at
fault
notices
for
the
new
fiscal
year
and
regarding
failure
to
pay
rent
notices.
We've
received
nine
for
the
month
of
july.
Now
the
bulk
of
those
have
also
the
landlords
have
provided
information
on
the
eviction
moratorium
to
their
tenants
as
well.
So
we
are
tracking
that
and
for
rental
tenant
relocation
assistance.
G
You
can
see
here
that
we
have
one
property
that
entered
into
redevelopment
in
2020,
related
to
a
google
property
with
four
units,
and
so
far
40
households
have
received
assistance.
Now
this
number
is
rolling.
So
what
you
see
in
terms
of
households
that
have
received
assistance
has
to
do
with
properties
that
were
filed
for
redevelopment
in
the
past
and
for
petitions.
This
is
what
we're
currently
tracking.
For
the
month
of
july,
we
received
one
tenant
petition
and
it's
in
the
review
process.
G
Now,
here's
the
current
market
conditions
and
vacancy
rate
information.
We
have
made
this
cohesive
and
consistent
with
the
annual
report,
so
you
see
now
the
tracking
of
market
conditions
over
a
span
of
time
and
right
now
there
has
been
an
increase
in
vacancy
rates
associated
likely
associated
with
people
having
to
relocate
due
to
the
eviction
or
due
to
the
copen
19
issues.
This
is
being
seen
across
the
market
in
all
jurisdictions
in
the
bay
area
and
for
csfra
covered
units.
G
In
the
month
of
july,
the
vacancy
rate
was
6.1
according
to
co-star,
and
you
also
see
it
just
a
little
bit
more
of
a
breakdown
for
fully
covered
units
after
the
csf,
where
I
went
into
effect
again,
this
matches.
What's
in
the
annual
report
for
a
current
market
rent,
we
have
all
all
units
here,
including
newly
built
units
partially
covered
units.
G
I
do
want
to
mention
one
more
thing
here,
because
the
graph
is
very
strange
looking
for
newly
built
units
and
their
vacancy
rate,
and
that
is
because
the
way
that
vacancy
rates
are
reported
to
closed
are
when
new
units
come
online
means
that
they're
reporting
it
as
a
vacant
units
when
they
come
online.
So
if
you
have
a
building
that
comes
online
like
one
just
did
they
actually
report
their
vacancy
data
at
40
percent
50
into
the
into
the
the
the
costar
database?
G
So
that's
why
you
see
such
wild
fluctuations
in
newly
built
units
and
then
we
have
what's
happening
in
the
market
in
terms
of
sales
same
as
last
month,
we
have
five
properties
on
the
market
and
for
a
total
of
81
units
and
no
units
have
sold
in
fiscal
year.
20
20
21
or
in
the
months
before,
and
one
of
the
major
changes
here
is
that
we
are
switching
over
to
all
of
the
data
being
fiscal
year.
That
will
also
include
the
tenant
relocation
assistance
data.
G
And
then
here
we
have
the
cpi,
and
you
can
see
that
it
had
still
has
about
a
10
spread
between
the
rent
of
primary
residence
index
and
the
cpi
of
all
units
all
goods
index,
and
that
is
the
overview
for
the
monthly
status
report,
with
the
major
changes
that
we've
implemented
and
then,
as
I
said,
either
next
month
or
the
month
after
probably,
staff
is
shooting
for
next
month.
We'll
have
an
overview
of
all
of
the
eviction.
Moratorium
related
work
that
that
staff
has
been
doing
as
well.
B
E
Yeah
I
mean
so
so
we
passed
a
significant
milestone
and
going
over
the
five
percent
that's
mentioned
in
csfra,
so
staff.
I
mean.
I
know
that
the
the
the
asterisks
in
the
report
show
that,
pursuant
to
the
csfra
or
refers
the
csfra
section
1718
on
what
would
happen
in
confirming
that
number,
is
there
a
process
for
confirming
that
number
or.
G
E
Yeah,
sorry,
my
question
wasn't:
wasn't
the
decision
to
automatically
I
mean
the
rental
housing
committee
would
still
make
the
decision.
I
think
it's
a
question
of
like
it's
when
when
would
the
number
be
confirmed
that
it
is
above
five
percent
which
then
triggers
the
rental
housing
committee
could
or
could
not
bring
up
that
discussion
of
decision?
I
just
think
that
that
would
be
a
threshold
that,
if
it's,
if
the
average
rate
is
above
that,
then
we
probably
want
an
automated
process
to
start
the
survey
to
confirm
that
number.
If
the
survey
is
required.
A
K
E
Yes,
I
totally
agree
yeah,
that's
it
just
that
we
wouldn't.
We
wouldn't
want
to
spend
money
on
a
survey
if,
if
it's
not
likely
already
above
the
number,
and
then
we
would
have
a
separate
discussion
for
like
whether
you
know
what
what
the
action
may
take,
but
I
just
wanna
make
sure
we're
prepared
for
for
that
process.
B
K
We
have
the
temporary
eviction
moratorium,
the
route
relief
program,
the
small
landlord
relief
program
and,
finally,
the
utility
relief
program.
I'm
gonna
skim
quickly
over
the
first
three
because,
as
you
know,
city
council
is
meeting
tomorrow
and
may
make
some
decisions
that
would
change
these
programs.
K
K
B
B
G
G
We
also
on
that
day,
have
an
eviction
moratorium
workshop
at
three
o'clock
open
to
everyone
in
the
community
on
september
10th
at
1
pm
we're
having
a
rental
protections
in
mountain
view
for
seniors
a
senior
specific
and
focused
workshop
with
coordinated
with
the
senior
center,
and
then
that's
at
one
o'clock.
We
also
have
on
in
september
an
eviction,
basics,
tenant,
focus
workshop
and
that
will
be
on
september
17th
at
6
30.,
and
we
have
our
monthly
clinics.
G
Oh
and
I
did
want
to
mention
that
for
the
month
of
august,
we
have
great
attendance
for
those
that
will
be
obviously
in
the
weekly
status
report
for
august,
and
we
have
two
coming
up
september,
4th
from
1
to
3
and
september
18th
from
1
to
3.,
and
that
concludes
the
updates
on
webinars
and
clinics.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
step.