►
Description
Live Teleconference of the Meeting of the City of Mountain View's Rental Housing Committee.
A
Applicable
resolution,
all
members
of
the
rental
housing
committee
will
participate
in
the
meeting
by
video
conference
with
no
physical
meeting
location
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
observe
the
meeting.
Live
May
do
so
at
mountainview.leggestar.com
on
YouTube,
at
mountainview.gov
YouTube
and
on
Comcast
channel
26..
A
B
A
Isn't
thank
you
okie
dokie.
We
will
now
move
to
agenda
item
three,
the
consent
calendar.
These
items
will
be
approved
by
what
motion,
unless
any
member
of
the
committee
wishes
to
remove
an
item
for
discussion.
The
purpose
of
the
consent
calendar
is
for
the
committee
to
efficiently
and
quickly
consider
routine
or
administrative
business
items
with
one
motion.
Although
committee
members
may
have
may
remove
items,
it
is
generally
not
intended
for
the
committee
to
have
a
lengthy,
substantive
discussion
on
consent.
Calendar
items.
Would
any
member
of
the
committee
like
to
pull
an
item.
A
A
You
know
not
seeing
any
hands
there
either.
Okay,
I
will
now
bring
back
to
the
committee.
Bring
the
item
back
to
the
committee
for
Action.
A
motion
to
approve
the
consent.
Calendar
should
include
reading
the
titles
of
the
agenda
items
or
the
resolutions
as
attached
to
the
agenda
item
3.1,
which
is
approved
minutes
from
rhc
meeting
November
14
2022
and
3.2
adopt
a
resolution
to
continue
virtual
meetings
pursuant
to
the
brown
act,
provisions
and
amended
by
aab
361.
C
E
A
Excellent:
okay:
we
will
now
open
meeting
for
oral
communication
from
the
public.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
adjust
the
committee
on
any
matter
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
the
section
state
law
prohibits
the
committee
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
nine
agenda
items?
A
A
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
csfra
any
party
to
a
petition
who
disagrees
with
the
hearing
officer's
decision,
May
appeal
to
the
full
rhc
for
review.
In
this
case,
the
tenant
filed
for
a
downward
adjustment
of
rent
and
the
property
owner.
A
A
A
A
If
there
is
one
more
than
one
petitioner
that
wishes
to
address
the
rhc,
the
petitioners
collectively
must
determine
how
to
allocate
their
10
minutes
amongst
themselves.
Upon
conclusion
of
both
the
presentations,
each
party
will
be
given
up
to
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal
with
the
Appellate
tenant
presenting
rebuttal.
First,
upon
conclusion
of
the
party's
rebuttals,
the
rhc
members
will
be
given
a
chance
to
ask
questions
of
Staff
first
and
then
of
the
appellant,
and
the
respondent
third
c
will
then
deliberate
and
make
its
decision
during
deliberations.
A
It
is
likely
that
rhc
members
will
have
additional
questions
for
staff
additional
questions
for
the
appellant
and
the
respondent
will
generally
not
be
allowed.
Now.
Rhc
members
are
required
to
disclose
any
Communications
that
they
have
had
with
any
of
the
parties
to
the
petition
or
the
party's
representative
and
the
substance
of
those
Communications
Saints
the
date
the
petition
was
vile.
The
decision
of
the
rhc
is
to
be
based
on
the
record
as
presented
to
the
hearing
officer.
A
A
A
A
G
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
rhc
must
determine
whether
or
not
each
appealed
element
of
the
hearing
officer's
decision
is
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
You
are
not
re-weighing
the
evidence
or
relitigating
the
issues.
The
appeal
is
based
on
the
record
submitted
to
the
hearing
officer,
no
new
evidence.
Several
of
the
emails
that
were
received
by
appellant
that
were
referred
to
by
the
Vice
chair
do
in
fact
purport
to
provide
new
evidence.
G
G
The
petition,
the
scope
of
the
petition
was
limited
by
the
hearing
officer
because
of
Prior
petitions
that
were
submitted
by
the
same
petition
against
the
same
landlord
for
several
of
the
same
issues
and
therefore
the
scope
of
the
petition
itself
was
limited
to
new
evidence
and
information
that
arose
after
July
28th
2021,
which
was
the
date
of
the
hearing
on
the
prior
petitions
and
to
limit
that
further.
The
appeals
of
the
hearing
off
the
the
appeal
is
limited
to
only
those
issues
that
are
raised
in
the
appeal.
G
So,
as
the
chair
sort
of
mentioned,
we
had
a
petition
as
well
as
the
hearing
officer's
decision.
We're
now
at
the
appeal
phase
of
the
process
and
the
rental
housing
committee
can
either
affirm
or
modify
the
tentative
appeal
decision,
in
which
case
a
final
decision
of
the
rental
housing
committee
will
be
issued
or
if
issues
arise.
During
the
course
of
this
hearing
and
the
rental
housing
committee
determines
that
a
remand
is
appropriate.
G
That
can
also
be
ordered
on
certain
issues
or
all
of
the
issues,
if
it's
necessary
for
the
hearing
officer
to
con
consider
additional
things
that
were
not
considered
in
the
original
petition
hearing
and
once
there's
a
final
decision
from
the
rental
housing
committee.
Either
party
can
appeal
the
rental
housing
committee's
final
order
to
the
superior
court
on
a
writ
of
mandate.
G
G
So
the
parties
were
provided
an
opportunity
to
submit
their
positions
on
the
doctrine
of
race
judicato,
which
is
the
doctrine,
the
legal
Doctrine.
That
says
you
cannot
re-litigate
the
same
causes
of
action
or
the
same
issues
between
the
same
parties.
More
than
once
so,
the
hearing
officer
limited
the
scope
of
the
incident
petition
in
on
the
25th
of
July.
The
tenant
submitted
a
reasonable
accommodation
request.
G
After
review
of
that
reasonable
accommodation
request
by
the
committee's
council,
the
chair
denied
the
petitioner's
request
and
a
hearing
was
ultimately
held
on
the
petition
on
September
20th
and
the
record
was
closed.
The
hearing
decision
was
delivered
on
October
20th
2022
by
the
hearing
officer
in
the
instant
petition.
G
It
was
Sandra
litter
and
at
the
same
time,
the
hearing
officer
who
had
issued
the
2021
decision,
Derek
Chandler
issue
reissued
the
2021
decision
to
correct
a
clerical
error
that
had
the
petitioner
tenant's
name
incorrect,
In,
The
caption
of
the
document.
It
was
stated
as
William
rather
than
Stephen,
and
so
that
issue
was
or
that
decision.
The
2021
decision
was
reissued
to
correct
that
minor
clerical
error.
G
At
the
same
time
that
the
hearing
decision
was
issued
in
the
instant
petition,
the
petitioner
filed
a
timely
appeal
of
the
hearing
decision
and
the
appeal
hearing
before
the
rental
housing
committee
was
originally
scheduled
for
December
5th.
The
committee
was
not
able
to
achieve
Quorum
and
for
that
reason
the
hearing
was
rescheduled
to
this
evening.
G
So,
just
as
a
summary,
I
I
kind
of
went
over
this
a
little
bit
but
I
think
it's
important
to
go
over
it
again.
The
respondent
landlord
challenged
the
instant
petition
on
the
basis
of
the
doctrine
of
race
judicata,
which
essentially
says
a
cause
of
action
between
the
same
parties
cannot
be
relitigated
once
it
has
been
judged
on
the
merits.
G
The
appellant
asserted
that
the
2021
decision
was
not
actually
written
by
Mr
Chandler,
but
was
due
to
metadata
indicating
that
the
program
software
that
he
had
used
was
registered,
in
fact
to
a
different
attorney
and
also
because
the
or
the
appellant
also
asserted
that
there
was
a
clerical
error
which
the
clerical
era
that
was
ultimately
corrected
by
the
reissuance
of
the
decision
related
to
his
name
and
they
the
appellant
raised.
Both
of
these
issues
in
the
pre-hearing.
G
G
G
One
more
sorry
I
just
want
to
make
sure
this
is
okay.
This
is
the
right
version.
Okay,
we
can
go
back
so
the
the
order
revising
the
20.
So
the
first
issue
on
appeal
is
that
the
order
revising
the
2021
decision
made
race
due
to
Kata
in
applicable
and
right
reset
the
appeal
timeline
of
the
2021
decision.
G
G
The
sixth
issue
that
the
appellant
raises
is
that
the
hearing
officers
should
not
have
considered
documentary
evidence
or
testimony
from
either
landlord
contractor
or
the
city
inspector,
because
they
failed
to
submit
evidentiary
a
documentary
evidence
to
support
their
Elite,
their
expert
opinions
for
their
opinions
and
the
seventh
issue
on
that.
The
appeal
raises
that
the
hearing
officer
failed
to
follow
proper
procedure
by
not
ordering
an
inspection
of
the
property,
so
the
tentative
appeal
decision
upholds
the
hearing
officer's
decision
in
its
entirety.
G
The
hearing
officer
followed
proper
procedures
and
applied
proper
standards
related
to
evidence
and
testimony.
In
particular,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
formal
Rules
of
Evidence
do
not
apply
in
petition
hearings
and
that
is
actually
set
out
explicitly
in
chapter
5
of
the
csfri
regulations.
Section
e
four
explicitly
states
that
the
formal
Rules
of
Evidence
do
not
apply.
G
The
hearing
officer
also
acted
within
her
discretion
and
allowing
and
weighing
testimony
and
evidence,
and
finally,
the
tentative
appeal
decision
finds
that
the
hearing
officers
finding
the
fact
are
supported
by
evidence
in
the
record
and
her
conclusions
of
law
are
sufficiently
supported
by
findings
of
act
and
finding
the
fact
I'm.
Sorry
tentative
appeal
decision
was
issued.
The
appellant
tenant
submitted
a
response
to
the
tentative
appeal
decision.
The.
G
H
F
G
G
So,
in
response
to
this,
the
petition
is
certification
as
an
issp
is
new
evidence
and
should
have
been
presented
at
the
hearing.
It
is
not
in
the
original
hearing
record
and
therefore
not
appropriate
for
the
rental
housing
committee
to
consider
it
and
is
also
not
relevant
to
the
findings
that
the
hearing
officer
did
make
in
the
official
or
in
the
original
hearing
decision.
G
The
second
issue
that
the
tentative
appeal
decision
response
raises
is
that
the
2021
decision
was
invalid
or
unenforceable
because
it
was
plagiarized
and,
as
I
mentioned,
this
was
raised
by
the
appellant
in
his
briefing
and
with
regard
to
the
race
judicata
issues.
The
hearing
officer
determined
that
the
petitioner
had
not
demonstrated
that
the
2021
decision
was
in
fact
plagiarized
that
the
metadata
that
was
indicated
as
demonstrating
plagiarism
was
not
direct
evidence
of
such
and
therefore
disregarded.
G
That
theory
and
concluding
that
the
doctrine
of
race
judicata
did
apply
in
the
response
in
repellent's
response.
He
does
not
provide
any
additional
Authority
for
why
the
metadata
indicates
that
the
2021
decision
was
in
fact
plagiarized
by
the
original
hearing
officer.
It's
merely
a
restatement
of
his
argument
that
was
made
earlier
and
therefore
is
not
appropriate
for
consideration
on
appeal.
G
The
petitioner
did
raise
this
issue
and
it
was
dismissed
by
the
hearing
officer
and
again,
it's
not
the
role
of
the
rental
housing
committee
to
re-litigate
these
issues.
The
hearing
officer
determined
that
the
argument
regarding
the
validity
of
the
rental
agreement
was
not
sufficiently
supported
and
therefore
dismissed
this
argument
and
reaching
her
conclusions.
G
Once
again,
this
issue
was
raised
in
the
petition
as
well
as
at
the
hearing,
and
this
merely
constitutes
a
restatement
of
the
petitioners
argument
at
the
hearing.
Nonetheless,
petitioner
has
put
forth
no
legal
authority
to
support
his
argument
that
this
interpretation
of
the
csfra
is
the
correct
interpretation
that
a
the
definition
of
maintenance
or
reduction
in
Services
encompasses
a
reduction
in
the
property
value
in
the
tax
assessed
property
value.
G
In
this
context,
quasi-judicial
and
administrative
hearing
are
being
used
as
synonymous
terms
and,
in
fact,
the
authorities
that
appellants
cite
in
support
of
this
Theory
clearly
states
that
most
cities
do
not
use
formal
Rules
of
Evidence
and
quasi-judicial
hearings.
It
uses
the
language
caused
by
judicial.
G
The
petitioner's
assertion
that
Witnesses
must
provide
supporting
documentation
is
not
supported
by
legal
authorities,
while
supporting
documentation
might
strengthen
testimony
from
Witnesses.
It
is
not
required.
It's
not
required
anywhere
in
the
csfri
regulations,
and
the
hearing
officer
was
fully
within
her
discretion.
In
weighing
the
strength
of
the
testimony
provided
by
these
two
witnesses.
Without.
G
G
Why
the
facts
in
the
instant
case,
you
know
that
the
facts
in
the
instant
case
are
identical
or
similar
to
the
facts
in
those
other
petitions
which
would
justify
different
conclusions,
merely
states
that
there's
been
bias
because
other
petitioners
tenants
have
prevailed
on
theories
related
to
habitability
issues
and
reduction
in
maintenance
and
Housing
Services,
and
that
does
not
constitute
bias.
That
is
just
an
outcome
of
quasi-judicial
process.
G
The
second
issue
in
the
appellant
amended
response
is
that
a
failure
to
demonstrate
substantial
compliance
renders
both
the
certificate
of
occupancy
and
the
rental
agreement
for
the
unit
void
so
to
address.
First,
the
certificate
of
occupancy
a
certificate
of
occupancy
is
a
document
that
is
issued
typically
by
the
building
department
of
a
city
government.
G
And
the
rental
house,
the
rent
stabilization
program
and
the
rental
housing
committee
do
not
have
the
authority
to
invalidate
a
certificate
of
occupancy.
This
does
not
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
rent,
stabilization
program
or
the
rental
housing
committee,
and
it's
fully
within
the
scope
of
the
building
department
or
code
enforcement
department
of
the
city
government
and
therefore
you
know
whether
or
not
a
landlord
has
substantially
complied
with
the
requirements
of
the
csfra
would
not
invalid
necessarily
invalidate
a
certificate
of
occupancy
for
a
property,
and
certainly
neither
the
program
nor
the
hearing.
G
Officers
nor
the
committee
has
the
ability
to
void
the
certificate
of
occupancy
non-compliance
or
non-compliance
with
the
substantial
requirements
of
the
csfra
also
does
not
necessarily
void
a
rental
agreement
for
the
unit
in
question.
The
rental
unit,
an
individual
rent
adjustment
petition,
is
the
proper
forum
for
challenging
a
landlord's,
substantial
compliance
and
requesting
a
temporary
adjustment
of
the
terms
of
the
rental
agreement.
G
Five.
Thank
you.
The
third
issue
in
the
appellants
amended
response
is
that
the
hearing
officer
did
not
have
discretion
to
permit
certain
evidence,
because
the
respondent
did
not
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
registration
requirement
or
the
required
in
or
inspections
first.
This
is
not
an
issue
that
the
appellant
raised
at
the
hearing
with
regard
to
challenging
whether
the
respondent
had
complied
with
the
registration
requirement.
G
Nonetheless,
substantial
compliance
is
a
prerequisite
for
one,
a
landlord's
petition
for
Upward
adjustment
of
rent
and
the
imposition
of
the
annual
General
adjustment
on
tenants.
These
are
not
requirements
or
prerequisites
to
a
landlord
being
able
to
submit
evidence
in
a
petition
hearing,
rather
that
the
entire
purpose
of
a
petition
hearing
is
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
landlord
has
substantially
complied
with
the
requirements
of
the
act
and
so
preventing
the
landlord
from
submitting
evidence
to
demonstrate
whether
or
not
they
have
complied
with
sort
of
undercut.
The
entire
purpose
of
the
petition.
G
Cities
like
Richmond,
Berkeley,
San,
Francisco
and
San
Jose
do
not
require
petition
hearings
to
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
formal
Rules
of
Evidence.
Finally,
the
appellants
amended
response
raises
issues
related
to
mediation.
Letters
in
particular,
it
alleges
that
the
mediation
letters
that
were
received
from
the
city
and
from
the
mayor
are
coercive
and
inappropriate.
We
don't
address
this
argument
because
it's
not
relevant
to
the
issues
in
the
petition
or
the
appeal
next.
H
G
A
Well,
thank
you,
nas.
That
was
a
great
presentation,
our
repellent
defendant.
Would
you
please
click
your
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
and
staff
will
temporarily
promote
you
to
a
panelist.
The
speech
timer
will
be
displayed
on
the
screen.
You
will
have
10
minutes
and
please
everybody
involved
in
the
petition.
Please
do
not
use
the
chat
function
in
Zoom
to
provide
any
information
either
while
the
other
party
is
presenting
or
while
you
are
presenting
yourself.
I
Thank
you
all
right.
The
first
thing
I'm
going
to
be
addressing
is
this:
on
September
19th
of
2022,
the
rhc
changed
the
standards
of
prerections
regarding
compliance
with
the
safety
codes
of
the
csfra
and
Mountain
View
that
was
under
what
they
call
chapter
12.
chapter
12
was
in
fact
voted
on
and
passed
on
the
19th.
However,
the
hearing
that
took
place
was
actually
on
September
20th,
which
was
which
basically
means
that
it
was
less
than
24
hours
after
the
passage
of
the
new
requirement
that
the
hearing
took
place.
Because
of
that.
I
But
the
simple
fact
was:
the
petitioner
did
not
have
that
information
relevant
to
making
a
decision
to
present
to
the
hearing
officer
in
the
first
place.
Second
of
all,
given
the
fact
that
now
it
is
December
19th
and
that
chapter
12
was
being
effective,
December
1st
means
that
it,
the
rhc
hearing
officers
or
anyone,
is
going
to
contemplate
the
fact
that
a
landlord
is
in
compliance
with
the
csfra,
which
is
required
to
contest
any
hearing.
I
That
would
mean
that
it
would
have
to
be
full
compliance
of
the
of
the
regulations
and
what
I'm
saying
now
is
that,
as
of
this
date
and
time,
there
is
actually
no
proof
that
there
is
any
evidence
to
substantiate
any
of
the
health
and
safety
declarations
that
have
been
made
by
both
the
landlord
and
the
City
of
Mountain
View
at
this
time.
So,
but
I'm
still
be
saying,
is
that,
under
these
circumstances,
the
the
petitioner
literally
did
not
know
their
rights
because
their
rights
were
Rewritten
literally
within
24
hours.
I
I
was
able
to
demonstrate
about
43
reduction
in
Pro
in
the
actual
building
property
value
regarding
the
Santa
Clara
County
task
board
that
would
not
be
substantiated
by
anything,
but
something
very
significantly
involved
in
this
case
again,
what
I'm
now
dealing
with
is
a
whole
new
situation
that
I'm
probably
going
to
have
to.
If,
if
this
hearing
goes
away,
it
goes
I'm
simply
going
to
have
to
refile
for
a
new
hearing
based
on
the
fact
that
I
have
a
four
that
is
expandingly
becoming
compromised.
I
All
I
have
to
do
is
step
on
with
my
bare
feet
and
I
can
feel
the
floorboard
sinking
into
the
underneath
me
and
indications
of
cracking
of
the
floor
as
as
well.
The
real
issue
again
is
that
the
bottom
line
on
two
fronts-
chapter
12,
was
decided
24
hours
before
the
hearing
took
place,
so
the
petitioner
could
not
have
been
feasibly
aware
of
that
kind
of
of
a
change
of
situation
and
make
any
adjustment
regarding
the
original
petition.
I
If
I
I
had
had
that
information,
I
would
have
presented
it
to
the
hearing,
officer
and
I
would
have
easily
been
able
to
then
establish
the
fact
that
indeed,
the
csfri
does
have
a
provision
that
requires
compliance
regarding
all
building
codes,
all
safety
codes
and
so
on.
But
if
the
the
petitioner
does
not
decide
to
present
any
information
to
prove
that
these
are
actually
in
evidence
that
they,
they
actually
are
in
substantive
compliance.
I
Well,
again,
that's
a
violation
of
the
csfra
requirements
and
thus
would
deny
any
argument
to
defend
the
landlord
at
given
the
fact
that
the
rules
are
if
you're,
not
in
compliance
with
the
csfra,
you
cannot
present
any
information
that
is
basically
but
the
csfra
says
very
clearly
in
in
other
areas
of
the
ACT.
The
bottom
line
is
again
the
the
fact
was
for
some
reason,
people
were
trying
to
misconstrue
the
the
text
of
the
csfra
By
ignoring,
but
are
not
limited
to
as
literally
occurring
right
before
repairs,
maintenance,
painting
and
so
on.
I
So
the
fact
is,
the
hearing
officer
had
basically
been
very
I,
had
in
fact
cherry-picked
what
she
wanted
to
consider
regarding
her
decision
and,
in
fact,
by
not
in
her
decision
literally,
was
not
in
compliance
by
the
text
of
the
law
and
I'm.
Just
surprised
that
no
one
is
imminent
close
to
addressing
it
now.
I
This
may
end
up
being
determined
it's
uninhabitable
because
of
that
fact
and
I
think
in
reality,
I
think
in
about
10
years,
this
building
may
end
up
being
condemned
because
of
the
instability
of
its
foundation
and
it's
impact
on
the
structure.
Now
I
I
know
I'm
going
a
little
bit
beyond
the
scope,
but
I'm
just
giving
you
the
the
bigger
picture,
along
with
the
specific
issues
here,
the
fact
is,
I
have
cited
specifically
the
the
text
of
the
law.
That
supports
my
argument.
I
Nonetheless,
of
course,
everyone
is
trying
to
say
that
no
there's
no
Authority
well
again,
it's
because
the
csfri
has
been
rarely
brought
to
court
and
also
in
this
regard.
Even
if
this
hearing
does
not
go
in
my
favor
I
will
go
to
court
where
all
the
rules
of
evidence
will
have
to
be
applied,
and
in
this
case
this
bit
actually
Bear
very
poorly
on
the
on
the
process,
because
the
courts
will
probably
turn
around
and
say,
there's
going
to
have
to
be
some
new
rules
established
in
any
case,
that's
it.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
respondent
landlord,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
and
staff
will
temporarily
promote
you
to
a
panelist,
the
speech
timer
will
be
displayed
on
the
screen.
You
will
have
10
minutes
also
again
for
everybody
involved
in
the
petition
hearing.
Please
do
not
use
the
chart
function
in
Zoom
to
provide
information,
whether
it
be
while
you
are
presenting,
or
while
the
other
party
is
presenting.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you,
I
appreciate
it.
I
won't
take
up
too
much
of
your
time
Council
for
the
city.
It
did
an
excellent
job
very
thoroughly,
going
through
all
these
issues
and,
quite
frankly,
taking
a
lot
of
my
arguments
that
I
would
have
made
anyway,
and
so
I'll
do
this,
hopefully
pretty
quickly,
but
the
rent
review
board
has
now
heard
Mr
Gold
team's
petition
on
these
same
issues
on
two
separate
occasions,
once
in
July
2021
again
on
September
20th
of
this
year.
J
J
The
tentative
decision
of
the
rental
housing
committee
is
nine
pages
of
evidence
and
legal
analysis
that
goes
through
each
and
every
one
of
petitioners
claims
and
cites
all
the
documents
that
he
tends
to
that
he
references
as
well
and
the
most
important
finding
is
that
the
petitioner
simply
has
not
shown
any
decrease
in
services
or
maintenance
that
would
justify
a
red
adjustment.
In
fact,
the
fact
that
the
rules
of
evidence
do
not
apply
here
does
him
a
huge
favor
in
terms
of
him
meeting
his
burden
of
proof,
and
he
still
cannot
do
that.
J
J
You
disregarded
all
the
evidence
presented
by
respondents
in
this
case
with
our
own
expert,
our
own
flooring
expert
and
the
balcony
expert
that
was
consulted,
Mr
Von
Klem,
but
also
the
city's
own
senior
building
inspector,
which
also
provided
his
own
opinion
after
his
inspection,
and
he
has
no
logical
basis
for
any
of
the
claims
he
makes
in
his
in
his
petition.
Respondent
is
an
attentive
and
dutiful
landlord
who
installed
new
balconies
at
the
subject
property
for
the
benefit
of
his
tenants.
J
J
His
argument
saying
that
property
taxes
showing
a
reduction
in
the
value
of
the
real
property
as
a
whole
is
is
not
a
valid
claim.
On
the
cfra
I
mean
their
argument
simply
does
not
make
any
sense
he's
not
entitled
to
throw
anything
at
the
wall
to
reduce
his
rent.
He
has
to
show
a
loss
of
value
of
his
particular
unit.
J
That's
what
the
CFR
ra
has
meant
to
address,
or
whether
we're
talking
about
a
lack
of
common
areas
or
we're
talking
about
not
being
able
to
use
laundry
rooms
facility
to
talk
about
lack
of
hot
and
cold
running
water,
something
that
shows
a
lack
of
service
or
maintenance
property
taxes.
Do
not
go
to
anything
like
that,
and
the
hearing
officer
actually
addressed
that
as
well
and
properly
disregarded.
That
argument
the
floor
issue
that
he's
mentioning
where
he
walks
on
his
floor
and
it
creaks
again.
J
That's
something
that
hearing
officer
addressed
she
heard
whatever
evidence
petitioner
could
have
come
up
with.
She
petitioner
had
this
opportunity
to
do
that.
He
could
not
present
any
evidence
showing
that
that
was
an
issue
and
appearing
officer
specifically
found
that
there
was
no
failure
to
maintain
the
property
in
that
regard.
Similarly,
he's
made
some
wildly
unsupported
and
speculative
claims
about
an
unsafe
foundation
of
the
of
the
property.
Again,
there's
been
no
evidence
that
shows
anything
like
that.
J
I
don't
want
to
spend
too
much
time
and
so
I'll
wrap
this
up
here
with
just
to
say
he
said,
petitioners
had
almost
two
years
now
over
two
petitions
to
provide
whatever
evidence.
He
has
not
even
not
even
subject
to
The
Rules
of
Evidence,
just
whatever
he
has
to
submit
his
burden
of
proof
on
these
issues
and
now
two
separate
hearing
officers
has
found
that
he
has
failed
to
do
so
other
than
that
I
would
refer
to
the
dependent
decision.
A
I
Okay,
first,
let
me
address
something
really
interesting.
The
attorney
that
was
just
speaking
just
sent
me
a
threatening
email
regarding
my
communications
with
people,
while
they're
in
the
middle
of
this
process,
which
would
actually
be
potentially
what
would
be
called
intimidating,
a
witness
or
or
complaintant,
while
a
administrator
or
judicial
process
is
occurring,
which
would
definitely
run
a
foul
with
a
lot
of
rules
of
professional
Behavior.
I
Regarding
an
attorney
second
of
all,
again
the
idea
that
he's
trying
to
say
I'm,
gonna
I'm,
throwing
anything
up
against
the
wall
regarding
Housing
Services
again,
the
text
of
the
law
is
very
clear.
It
makes
it
very
wide
open.
It
does
not
limit
to
anything
regarding
repair
maintenance
and
so
on,
because
it
clearly
says
in
four
in
five
words:
Housing
Services,
to
include
comma,
but
are
not
limited
to
trauma
and
the
list
of
of
of
the
category
of
services
that
he
tries
to
limit
the
the
definition
of
Housing
Services
in
effect.
I
But
it
again,
it
says,
is
that
it
leaves
it
completely
wide
open
and
on
top
of
it,
let's
just
go
one
step
backward
in
2018
the
event.
There
were
two
hearing
systems
done
by
the
way
in
order
to
increase
his
rent
instead
of
decreasing,
and
he
asked
for
that.
Both
of
them
were
rejected
because
of
maintenance
issues.
I
So
what
I'm
saying
is
that
during
that
time
he
was
already
paying
the
in
that
case,
the
five
million
dollars
of
property
taxes
and
the
hearing
officer
basically
ascertained
that
we
were
originally
paying
at
the
time,
was
appropriate
for
that
tax
basis.
Now
again,
this
particular
hearing
officer
decided
not
to
do
any
accounting
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
fair
rent
was
actually
taking
place.
I
In
fact,
that
is
one
of
the
issues
that
I
brought
up
and
it
it
seems
as
though,
for
some
reason,
the
hearing
officer
decided
not
to
ascertain
whether
or
not
the
the
river
was
in
fact
taking
advantage
of
lowering
taxes
to
increase
his
cash
flow
because
he
did
not
report
the
fact
his
taxes
went
down
and
again
well.
In
that
case,
then,
you
have
the
2018
decision
and
its
2017
decision
that
was
made
by
Jill
dalessandro,
the
hearing
officer
at
the
time.
I
Finally,
again,
what
it
seems
to
me
is
that
there's
a
lot
of
character
assassination
being
used
by
this
attorney
in
order
to
make
an
argument
against
me
and
I
hear
someone
laughing
in
the
in
the
background,
which
is
very
disconcerting,
because
that
obviously
means
that.
Fortunately,
that's
in
the
record,
thank
you
for
recording
that
City
Mountain
View,
because
the
idea
that
someone
can
be
laughing
at
me
while
I
am
making
it
a
point,
would
clearly
be
something
to
be
considered
for
future
litigation.
I
I
What
has
happened
is
that,
yes
in
October,
it
was
presented
that
a
small
region
of
my
floor
was
starting
to
have
structural
problems,
but
now
it
has
expanded
by
two
and
a
half
times
and
it's
it's
continuing
to
grow,
and
this
is
in
the
same
general
vicinity
of
some
of
the
support
beings
that
were
supporting
the
balcony
that
was
repaired
last
year.
The
final
thing,
I
will
say
is
that
again
remember.
Last
year's
hearing
was
not
even
done
regarding
an
appeal
because
it
was
determined
to
be
untimely.
I
A
J
J
Sure
so
first
I
just
want
to
address
what
has
been
petitioners
impunity
of
my
own
professional
credibility,
my
email
to
him
that
he
references
is
there.
There
are
other
members
of
the
city,
I
think
including
Miss
Kennedy
and
Miss
Black,
who
are
copied
on
that
email.
I
stand
by
everything
in
that
email,
which
is
nothing
but
the
truth,
which
is
that
his
petitions
have
been
denied
twice
so
far.
J
I
found
that
those
emails
to
be
harassing
and
I
said
that
if
you
were
to
continue
Communications
with
my
client
about
issues
unrelated
to
the
petition
that
he
should
do
so
without
copying,
the
entire
city
of
Mountain,
View
and
so
I
stand
by
that.
But
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
any
sort
of
intimidation
and
the
email
is
there
for
any
of
the
council
members
that
they
would
like
to
address
that
otherwise,
I
I,
don't
think
that
petitioner
has
made
any
cogent
arguments
that
I
could
really
rebut
at
this
time.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
okay
committee
now
I'm
bringing
it
back
to
you.
Do
you
have
any
questions
for
staff
or
for
the
appellant
or
respondent?
Remember
we
can
ask
further
questions
of
Staff
as
we
discuss
any
potential
motion
and
deliberation,
but
we
will
not
be
able
to
ask
any
additional
questions
for
the
appellant
or
respondent
after
we
move
from
this
section.
A
I,
don't
believe
we
have
the
ability
to
have
any
further
input.
As
the
representative
already
spoke,
hey
seeing
no
questions
the
rhc
can
now
deliberate.
It
would
be
appropriate
at
this
time
to
entertain
a
motion
to
adopt
the
tentative
decision,
at
which
point
the
motion
could
be
discussed
by
the
rhc.
Do
I
have
a
motion
or
any
thoughts
on
the
floor.
F
F
E
Yeah,
just
a
question
for
staff:
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
doing
this
by
the
book
and
dining
your
eyes
and
crossing
our
T's
and
I
believe
Committee
Member
roses
joined
Midway
and
I
just
want
to
just
want
to
ask
staff
for
dotting
her
eyes
and
crossing
our
teases.
Will
that
be
okay?
If
I
and
voting
on
this,
and
as
the
alternate
and
Committee
Member
Rosas
just
please
confirm.
F
So
you,
as
the
alternate,
can
vote
because
even
with
Committee
Member
Rose's
attendance,
we
still
are
missing.
One
of
the
committee
members
and
you
have
participated
in
the
entire
hearing.
I
would
suggest
I,
don't
quite
know
when
committing
member
roses
joined,
but
I
would
suggest
that
she
might
abstain
if
she
did
not
hear
the
entire
presentation.
E
C
A
K
So
we
have
a
little
bit
more
definition
in
what
that
means.
When
the
report
is
reformatted
and
coming
back
to
the
committee
for
overview
of
Q3,
which
will
be
it's
you
in
April,
so
we'll
have
a
new
report
starting
in
April,
and
these
will
become
quarterly.
At
that
time
we
are
still
seeing
quite
a
large
percentage
of
bilingual
services,
and
26
of
all
of
our
inquiries
are
coming
in
with
Spanish
as
a
primary
language.
K
We
also
sent
out
Mass
mailings.
We
had
a
our
newsletter
go
out
in
November
I
wish
I
believe
you
all
received
copies
of
to
the
tenants
and
the
landlords
for
csfra
covered
units
and
to
the
mobile
home
park
owners
the
and
the
landlords,
as
well
as
Mobile
Home,
Park
mobile
home
owners
and
their
tenants
for
mobile
homes
covered
by
the
mhrso.
So
that
was
the
first
newsletter
that
they
received.
K
K
We've
received
464
termination
notices,
which
you
can
see
break
down
through
this.
So
if
we
look
at
q1
and
Q2
for
the
current
fiscal
year,
we
have
268
failure
to
pay
rent
notices
and
182
failure
to
pay
rent
notices
for
Q2.
So
that's
the
bulk
of
our
noticing
and
next
month,
I'll
I
will
pull
it
out
to
let
you
know
which
ones
of
those
are
repeats.
A
lot
of
them
are
repeats.
So
it's
the
same
unit.
That's
receiving
multiple
months
of
termination
notices,
so
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
these
are
not
individual
households.
K
And
what
I
mean
by
that?
Is:
it's
not
representative
of
one
termination
notice
being
for
one
household,
a
different
household
for
each
one,
they're
often
repeats.
Like
I
said
for
our
petitions.
We
have
14
current
petitions
for
the
fiscal
year.
This
has
just
increased
as
well
and
right
now
the
bulk
of
them
are
tenant
related
we're
seeing
a
slight
uptick
in
vacancy
rates
across
all
units,
except
for
that
newly
built
one
that,
as
we've
talked
about,
is
very
volatile.
Actually
that
one
will
jump
up
the
next
time.
K
A
A
A
A
K
Thank
you,
chair,
Haines,
Liv,
say,
item
7.2
is
an
update
on
petitions,
the
petition
process
and
hearing
officers
and
I'm
going
to
go
a
little
bit
backwards
in
time
for
you
as
we
move
forward
through
this
presentation
tonight.
So
the
purpose
of
this
agenda
item
is
to
provide
the
rental
housing
committee,
with
an
update
regarding
the
petitions
process
to
date,
pursuant
to
the
community
stabilization
and
fair
rent
Act
and
the
mobile
home
rent
stabilization
ordinance,
including
an
update
on
hearing
officers
and
the
pre-hearing
settlement
conference
facilitators
for
the
rent
stabilization
program.
K
So
just
a
little
bit
of
background
here
that
I
think
most
of
us
are
aware
of
by
now,
but
I
wanted
to
be
sure
to
again
go
a
little
bit
back
for
you
all.
So,
as
we
know,
the
csfra
is
a
voter
approved
measure
with
the
goal
of
stabilizing
the
community
by
reducing
rental
housing
turnover.
It
limits,
rent
increases
for
certain
rental
units
and
provides
just
cause
eviction
protections
for
certain
rental
units,
and
it
allows
the
landlords
of
these
units
to
receive
a
fair
and
reasonable
rate
of
return
on
their
investment.
K
K
The
rhc
was
tasked
with
implementing
the
mhr
so
including
petitions
for
individual
adjustments
in
rent
for
both
landlords
and
tenants,
and
once
this
program
started
being
implemented,
the
rhc
requested
a
monthly
status
report,
which
is
what
we
just
reviewed
that
provides
a
graphical
overview
of
petition
statuses
throughout
the
fiscal
year,
as
well
as
a
look
back
for
the
time
period
that
we've
covered
in
the
past.
So
every
every
fiscal
year.
This
is
updated,
they
move
back
and
then
we
go
and
we
look
forward.
K
This
also
provides
a
detailed
information
on
the
current
fiscal
year,
so
you
receive
more
information,
more
detailed
information
on
the
current
fiscal
year
than
you
do.
On
the
previous
fiscal
years,
we
like
to
show
as
much
information
as
possible
because
the
petitions
are
rolling.
Sometimes
there
are
ones
that
are
still
happening
from
the
prior
fiscal
year
that
have
not
gone
through
the
decision
process
by
the
time
the
fiscal
year
ends.
K
The
reason
why
we're
given
this
presentation
today
is
that
it
was
agendized
at
the
direction
of
the
rhc
and
it
provides
an
overview
of
experiences
to
date.
With
the
petition
and
hearing
process.
The
previous
update
was
given
in
fiscal
year.
2018-2019.
we
haven't
had
one
for
a
little
while
due
to
covid,
so
this
particular
update
provides
a
five-year
look
back.
It
also
resumes
the
annual
update
so
going
forward.
K
There's
also
different
parts
of
the
petition
process
that
allow
the
parties
to
be
able
to
request
information
and
participate
as
much
as
possible
while
preparing
for
the
hearing.
There
are
two
types
of
petitions
buckets,
those
that
are
initiated
by
tenants
and
those
that
are
initiated
by
landlords.
We
have
four
different
tenant,
initiated
petitions
and
three
different
landlord-initiative
petitions
that
can
be
filed
with
the
rent
stabilization
program
for
tenant
initiated
petitions.
We
have
the
unlawful
rent
petition,
which
is
also
called
petition.
K
A
petition
B
is
failure
to
maintain
habitable
premises
or
decrease
in
services
or
maintenance.
Petition.
C
is
the
undue
tenant
hardship
petition
and
this
is
can
be
filed
in
response
to
a
bank
threat,
increase
notice
or
in
response
to
a
landlord,
mnoi
maintenance
of
net
operating
income
petition
and
then
finally,
we
have
those
joint
petitions,
the
new
or
additional
Housing
Services
petitions
and
those
are
all
have
to
be
initiated
by
a
tenant
for
a
landlord-initiative
petitions.
K
We
have
the
maintenance
of
net
operating
income
petition
and
then
we
have
the
special
specified,
Capital,
Improvement,
petition
and
finally
exemption
petitions.
These
have
all
been
approved
by
the
rhc
and
are
in
detail
in
our
regulations
and
again
tenant
petitions.
Typically
aside
from
the
new
or
additional
Housing
Services
petition,
are
petitions
for
downward
adjustments
of
rent
and
landlord
initiated
petitions,
aside
from
the
exemption
petition,
are
for
an
upward
adjustment
up
front.
K
So
here
is
an
overview
of
the
types
of
petitions
received
by
the
program
to
date
and
I
do
want
to
just
point
out
that
the
different
types
of
petitions
that
you
see
here
vary
greatly
in
type
complexity.
The
number
of
effective
parties,
situations
and
circumstances
and
the
variation
in
content,
as
well
as
the
impacts
of
the
pandemic
on
the
rental
housing
market
and
the
adoptions
of
new
regulations
affect
this
comparative
year-over-year
analysis
and
impact
potential
Trends.
So
while
we
can
look
at
it
as
and
and
provide
that
year
over
year,
look
back
analysis.
K
K
So
what
you
see
here
is
our
complete
look
back
from
the
start
of
the
program
to
now.
In
27
fiscal
year,
2017-18
we've
received
a
total
of
18
petitions,
13
of
which
were
from
landlords
and
five
of
which
were
from
tenants,
and
then
you
see
this
kind
of
flip.
Here
in
2018-2019
we
received
three
petitions
from
landlords
and
49
from
tenants.
We'll
talk
about
this
in
a
little
bit,
but
a
lot
of
those
49
were
actually
in
response
to
a
large
property
landlord
petition.
K
In
2019-2020
we
had
one
petition
from
a
landlord
11
from
tenants
in
20,
20
21,
zero
from
landlords
21
from
tenants
and
then
in
2021,
22
3
from
landlords
13
from
tenants
and
the
current
fiscal
year
that
we're
in
Zero
from
landlords
and
13
from
tenants
so
of
the
132
petitions
that
have
been
filed
with
the
program,
and
this
goes
through
November
of
2022
85
of
those
were
filed
by
tenants.
15
were
filed
by
landlords.
K
52
of
the
petitions
were
filed
in
fiscal
year
2018-19,
which
represents
the
greatest
number
of
the
petition
filings.
39
of
all
total
petitions
received
were
received
during
that
year
and
18
petitions
filed
again
18
of
those
52
petitions
in
fiscal
year.
2018-19
were
filed
in
response
to
a
landlord
petition,
so
tenants
can
file
undue
hardship,
petitions
in
response
to
landlord
petitions
and
that's
what
happened
here.
K
So,
since
November
of
2020
114
petitions
that
have
been
filed
entered
into
the
formal
hearing
process,
15
petitions,
which
is
13
of
those
petitions,
were
withdrawn
by
the
petitioner
and
three
petitions
were
not
accepted.
Non-Acceptance
is
really
rare.
It
it
doesn't
happen
very
often
we
as
staff,
don't
typically
make
those
decisions.
One
landlord
m1oi
petition
was
not
accepted
by
the
hearing
officer
due
to
extensive
and
active
code
violations
on
the
property.
K
One
undue
tenant
hardship
petition
was
not
accepted
by
the
hearing
officer
due
to
late
filing,
which
is
in
the
csfra
regulations,
and
one
unlawful
rent
petition
filed
in
2017
and
was
filed
by
a
mobile
home
owner,
and
that
was
not
accepted
because
the
rhc
deemed
mobile
homes
not
covered
at
that
time.
In
February
of
2018..
K
K
K
K
So
now
we
can
go
into
a
little
bit
more
depth
on
landlord-initiated
petitions,
we're
going
to
start
there
for
landlord-initiative
petitions
again.
This
shows
what
we've
reviewed
in
that
first
chart.
We
have
the
the
13
mnoi
petitions
that
we
received
in
2017-18
that
were
the
the
highest
filings
for
that
time
period.
K
Okay
for
the
and
I
just
went
over
this
a
little
bit.
This
should
say
that
this
represents
100
of
landlord
petitions.
Please
excuse
this
slide.
20
mni
petitions
have
been
filed
since
2017-18
and
the
greatest
number
again
was
filed
in
that
2017-18
time
period
during
our
first
first
fiscal
year
of
accepting
petitions,
and
this
is
common
in
most
jurisdictions.
You
typically
see
the
most
number
of
mnoi
petitions
when
you're
closest
to
that
initial
base
rent
year
so
for
specified,
Capital
Improvement
petitions.
K
This
petition
process
allows
landlers
to
request,
increases
above
the
AGA
for
specified
Capital
Improvements.
The
forms
and
workbooks
from
staff
will
be
available
shortly,
they'll
be
being
posted
in
English
this
week
on
our
website,
parties
are
able
to
file
using
their
own
forms
and
following
the
instructions
outlined
in
the
regulations
since
2021.,
we
have
not
received
any
of
these
two
dates
and
then
we
have
exemption
petitions,
which
you
approved
and
adopted
regulations
for
in
fiscal
year.
K
for
unlawful
rent
petitions.
Tenants
can
request
a
downward
adjustment
of
rent
if
they've
received
an
unlawful
rent
increase
or
if
their
landlord
has
been
in
violation
of
some
other
part
of
the
csfra.
We've
had
35
of
these
files
since
fiscal
year
2017-18,
which
is
when
these
became
available.
This
represents
31
of
all
tenant
petitions
and
the
greatest
number
was
filed
in
the
second
year
of
the
program
fiscal
year.
2018-19
many
of
these
were
related
to
rent
rollbacks,
not
being
given.
K
The
second
type
of
petition
that
tenants
can
fail
can
file
are
the
failure
to
maintain
habitable
premise
or
reduction
Housing
Services
petitions.
Those
have
been
available
since
the
start
of
the
program
in
fiscal
year
2017-2018
and
since
then,
34
petitions
have
been
filed
for
this
type
of
petition
representing
30
percent
of
tenant
petitions.
The
greatest
number
of
these
were
filed
in
fiscal
year,
2020
2021,
and
these
were
particularly
for
two
properties
and
they
were
due
to
alleged
reductions
in
Housing
Services
related
to
the
covid-19
pandemic.
K
So
a
group
of
tenants
at
these
two
different
properties
filed
petitions
respectively
together
separate
petitions,
separate
processes.
They
were
processed
together
in
what
we
call
a
Consolidated
petition
process
and
the
the
outcomes
differed
for
the
two
properties
for
fiscal
year,
2021
and
22
and
fiscal
year.
2223
additional
inquiries
have
been
received
about
habitability
issues
from
tenants
that
are
attending
the
housing
and
eviction
help
center.
K
The
third
group
of
petitions
are
those
undue
tenant,
hardship,
petitions
that
can
be
filed
in
response
to
a
bank
to
rent
increase
notice
or
as
a
response
to
an
upward
adjustment
of
rent
petition
filed
at
the
City
by
landlords.
I
think
we
talked
about
earlier.
We
had
43
of
those
filed
in
fiscal
filed
with
the
program
since
fiscal
year,
2018-19
representing
38
of
tenant
petitions
and
the
greatest
number
of
those
were
filed
in
the
first
year
that
they
were
accepted
so
that
again,
that's
2018-19
of
the
30
undue
tenant
hardship.
K
Petitions
filed
by
tenants
in
2018-1960
or
filed
in
response
to
that
to
landlord
mnoi
petitions
and
then
the
last
type
of
petition
that
a
tenant
can
initiate
are
those
newer,
additional
Housing,
Services
petitions.
They
allow
tenants
and
landlords
to
file
a
joint
petition
for
an
increase
of
rent
or
allow
for
a
one-time
payment
from
tenant
to
landlord.
K
Tenants
must
initiate
the
process
and
newer
additional
Housing,
Services
petition
forms
and
workbooks
will
be
available,
mid-December
of
2022
on
the
website
in
English
and
then
follow
that
up
with
getting
them
in
other
languages
as
well.
Parties
will
be
able
to
file
using
their
own
form,
have
been
able
to
file
using
their
own
forms
and
following
their
instructions
outlined
in
the
regulations
since
2021
and
none
have
been
filed
to
date
as
I
go.
Are
there
any
questions
about
petitions
before
I
jump
into
the
hearing
officer,
update.
A
K
K
So,
as
mentioned
in
the
background
section
of
the
presentation
earlier,
this
update
also
includes
information
on
hearing
officers.
As
per
the
chair's
request.
City
staff
provides
hearing,
administrative
and
related
support
for
the
petition
process.
We
help
with
all
of
the
intake.
We
help
both
tenants
and
landlords
understand
the
process
and
we
provide
support
to
the
hearing
officers
as
well
once
it's
processed,
we
then
hand
this
off
to
the
hearing
officer.
We
provide
them
with
all
the
documentation
and
all
of
the
support
that
they
need
to
actually
adjudicate
the
petition
process.
K
K
So
here's
an
overview
of
of
what
the
hearing
officers
do.
They
review
the
forms,
the
communications
and
the
documentation
provided
by
parties
to
the
petition.
They
determine
the
hearing
record
based
on
communication
and
documentation
provided
by
all
parties.
They
issue
orders
they
oversee
and
hold
the
hearings
and
they
write
and
issue
the
decision
30
days
after
the
hearing
record
closes.
Most
of
the
time
the
hearing
record
closes
at
the
hearing.
K
They
also
order
and
attend
property
inspections.
If
they
so
choose,
that's
part
of
their
purview.
They
request
clarification
or
additional
documentation
from
the
affected
parties.
They
perform
complex
mathematical
calculations
to
determine
the
petition
outcomes
and,
of
course,
they
adjudicate
the
hearings
for
us.
K
K
So
they
are
again
very
qualified
to
perform
the
duties
that
we
request
of
them
so
for
adjudicating
tenant
petitions
on
average,
it's
taken
from
January
2018
through
January
2019,
3.8
hours
per
tenant
petition
on
average
and
since
July
of
2019
through
the
current
fiscal
year
that
has
ticked
up
to
8.8
hours
on
average
for
tenant
petition.
And
this
is
a
change
in
the
complexity
of
the
petitions.
For
example,
unlawful,
rent
petitions,
the
lawyers
for
both
parties
requested
multiple
hearing
dates
to
discuss
the
validity
of
the
petition
and
whether
the
csfra
was
applicable.
K
So
it's
just
the
details
are
are
far
more
complex
at
this
time
than
they
were
when
we
initially
started
the
program
for
landlord
petitions.
The
time
spent
varied,
depending
on
a
variety
of
factors,
including
the
number
of
units
in
the
building,
the
number
of
parties
involved
in
the
petition,
the
number
of
affected
units
in
the
petition.
K
K
There
are
claims
of
habitability,
overdue
maintenance
and
or
hardship.
So
all
of
these
things
affect
how
long
it
takes
for
the
landlord
petitions
to
be
adjudicated
by
the
hearing
officer.
For
example,
one
petition
that
affected
only
10
units
with
thorough
documentation
submitted
by
the
landlord
and
had
no
issues
raised
by
tenants
or
discovered
by
the
hearing
officers,
took
11
hours
to
process
and
issue
a
decision,
whereas
three
petitions
were
where
partial
petitions
were
submitted
under
habitability.
Issues
were
raised
by
the
effective
tenants,
led
to
27
to
30
hours
to
process
and
issue
decision.
K
So
we'll
be
updating
finalizing
and
releasing
multi-language
petition
forms
and
workbooks
for
both
the
new
petitions
for
the
csfra
and
for
the
mhr.
So
we're
pretty
close
at
this.
They
have
to
be
updated
quite
frequently,
but
we
do
a
pretty
good
job
of
this
in
general,
we'll
be
implementing
the
petitions
Communications
plan.
K
When
those
two
new
petitions
come
online,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
knows
that
the
they
are
accessible
and
available
we'll
be
releasing
phase
four
of
the
online
portal
portal,
which
we
talked
about
last
month
during
the
communications
overview,
so
that
landlord
petitions
can
be
filed
through
MV
rent.mountainview.gov
and
then
any
updates
on
regulations
that
you
approve
for
clarification
or
to
improve
understanding.
Implementation
of
the
csfra
and
mhr.
So
we'll
be
relayed
to
the
hearing
officers.
K
We
also
plan
to
do
the
following
to
support
hearing
officer,
Recruitment
and
Retention
hire
and
train
additional
hearing
officers
to
reduce
workload,
develop
and
or
refine
supportive
materials.
So
we
do
make
we
do
have
now
for
tenants
and
for
landlords
Master
workbooks
through
Excel
that
are
coded
to
do
the
calculations
to
provide
the
initial
to
make
sure
that
the
initial
calculations
provided
and
petitions
are
as
accurate
as
possible
in
the
past.
K
Before
we
had
those,
it
was
quite
challenging
for
hearing
officers
to
have
to
go
in
and
take
a
a
paper
copy
of
a
workbook
with
handwritten
information
and
then
do
all
of
the
mathematical
calculations
themselves.
That
caused
quite
a
challenge
for
both
the
petitioners,
the
and
the
affected
parties,
as
well
as
the
hearing
officers.
So
we
have
good
strong,
supportive
materials
for
all
of
the
parties
affected
by
petitions.
K
We
also
will
continue
to
review
and
bring
potential
regulation
refinements
to
the
rhc
for
approval
on
an
ongoing
port,
ongoing
basis
to
incorporate
best
practices
and
we'll
periodically
review
and
refine
the
remuneration
schedule
to
reflect
changes
in
workload,
and
this
will
be
based
on
jurisdictional
best
practices,
we'll
be
bringing
this
back
to
you
in
the
spring.
We
haven't
reviewed
this
in
quite
a
while,
and
it
will
it
needs
some
updating.
K
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
Patricia,
since
I
am
not
seeing
any
questions.
I
now
invite
public
comments.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
the
petition
and
hearing
officer
update
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
staff
will
display
a
countdown
timer
on
the
screen.
M
Hello,
Edie,
Keating
I'm
curious,
has
any
petitioner
Ever
Raised
the
failure
to
register
as
a
basis
for
they're,
unlawful
rent
increase
or
if
this
issue
has
ever
come
up
raised
by
a
hearing
officer
related
to
any
other.
You
know
his
their
deliberations
on
a
petition,
presumably
a
tenant
petition
and
I'm
just
also
curious,
since
it
seems
relevant
to
this
item.
K
For
the
petitions
being
filed
related
to
landlord
failure
to
register,
we
have
not
had
any
yet
filed
specifically
for
that
reason
that
may
change
in
the
future
and
then
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
Andrea
for
the
most
recent
update
of
registration,
that
you
should
have
an
estimate
for
what
that
was
before.
We
entered
the
new
cycle.
B
So
we
are
currently
in
the
new
cycle
of
registration.
However,
we're
talking
about
last
registration
cycle,
we
were
somewhere
around
35
or
so
of
landlords,
but
right
now
the
registration
cycle
is
open
and
landlords
have,
until
February
1st,
to
register
their
property
for
the
New
Year's
registration
cycle.
A
C
Other
than
great
job
staff
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
more
information
as
we
get
actually
I'm
kind
of
curious.
If
we
do,
you
anticipate
any
upticks
or
down
drops
in
petitions
as
we
as
we
move
forward
with
the
pandemic
as
Capital
Improvement
petitions
get
more
implemented
as
we
get
more
because
we
start
to
for
a
bit
lack
of
a
better
term,
get
our
sticks
into
place
in
the
new
year.
Are
we?
K
Staff
is
anticipating
an
increase
in
petitions.
We
have
seen
an
increase
in
petitions
this
year
already
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
and
we
do
anticipate
that
to
continue
as
the
compliance
enforcement
goes
out
with
those
follow-up
letters
that
can
go
to
tenants.
If
the
compliance
issue
has
not
been
addressed
and
also
the
concessions
issue
has
increased
petitions
as
well
and
then,
once
we
do
the
do
the
Outreach
related
to
specified
Capital
Improvement
petitions.
We
do
anticipate
an
increase
for
those
as
well
foreign.
E
Thank
you,
that's
actually
that's
what
I
was
going
to
ask
about.
I
mean
I,
think
initially
in
our
budget
we
were
expecting
kind
of
hundreds
of
petitions
or
or
planning
for
that
and
then
over
the
years
we've
reduced.
That
I
guess.
Do
we
now
feel
comfortable
that
we
have
a
cap
a
worst
case
scenario
on
on,
like
how
many
petitions
we
might
get
in
a
year
and
then
use
that
to
how
does
that
relate
to,
like
our
our
budgets,
going
forward.
K
So
I
think
the
you
know
we've
been
saying
this
now
for
the
past
five
years
and
it
continues
because
we
continue
we've
continued
to
build,
build
new
regulations
that
have
new
petition
processes
in
place
for
people
to
be
able
to
file
petitions
there
is
in.
There
is
flux
and
change
in
the
number
of
petitions
that
are
planned.
That
I'm,
assuming
will
be
filed
this
year.
K
I
think
we
saw
a
decrease
in
petitions
again,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning.
It's
very
the
trend
line
that
we're
hoping
to
see
is
less
stable
than
we
would
have
anticipated
because
of
coven,
and
we
know
that
both
landlords
and
tenants
did
not
file
petitions
in
2020,
2021
and
2022
because
of
kobit.
K
We've
heard
that
from
both
sides
of
of
this
process,
so
as
the
market
recovers,
I
anticipate
that
some
of
that
instability
that
we've
seen
will
continue,
but
instead
it'll
be
an
increase
in
petitions
instead
of
a
decrease.
So
I
think
that
we
can
say
that
we
likely
have
plenty
of
funds
budgeted
and
that
that
will
be
something
that
will
be
consistent.
K
A
consistent
number
instead
of
consistently
being
dropped
down
like
we've,
been
doing
in
the
past,
but
I
would
also
suggest
that
we
continue
to
be
caution,
cautious
and
conscientious
with
that
budgeting.
To
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
have
the
appropriate
number
of
hearing
officers
and
the
appropriate
number
of
the
appropriate
number
of
funds
budgeted.
K
E
I
think
so
I
mean
I
definitely
agree
in
having
a
buffer
for
sure.
I
guess.
My
understanding,
though,
from
at
least
from
emano
Opticians
from
other
jurisdictions,
is
that
that
would
go
to
zero
or
almost
zero
at
some
point
and
I
think
we're
kind
of
seeing
that
from
landlord's
side,
Capital
improved
sorry,
yeah
go
ahead
for.
K
K
K
I
K
I
E
I
guess
maybe
it'd
be
interesting,
I
think
to
if
we
could
in
the
April
version
of
the
upgrades
to
the
monthly
report.
Well,
we
have
benchmarks
from
other
jurisdictions.
I
think
it'd
be
tough
to
normalize
I
guess,
but
if
you
had
like,
if
you
normalize
it
to
the
base
year
and
then
number
of
units
that
are
served
by
the
jurisdiction,
you
know
we
could
get
kind
of
a
benchmark
for.
K
E
C
C
I
was
wondering
if
we've
had
seen
dishes
like
that
or
are
we
building
up
to
that
level?
I
had
a
friend
who
wanted
a
pet,
and
it
was
just
like
how
do
I
do
that.
My
landlord
says
that
he
doesn't
want
to
worry.
He
doesn't
want
to
worry
about
increasing
the
rent
and
I
told
him
told
her.
It
was
like
oh
there's,
joint
petitions,
but
I
don't
think
there
was
like
something
she
could
easily
click
and
download.
Quite.
K
K
F
A
B
On
the
next
slide,
I
think
there
we
go
so
we'll
we'll
talk
about
upcoming,
Outreach
and
other
events.
So,
first
we'll
look
at
the
housing
eviction
help
center.
We
actually
had
our
last
housing
and
eviction
help
center
of
the
year,
which
was
held
last
Thursday,
and
we
also
had
a
webinar
for
the
last
hour
or
it
was
actually
hybrid
webinar
and
in
person
workshop
for
the
last
hour
of
that
housing
eviction
help
center
to
help
our
landlords
or
mobile
home
park
owners
register
their
properties
on
the
website.
B
So
that
was
the
first
of
our
series
of
landlord
registration,
hybrid
and
in
person.
Workshops
that
we're
holding
and
they'll
go
through
through
next
year
as
well,
but
other
things
you
can
do
at
the
housing
and
eviction
help
center
of
courses
learn
about
the
city's
run,
stabilization
program
and
the
apply
for
affordable
housing
connect
with
other
sorts
of
rental
assistance
programs,
including
all
the
programs
from
CSA,
and
we
are
still
helping
people
if
they
have
any
lingering
issues
with
their
state
rent
relief
application.
But
there's
not
too
many
of
those.
B
At
this
point,
it's
most
of
those
issues
have
been
resolved
and
the
money
has
been
dispersed
for
the
state
program.
So
also
we
focus
on
eviction
health.
So
we
help
both
our
tenants
and
our
landlords
understand
the
eviction
protection
provided
in
the
in
the
csfra,
and
we
can
provide
assistance
with
landlords
who
are
interested
in
serving
eviction
notices
or
have
questions
about
how
to
upload
those
online
as
well
as
tenants
who
receive
eviction,
notices
or
you
do
paperwork
from
their
landlord
and
sort
of
going
along
with
that.
B
We
do
partner
with
Community
Legal
Services
of
East
Palo
Alto
cluster,
to
provide
on-site
legal
assistance
through
Zoom.
So
we
have
that
on
site
every
first
and
third
Thursday
of
the
month
and
they
can
get
Mountain.
View
residents
can
get
other
information
about
things
like
food
distribution,
other
types
of
financial
assistance,
our
mediation
program,
different
homelessness
prevention
services
and
we
have
diaper
distribution.
We
also
have
new
program
through
chalk.
That's
helping
women
with
any
sanitary
products
that
they
might
need.
They
can
get
those
for
free,
as
well
as
formula
for
for
babies.
B
B
Okay,
so
looking
at
our
upcoming
office
hours
and
workshops,
we
do
continue
to
hold
our
Virtual
Office
hours,
every
single
Tuesday
from
10
a.m,
to
12
p.m.
Those
are
strictly
on
zoom
and
people
can
join
at
the
website,
heremountainview.gov
RSP
office
hours.
We
also
have
some
workshops
coming
up
in
the
New
Year
again.
You
can
see
here
that
the
property
registration
series
will
continue.
So
we
have
one
on
January
10th,
which
is
zoom
it's
online
and
we'll
also
have
one
Thursday
January
12th
and
that
will
be
hybrid
in
person
and
held
on
Zoom.
B
So
all
of
our
in-person
workshops
will
also
be
hybrids,
so
people
can
have
the
opportunity
to
join
online
as
well
for
those
in-person
workshops
at
the
housing
and
eviction.
Help
Center
Workshop
series
on
January
19th.
At
four
o'clock.
We
will
have
an
in-person
hybrid
virtual
webinar,
with
a
representative
from
the
housing
department
to
go
over
how
to
apply
for
our
BMI,
BMR,
sorry
below
market
rate
and
affordable
housing
properties
in
Mountain
View.
B
So
other
events
that
are
coming
up
in
the
new
year
as
we
are
continuing
to
do
our
Outreach
at
the
elementary
school,
and
we
continue
to
do
Outreach
at
CSA.
And
so
a
lot
of
that
is
Food.
Distribution
Outreach,
where
we
are
talking
to
community
members
who
are
coming
in
to
the
various
programs
to
receive
food
or
diaper
distributions
and
we're
giving
information
out
about
our
program
and
about
the
housing
and
eviction
help
center.
B
Kind
of
just
as
a
highlight
on
the
5th
of
December,
our
team
participated
in
the
community
tree
lighting
ceremony.
That's
right
in
front
of
City
Hall
in
the
plaza
and
we
were
representing
anki's
home
country
of
Holland,
with
a
special
guest
Center
Claus,
who
was
available
to
take
pictures
with
the
children
and
the
different
community
members,
the
Mountain
View,
and
we
had
a
nice
handout
to
sort
of
explain
what
the
tradition
of
Center
Claus
was
and
how
they
are
celebrating
the
holidays
in
Holland.
B
B
B
Help
center
that
all
of
our
staff
is
wearing
masks
and
all
of
the
community
members
who
come
in
they're
wearing
masks
and
if
they
don't
have
a
mask.
We
have
masks
available
right
at
the
front
and
we
ask
if
they're
willing
to
wear
them
and
people
have
been
willing
to
wear
the
masks,
and
we
also
continue
to
run
our
air
purifiers
in
the
rooms
continuously.
I
think
we
have
three
or
so
of
the
air
purifiers
that
we
run
during
the
entire
housing
and
eviction
help
center
and
also
in
our
offices
as
well.
H
N
A
H
I
can't
find
much
anywhere
on
my
calendar.
This
is
ridiculous.
Okay,
here
it
is
all
right.
Okay,
it
seems
like
I
feel
the
ninth.
This
is
gonna,
be
still
soon
right,
yeah,
okay,
so
when
do
we
begin
the
the
face
to
face
or
in
February
okay
great,
and
are
we
going
to
Notifier
the
city
and
if
we
are
how.