►
From YouTube: July 18, 2022 Rental Housing Committee Meeting
Description
Live teleconference of the City of Mountain View's Rental Housing Committee Meeting scheduled for Monday, July 18, 2022.
Live Video Conference: YouTube, mountainview.legistar.com, and Comcast Channel 26.
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
july
18
2022
rental
housing
committee
meeting
day,
this
meeting
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
california
government
code,
54
95
3e,
as
authorized
by
resolution
of
the
rental
housing
committee.
Please
contact
mv,
rent
at
mountainview.gov
to
obtain
a
copy
of
the
applicable
resolution.
A
A
B
Okay
committee
members,
roonwald.
C
E
A
Okie
dokie,
we
will
now
move
to
the
agenda
item
3,
which
is
our
consent
calendar.
These
items
will
be
approved
by
one
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.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
would
any
member,
yes
would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item.
If
so,
please
click
raise
hand
button
and
zoom
or
press
star
9
on
your
phone
staff
will
display
a
countdown
timer
on
the
screen.
A
A
A
A
motion
to
approve
should
include
reading
the
following
items:
a
motion
to
approve
agenda
item
3.1
approved
the
minutes
for
june
20th,
2022
rhc
meetings
and
a
motion
to
approve
agenda
item
3.2
approve
of
resolution.
Making
findings
authorized
continue
authorizing
continued
remote
teleconferencing
meetings
of
the
rental
housing
committee.
Pursuant
to
the
brown
act,
provisions
as
amended
by
assembly
bill
number
361
and
I
see
a
hand
vice
chair
ramos.
F
D
A
A
H
H
Those
particular
people
were
not
even
in
the
hearing
at
the
time
and
were
only
basically
instructed
to
make
their
decisions
based
on
only
the
hearing
record
and
not
any
of
the
evidence
provided
in
that
case,
then,
that
hearing
officer
has
basically
done
something
improper,
because
at
least
in
the
normal
courts,
if
the
clerk
is
going
to
be
writing
a
preliminary
decision
for
the
court,
at
least
the
clerk
is
present
during
the
hearing
and
also
is
exposed
to
all
evidence
involved
in
the
case.
In
this
case,
the
situation
was
not
happening.
H
H
This
particular
hearing
officer
had
the
documents
written
by
a
person
by
a
name
of
I
believe,
renee
glover
chantler
and
not
derek
chandler,
and
yet
at
the
same
time,
this
was
not
noticed
by
the
rhc
or
its
staff
at
the
same
time,
because
it
was
written
by
a
third
party
and
not
the
author,
even
though
the
author
signed
it,
it
basically
invalidated
the
decision
completely.
H
Finally,
legal
I.t
security
standards
require
that
court
documents
need
to
be
properly
secured
and
in
fact
you
cannot
use
your
own
device
to
do
the
work
unless
you
may
be
a
court
stenographer,
but
any
work,
that's
done
on
the
cases
has
to
be
done
through
equipment
and
software
and
hardware
that
is
actually
in
the
ownership
of
the
city.
In
this
case,
it
definitely
appears
that
that's
not
the
case,
and
so,
on
top
of
it,
I'm
simply
saying
in
fact,
there's
no
I.t
security
audits
on
record.
H
Where
are
they?
They
need
to
be
performed
annually?
They
also
need
to
be
done
by
a
certified
professional,
either
a
comptia
security
plus
professional
or
an
isc
squared
security
professional.
In
this
case,
it
does
appear
like
none
of
the
above
has
been
happening
and
again.
In
fact,
it
really
appears
at
this
point
in
time
that
you
may
have
a
very
serious
problem
if
it
turns
out
that
all
decisions,
for
example,
signed
by
the
hearing
officer,
derek
chandler,
can
be
identified
as
being
written
by
a
third
party.
H
A
A
In
this
case,
the
tenant
iris
martinez
filed
for
a
downward
adjustment
to
rent
and
the
property
owner
submitted
an
appeal.
Accordingly,
the
property
owner
is
referred
to
as
the
appellant
and
will
present.
First,
the
hearing
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
set
forth
in
chapter
five
of
the
regulations.
A
A
The
appellant
landlord
will
be
given
10
minutes
and
uninterrupted
to
make
a
presentation
and
arguments
after
the
appellate
landlord
has
completed
their
presentation.
The
respondent
tenant
will
be
given
10
minutes
of
inter
uninterrupted,
to
make
a
presentation
and
arguments.
If
there
is
more
than
one
petitioner
that
wishes
to
address
rhc.
The
petitioners
collectively
must
determine
how
to
allocate
their
10
minutes
among
themselves.
A
Upon
conclusion
of
both
presentations,
each
party
will
be
given
up
to
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal
with
the
appellate
landlord
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.
A
A
Rhc
members
are
required
to
disclose
any
communications
that
they
have
had
with
any
of
the
parties
to
the
petition
or
the
party's
representatives
and
the
substance
of
those
communications.
Since
the
date
the
petition
was
filed,
the
decision
of
the
rhc
is
to
be
based
on
the
record
presented
to
the
hearing
officer
information.
A
A
The
speech
timer
will
be
displayed
on
the
screen.
You
will
be
given
3
minutes.
If
there
are
more
than
15
speakers,
we
will
reduce
the
time
allowed
for
each
speaker
to
two
minutes.
In
accordance
with
our
rules
in
chapter
three
of
our
regulations,
do
I
have
any
members
of
the
public
that
wish
to
comment
on
the
appeal
who
are
not
members
of
the
appeal.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
haines
libsync,
so
we
are
here
tonight
to
review
the
tentative
appeal
decision
which
you
have
all
received
and
either
accept
that
appeal
decision
or
modify
the
appeal
decision
with
instructions
to
staff
citing
appropriate
evidence
in
the
record.
I
So,
first
of
all,
as
the
rhc
sitting
as
the
appeal
board,
as
the
chair
said,
you
were
acting
in
a
quasi-judicial
fashion.
You
are
looking
at
the
appeal
and
the
hearing
record
in
the
hearing
decision
to
see
whether
it's
supported
by
substantial
evidence
you're,
not
we
re
weighing
evidence
or
relitigating
issue
issues.
We
are
also
not
looking
at
new
evidence
on
what's
before.
You
is
the
evidence
that
was
in
the
record
when
the
hearing
officer
made
the
decision.
I
I
I
It
would
be
a
significant
undertaking
for
this
committee
and
the
record
was
deemed
sufficient
after
a
review
of
the
record
that
we
don't
believe,
there's
a
need
next
slide,
so
just
to
be
clear
how
this
all
works.
So
the
petition
defines
the
scope
of
the
hearing
officer's
decision,
so
the
petitioner
specified
the
issues
in
that
petition
and
the
hearing
officer
decided
on
each
of
those
issues.
I
The
appeal
defines
the
scope
of
your
review.
So
not
all
issues
of
a
decision
are
always
appealed,
and
in
this
case
not
all
of
the
issues
were
appealed.
So
all
you
are
looking
at
is
those
elements
that
were
appealed
if
a
portion
of
the
decision
was
not
appealed,
then
that
portion
of
the
decision
is
final
next
slide.
So
this
is
just
a
visual
of
the
process.
We
get
the
petition,
we
have
a
decision,
an
appeal.
I
Your
options
are
to
affirm
or
modify
the
decision
or
remand
it
to
the
hearing
officer
for
an
additional
review.
If
you
affirm
or
modify,
then
the
decision
becomes
final
and
the
aggrieved
party,
if
they're
unhappy
with
the
decision,
can
challenge
the
decision
in
court.
If
the
decision
is
remanded
to
the
hearing
officer,
then
it's
not
final.
Until
that
a
new
decision
is
issued,
another
opportunity
to
appeal
is
given,
so
there
can
be
multiple
appeals.
I
In
this
case,
we
are
not
recommending
remand.
So
if
you
accept
the
tentative
decision,
it
will
become
final
next
slide,
please.
So,
as
the
chair
went
over,
your
regulations
set
out
the
process
for
the
appeal
hearing.
The
appellant,
which
is
the
landlord
in
this
case,
will
go
first.
The
respondent,
which
is
the
tenant,
will
then
have
an
opportunity
to
give
a
presentation.
I
I
I
The
petition
also
raises
an
issue
regarding
subletting
that
the
tenant
requested
to
replace
the
roommate
and
that
request
was
denied
and
I'm
just
going
to
say
throughout
this
discussion
we
are
going
to
use
subletting
and
replacing
a
roommate
interchangeably,
because
the
terms
and
our
regulations
really
have
the
same
effect.
I
I
I
Finally,
the
decision
found
that
the
tenant
was
not
entitled
to
downward
adjustment
because
of
the
landlord's
refusal
to
allow
a
sub-tenant
in
part,
because
they
are
primarily
mainly
because
the
tenant
had
not
met
the
noticing
requirements
in
the
rhc's
regulations.
With
regard
to
a
request
or
a
sublet
or
a
replacement,
roommate.
I
So
the
tenant
was
awarded
a
downward
adjustment
in
rent
in
the
amount
of
291
dollars
and
40
cents.
For
the
bathroom
subflooring
issue,
commencing
on
march
1st
2022,
until
the
building
inspector
approved
the
repairs,
the
hearing
officer
made
a
determination
of
the
amount
based
on
a
dividing
the
total
rent
by
the
number
of
rooms
in
the
building
in
the
apartment.
I
I
So
she
awarded
a
downward
adjustment
for
the
full
amount.
She
awarded
the
downward
adjustment
starting
march
1st,
because,
based
on
the
evidence
in
the
record,
she
found
that
the
property
owner
had
notice
of
the
subflooring
issue.
As
early
as
early
december,
the
hearing
officer
made
a
determination
that
it
was
reasonable
to
grant
the
landlord
90
days
to
make
progress
on
the
repairs.
I
I
I
So
the
tentative
appeal
decision
upholds
the
hearing
officer's
decision
in
the
entirety.
After
a
review
of
the
entire
record,
the
evidence
supports
that
the
landlord
was
aware
of
the
bathroom
and
sealing
issues
as
early
as
late
november.
In
the
first
meeting
that
the
landlord
had
with
the
tenant,
the
issues
were
raised.
I
The
tenant
was
not
awarded,
as
I
said
earlier,
a
downward
adjustment
related
to
subletting.
So
there
was
really
no
issue
to
appeal
here.
The
decision
does
discuss
the
appropriate
process
for
requesting
subletting
and
the
appropriate
requirements
for
property
owners
in
considering
a
subletting
request,
but
it
does
not
make
any
decision
with
regard
to
the
subletting
and
then
finally,
a
review.
The
hearing
record
does
not
support
findings
of
bias
or
unfairness
on
the
part
of
the
hearing
officer
next
slide.
I
A
E
E
J
L
Landlord
wants
the
translation.
A
J
Hi
yeah,
I
will
be
speaking
on
behalf
of
lync.
If
that's
okay,.
J
I
in
this
case
is
miss
xiang's
point
of
view,
so
we
appeal
that
starting
the
rent
cut
from
march
1st
is
not
necessary,
nor
is
it
reasonable,
as
we
have
finished
repairs
as
soon
as
the
city
and
tenant
allowed
us
to
within
90
days.
Everybody
has
the
right
to
habitable
conditions
and
that's
a
human
right,
which
is
exactly
why
we
respond
promptly
to
fix
the
problem
as
soon
as
we
can
right
when
the
permit
given
april
22nd
and
miss
martinez
allowed
us
to
do
so.
J
So,
let's
walk
through
the
timeline
in
detail
for
context.
Miss
martinez
has
lived
here
for
over
20
years.
We
purchased
this
property.
Last
year
november,
22nd
as
landlords
we
have
not
raised
rent
another
tenant.
Miss
manriquez
has
testified
in
the
original
hearing
that
we've
responded
promptly
to
requests
for
repairs
whenever
notified.
Unlike
the
previous
landlord,
the
same
is
also
true.
Here:
we've
done
it
as
fast
as
we
can
following
the
city's
timing.
We
always
uphold
our
duty
and
act
to
help
as
soon
as
a
problem
is
known.
J
Unfortunately,
in
december,
unlike
the
hearing
said
previously,
we
were
not
well
informed
of
an
urgent
subfloor
issue.
Otherwise,
we'd
have
responded,
as
with
other
issues
the
hearing
result
quotes.
The
respondents
had
notice
of
the
subfloor
condition
in
the
bathroom,
at
least
as
early
as
december
is
simply
untrue,
because
we
did
not
know
back
then.
J
Additionally,
during
december,
we
were
already
actively
working
in
her
bathroom
solving
its
other
problems,
for
example,
spraying
mold
spots
and
fixing
the
toilet
on
the
days
december,
7th
and
january
27th-
and
this
is
you
know,
evidenced
by
text
messages.
We
were
actively
problem
solving
there
already.
Amidst
all
of
this,
miss
martinez
mentioned
the
floor
issue
through
emphasizing
how
ugly
it
looked
as
an
aesthetic
problem,
not
a
habitable
issue.
J
So
in
december,
we'd
only
experienced
a
brief
walkthrough
of
the
bathroom
less
than
30
minutes
and
back
then
the
floor
actually
had
had
an
extra
layer
of
pile
on
top
that
she
had
added
herself
in
december.
It
was
a
totally
different
feeling,
much
stronger,
more
stable
and
not
all
as
squishy
fast
forward
three
months.
She
peels
off
the
tiles
in
february
to
reveal
the
reality
of
the
problem,
and
then,
in
march,
the
city
inspector
and
I
both
walked
it.
J
This
feeling
was
completely
different
to
december
and
we
realized
the
damage
was
really
bad
again,
since
I'm
not
a
professional.
I
had
no
idea.
It
was
that
extreme
of
a
problem
back
then,
while
we
were
busy
spraying
mold
until
she
reported
it
in
february,
and
it
was
much
more
obvious
without
the
extra
layer
I
apologize
for
not
being
aware
of
it
earlier,
but
I
simply
don't
have
the
expertise
to
make
a
professional
judgment
in
that
time.
J
Back
in
december,
I
even
asked
my
contractor
a
professional,
and
even
he
said
he
cannot
identify
any
issue
just
by
merely
walking
on
the
tiles
part
of
miss
martinez's.
Evidence
is
a
testimony
from
her
licensed
contractor.
Mr
earl
erla.
He
testified
in
march
that
the
floor
felt
like,
or
he
testified,
from
his
inspection
in
march,
that
the
floor
felt,
like
quote,
you're
walking
on
a
trampoline.
J
J
So,
let's
be
clear
in
the
timeline,
this
damage
has
occurred
over
years
and
years
without
petitions.
The
previous
landlords,
at
all,
before
we
bought
the
property
and
the
cosmetic
complaints
of
december
are
not
a
formal
diagnosis.
If
we
had
known,
we
definitely
would
have
helped.
So
it
was
february
8th
when
she
officially
reported
the
bathroom
floor
issue
through
text.
The
text
is
what
actually
brought
the
issue
to
our
attention
all
of
a
sudden
and
kick-started
the
process.
Perhaps
we're
happy
she
did
so
we
can
all
work
together
to
make
the
conditions
livable.
J
According
to
the
mountain
view
website,
the
landlord
has
the
right
to
lawful
entry
if
they
give
24
hours
notice,
so
we
should
have
the
right
to
enter
for
necessary
repairs
or
services.
However,
after
this
report,
during
february
and
march,
we
tried
our
best
to
check
the
bathroom
several
times
to
help,
but
miss
martinez
borrowed
entry
on
march,
2nd
she
texted
croat,
I
was
told
I
can
refuse
to
have
anyone
come
in
until
the
inspector
comes
I'd
rather
take
care
of
it
through
the
city.
J
Another
text
I'd
rather
wait
for
them
to
tell
me
what
to
do
next
end
quote,
so
we
agreed
to
wait
for
the
city.
I
respected
her
wishes,
but
in
reality,
if
miss
martinez
had
allowed
access
back,
then
the
issue
could
have
been
solved
earlier
and
the
delay
was
not
on
our
part.
So
until
the
city
inspector
accompanied
us
on
march
15th
we
couldn't
enter.
This
was
the
first
time
after
the
report
that
I
could
check
the
bathroom
and
this
delay
was
again
out
of
our
control
barred
from
lawful
entry.
J
J
March
18th,
we
received
the
inspection
report.
Finally,
with
the
professional
diagnosis
we
could
start
yet.
The
city
requires
another
step,
a
permit
and
for
ms
martinez
to
move
out
first
in
order
to
begin
paris
april
22nd.
We
prepared
we
received
this
permit.
We
did
this
as
promptly
as
we
can
then
on
may
18th.
We
received
the
hearing
decision
since
miss
martinez
wanted
to
wait
to
quote,
take
care
of
it
through
the
city
through
her
texts.
This
date
should
be
the
actual
start
point
for
the
repair
window.
J
J
According
to
this
timeline,
the
deadline
would
be
august,
17th
and
in
fact,
our
actual
working
period
for
repairs
turned
out
to
be
10
days
ending
july
7th,
well
in
advance
of
that.
So
after
receiving
the
decision
in
mid-may,
it
took
several
back
and
forth
between
us
contractors,
miss
martinez
and
the
city.
To
start,
she
told
us
that
she
could
find
a
place
to
live
on
the
1st
of
june,
but
later
she
postponed
it
to
june
27th
delaying
almost
a
month.
J
Why
should
rent
be
cut
during
this
period
when
miss
martinez
was
the
one
that
delayed
repairs
for
several
weeks
on
july
7th
we
passed
final
inspection
for
the
bathroom
and
popcorn
ceiling
after
remodeling,
the
entire
bathroom,
with
a
new
vanity
new
shower
new
toilet
new
floor
and
new
plumbing
system.
J
As
we
have
shown,
the
reality
of
the
problem
wasn't
identified
till
march
when
mr
earl,
who
is
martinez's
source
inspected
without
our
knowledge,
he
came,
and
also
the
city
inspector,
came
with
our
knowledge
either
way.
Both
professionals
were
in
march
once
they
identified
it.
We
must
have
a
reasonable
window
for
action.
90
days
as
we've
shown,
we've
finished
repairs
with
plenty
of
time
to
spare.
We've
always
acted
as
soon
as
the
city
allows,
and
delays
were
out
of
our
control.
J
Thus,
a
red
car
starting
munch,
a
rent
cuts
starting
march
1st,
is
unreasonable
when
we've
acted
as
soon
as
we
can.
Furthermore,
the
leasing
agreement
has
been
very
clear
that
subleasing
isn't
allowed
see
page
9
number
30.,
yet
the
decision
alleges
that
we
quote
refuse
to
allow
a
petitioner
to
replace
her
roommate.
J
The
roommate
was
never
legal
in
the
first
place.
Thus
the
replacement
would
also
be
illegal
and
refusing
is
simply
the
law
for
the
record.
She's
had
two
roommates
in
the
past
without
ever
making
a
written
request
or
getting
getting
written
permission
from
haibouchi
who
was
a
landlord
during
this
time
on
may
26th,
we
submitted
a
testimony
from
haibo
as
evidence
where
he
wrote
quote.
I
definitely
did
not
give
permission
to
her
for
subleasing
in
writing
not
even
verbally
end
quote.
Why
was
this
testimony
not
mentioned
in
the
tentative
appeal
decision
at
all?
J
Let's
make
it
very
clear
that,
under
the
current
lease,
her
rent
stays
absolutely
the
same
increasing
by
zero.
It
will
stay
the
same
as
long
as
she
doesn't
change
anything.
Yet
the
decision
interprets
my
words
wrongly,
as
quote
a
rent
increase
of
1400
for
a
new
roommate,
which
would
nearly
double
the
rent.
One
oh
end
quote
one.
This
falsely
makes
an
imaginary
scenario
reality
and
two
her
rent
doesn't
increase
at
all
under
the
current
lease.
So
it's
a
false
assumption.
J
This
completely
distorted
my
words
when
this
example
was
only
intended
as
an
imaginary
scenario
for
comparison,
since
the
current
market
price
is
indeed
3200..
It
was
just
an
example
of
a
lower
than
market
price
offer
for
a
potential
roommate
in
the
future.
Should
ms
martinez
seek
to
add
one
legally.
J
So
let's
make
it
very
clear
that,
under
the
current
lease,
her
rent
will
stay
absolutely
the
same
and
increase
by
zero.
We
all
agree.
We
want
to
repair
everything
and
make
it
habitable
as
possible,
and
you
know
have
a
good
landlord-tenant
relationship.
Nothing
will
change
unless
she
chooses
so
so.
In
conclusion,
no
rent
cut
is
necessary
as
we
have
finished
repairs
as
soon
as
the
city
and
mrs
martinez
have
allowed
us
to
do
so,
and
we've
responded
very
promptly
in
every
situation
to
the
best
of
our
ability.
J
Once
we
have
all
the
knowledge
from
perpetu
from
professionals,
not
just
vague
notices
and
also
no
sublease
is
allowed
without
a
landlord's
written
permission
according
to
the
leasing
agreement,
so
replacement
of
a
roommate
is
not
a
legal
guarantee
nor
requirement,
but
that's
also
a
separate
issue
than
this
issue,
but
I
guess
both
were
added
on
the
petition,
so
we're
talking
about
it
now.
Yeah.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Okay,
responding
tenant,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
button
and
zoom.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
and
staff
will
temporarily
promote
you
to
as
a
panelist.
If
you
need
translation
services,
we
will
promote
the
translator
as
well.
The
speech
timer
will
be
displayed
on
the
screen.
You
will
have
10
minutes
once
you're
promoted.
M
So
there's
so
much
to
let
me
see
where
do
I
start
so
yeah
I've
been
I've
lived
there
in
this
apartment,
for
since
I
was
eight
nine
and
I
did
not
become
kind
of
responsible
for
it
until
about
four
years
ago,
miss
sharon
mentions
that
the
that
I
was
saying
that
the
bathroom
has
a
cosmetic
problem.
I
disagree
with
that
because
I
had
that's
why
I
put
those
fake
tiles
in
the
first
place,
because
I
thought,
oh,
let
me
just
you
know,
put
something
new
I
put.
M
I
went
to
walmart
and
bought
those
tiles,
so
I
think
that
if
it
was
a
just
a
cosmetic
thing,
I
would
have
done
the
same
thing.
I
think
I
would
I
would
not
mind
to
pay
40
dollars
to
you
know
be
in
a
pla,
something
that's
pleasant.
I
before
she
came
became
the
landlord.
I
text
the
previous
lawyer
telling
him
hey.
M
You
know
these
titles
are
kind
of
I
put
the
first
tiles
in
and
then
I
text
them
because
I
was
so
used
to
making
all
these
changes
myself
and
always
paying
out
of
pocket.
M
Just
because
I
didn't
really
care
or
mind
doing
so
until
you
know
talking
to
friends
who
are
older
than
me
and
have
more
experience
being
in
apartments,
you
know
we're
like
hey,
you
should
just
mention
it
to
him,
so
I
mentioned
it
to
him
that
I
was
going
to
change
them,
and
I
said,
oh,
you
do
mind
reimbursing
me
this
time
and
he
said
sure
I
never
did
because
I
realized
that
they,
the
floor
was
kind
of
squishy
and
I
thought
it's
not
just
a
cosmetic
thing.
M
That's
the
reason
that
I
didn't
change
them
and
I
even
thought
myself
like.
I
wonder
if
I
can
just
do
it
myself
like
youtube,
how
to
put
you
know
the
kind
of
the
stronger
ones
in,
but
I
was
scared
of
doing
so
because
I
thought
well,
it's
not
mine.
What
if
I
mess
it
up,
trying
to
do
all
these
youtube
things.
M
So
when
she
came
in
to
fix
the
bathroom
problem,
the
mold
she
came
up
with
the
spray
and
sprayed
the
mold,
and
I
mentioned
about
I
mentioned
before
to
her,
and
I
I
remember
her
telling
me
well,
if
you
want
me
to
make
any
changes,
you
know
I'm
gonna
raise
your
rent.
I
have
to
raise
your
rent
and
I
said
yeah,
but
you
know,
can
we
like?
Can
you
ask
your
contractor
to
check
you
know
it
feels
weird.
It
looks
weird.
M
I
don't
know
if
there's
something
that's,
I
was
scared
of
mold
just
because
the
apartment's
old
and
she
just
kind
of
was
saying.
Oh,
oh,
oh,
like
she
wasn't
responding
to
what
I
was
asking
and
I
saw
the
lack
of
interest
in
her
part
and
I
understand
because
she
just
had
purchased
this
building.
So
I
I
I
understand
why
it's
like.
Oh,
let
me
just
you
know
kind
of
just
wait
it
out.
M
So
I
I
yeah,
but
I
think
that
there's
there's
proof
of
even
her
saying
you
know
what
the
contractor,
like
it's
too
small,
of
a
project
from
him
to
even
come,
and
you
know
take
a
look
at
it.
I
didn't
ask
her
to
change
it
immediately.
I
just
can't
tell
me:
can
we
see
what
can
we
even
just
kind
of
see
what
the
problem
might
be
and
in
regards
to
the
roommate
situation?
M
I
know
that
in
her
appeal
thing
she
said
that
I
secretly
had
a
roommate
I
with
the
previous
landlord.
I
think
his
lack
of
having
done
anything
or
said
anything
he
never
made
give
me
a
notice.
He
never
told
me
that
I
needed
to
ask
permission
a
written
permission.
I
didn't
know
this.
I
lived
with
my
parents
there,
since
I
was
eight.
I
just
all
of
a
sudden.
You
know
overnight
was
the
one
that
was
responsible
for
these
things.
M
I
did
not
know
that
I
needed
to
do
that
and
I
think
he
never
verbally
told
me
that
there
was
a
problem
because
you
know
it.
M
It
was
two
people
leaving
one
person
coming
in
so
instead
of
three
people,
it
was
two
people
there's
also
the
problem
that
my
parents
were
the
original
police
owners
and
I
took
because
I
speak
english
and
I
was
getting
older
and
I
emailed
the
my
landlord
saying:
hey:
can
you
remove
my
parents
and
leave
just
me
not
knowing
that
that
was
gonna
cause
me
a
problem
and
not
knowing
that
him
doing
so
was
not
from
what
I'm
hearing.
M
M
I
guess
decision,
or
you
know
something
that
I
did
without
being
knowledgeable
about
what
needed
that
it
was
not
the
right
thing
to
do
or
the
proper
way
so
because
of
that
now
this
estoppel
or
certificate,
or
did
now
the
lease
is
just
in
my
name,
which
I
don't
think
is,
I
don't
think
is
right
because,
like
I
said
my
I
I
removed
my
parents.
M
They
did
not
ask
to
be
removed,
so
they
should
still
be
able
to
be
on
there,
and
I
should
still,
I
still
feel
like
I'm
not
asking
for
two
people
to
come
in
and
live
with
me
in
a
two-bedroom
apartment.
I'm
just
asking
for
one
person
to
come
in
because
I
think
it's,
I
think
it's
you're
losing
three
people
and
you're.
It's
just
one
person
coming
in
and,
like
I
said,
the
original
people
on
the
lease
were
removed
without
their
consent
and
without
their
approval
and
in
regards
to.
M
Miss
so
once
I
I
denied
you
know
her
coming
in
it
was.
I
asked
the
city
first,
whoever
I
was
talking
to.
I
said
hey,
you
know,
I'm
I'm.
Basically,
I'm
scared
of
her
coming
in
and
maybe
doing
things
in
an
improper
way
before
the
city
is
able
to
come
and
take
a
look,
because
I
finally
got
that
from
her
saying
hey.
M
I
don't
know
if,
like
I,
I
think
I
have
to
raise
your
rent
or
I
have
to
you,
know
just
the
misinformation
and
how
she
has
said
she's
the
first
time
landlord
to
and
I'm
basically
kind
of
like
a
first
time
tenant,
because
with
the
previous
landlord,
I
think
they
themselves
said
that
my
the
person
who
the
neighbor
who
said
the
previous
language
never
really
did
anything.
So
I
did.
I
was
not
aware
of
that.
I
could
even
go
to
the
city
and
ask
for
help
and
say:
hey,
you
know.
M
How
does
this
go
about?
What
can
I
do?
What
are
my
rights,
and
I
know
that
it's
very
unfortunate
timing
for
her
that
as
soon
as
she
comes
in
I'm
like
okay?
Well,
you
know
if,
if
we're
gonna,
you
know
have
to
be
difficult
about
this,
then
I
have
to
go.
Ask
what
what
I
can
do,
what
are
my
rights
and
what
you
know
inform
myself,
because
it's
like
as
though
I
it
kind
of
inherited
this
apartment,
not
knowing
at
all
what
I
was
supposed
to
do.
M
I
just
paid
the
rent,
and
that
was
it
and
I
was
having
a
hard
time
trying
to
find
a
place
to
stay,
because
I
have
my
dad
is
actually
with
me
temporarily,
because
he
comes
and
goes
from
the
country
and
right
now
he
has
a
health
issue
and
he
has
a
surgery
appointment
that
he
has
been
postponed.
M
So
I
jumped
the
gun
by
saying
hey.
I
think
I
could
move
out
by
june
1st
and
then
I
didn't
really
hear
back
and
I
realized.
Oh,
I
shouldn't
have
said
that
that
was
a
little
too
soon
because
the
decision
was
in
may-
and
I
was
trying
to
you-
know
kind
of
accelerate
myself
so
and
then
she
texts
back
four
days
before
saying:
hey.
M
Can
you
give
me
the
key
to
the
bedroom
or
can
we
move
the
things
outside,
but
she
told
me
repeatedly
that
she
was
not
responsible
for
my
things,
so
I
said
no,
I
can't
give
you
the
key
and
or
I
can't
just
you
know,
allow
you
to
move
things
when
you
repeatedly
told
me
that
you
were
not
responsible
for
my
things.
I
think
that
would
be
very
dumb
of
me
to
to
kind
of
just
do
that.
A
J
Hi,
so
the
landlords
do
not
know-
or
I
do
not
know
what
happened
before.
We
bought
this
property,
as
the
inspection
report
was
200
pages
long
and
not
translated,
but
it
was
also
a
misunderstanding.
Due
to
the
language
barrier,
when
miss
martinez
was
asking
like
miss,
I
mean
I
thought
miss
martinez
was
asking
for
a
cosmetic
change
in
the
floor.
So
that's
the
reason
I
suggested
an
increase
of
rent
because
we
thought
it
was
a
cosmetic
issue.
It
wasn't
obvious
that
it
was
squishy.
There
was
a
layer
over.
We
are
not
professionals
again.
J
Even
the
contractor
could
not
detect
a
significant
issue
without
like
a
significant
opening
up
the
whole
floor
back
in
december
and
back
then
we
were
still
spraying
mold
and
fixing
the
toilet.
Additionally,
on
may
26th
we
submitted
a
test
testimony
from
haibuchi
to
the
city,
haibour
wrote
in
quotations
in
that
email.
I
definitely
did
not
give
permission
to
her
for
subleasing
and
writing.
J
As
a
matter
of
fact,
I
talked
to
her
once
and
pointed
out
that
sublease
is
not
allowed,
so
you
can't,
like
he
talked
to
miss
martinez
about
not
allowing
roommates
the
effective
lease
is
currently
between
miss
martinez
and
hybal,
and
we
replaced
him
as
landlord.
J
You
can
sign
a
new
lease
with
us
as
landlord,
but
we
won't
change
any
terms
of
the
lease.
It
is
still
your
name
on
the
lease
and,
of
course,
you
can
ask
for
one
person
to
be
added
to
your
lease,
but
again
very
clear
in
the
estable
that
will
require
a
new
lease.
That's
the
law
under
the
current
lease,
it's
only
your
name
and
additionally,
we
asked
for
the
key
to
the
bedroom,
because
that
is
a
fire
hazard.
J
It's
illegal
to
withhold
the
bedroom
keys
from
the
landlord,
especially
in
like
an
apartment
like
in
the
property
and
yeah,
and
no
lock
should
be
installed
in
any
bedroom
within
a
unit,
but
miss
martinez
installed.
It
them
herself
without
giving
a
copy
to
landlord.
A
M
Thank
you
yeah,
so
the
the
bathroom
situation.
I
think
that,
even
with
I
mean
even
with
the
layer
that
it
had
yes,
it
was
stronger
because
it
was
way
worse
when
it
was
taken
off,
but
it
was
still.
M
It
was
enough
for
me
to
say,
hey
something's
wrong
and
I
asked
you
know
I
asked
twice
if
her
landlord.
If
her
person
can
come
in
and
this
person
who
came
in
and
fixed
stuff,
I
mean
he
fixed
stuff,
like
he
filled
holes
in
the
wall
and
he
didn't
even
stand
it
like
that
kind
of.
Let
me
know,
oh
you
know,
I
don't
know
what
kind
of
handyman
this
is.
I
never
said
anything
because
I
just
thought
you
know
what
whatever
I
I'll
stand
it
myself,
but
it
was
just.
M
M
I
know
that
that's
like
new,
you
know
that
shouldn't
even
be
used,
but
I
think
his
lack
of
action
in
the
past
three
or
four
years
speaks
a
lot
more
than
any
words
or
testimony
that
he
can
give,
because
there's
no
proof
of
no
email,
no
letter,
no
nothing
of
him
telling
me
that
he
was
in
disagreeance
with
my
my
roommate
and
when
they
mentioned
I
had
I
had
two
roommates,
I
they
they
were
not
in
there
at
the
they
they
they
they
missed
each
other.
M
Basically,
so
one
left
one
came
so
it
was
still
one
person
and
in
regards
to
the
lock,
I'm
happy
to
take
locks
off
of
the
bedroom.
I
had
them.
I
installed
them
when
I
was
a
teenager
and
I
just
didn't
want
my
parents
to
come
in
my
room,
but
I
live
there
alone
and
I
don't
mind
changing
the
locks
in
this
case.
M
M
It
was
cheaper
for
me
to
do
that
than
to
have
to
haul
everything
if
the
work
was
if
the
bedroom
was
not
going
to
be
worked
on
in
the
first
place,
and
then
you
know
like
one
day
before
she
says
hey,
I
need
to
open
the
bedroom
and
I
was
not
able
to
so,
but
I
am
I'm
more
than
happy
to
take
locks
off
because
I
don't
use
them
and
but
yeah
in
that
kit
in
that,
in
that
scenario,
that's
what
happened.
N
I
just
have
a
question
for
it:
yeah
first
half
I
understand
I
could
be
wrong,
but
this
is
what
I'm
asking
my
understanding
is
that
the
residents
have
the
right
to
do
as
they
please
in
their
apartment
right
or
am
I
wrong.
I
More
clarity,
I
mean
you
can't
do
anything
you
want
in
the
apartment
and
you
know
typically,
the
lease
might
have
requirements
if
you
want
to
make
alterations,
etc.
N
I
Well,
I
don't
think
that
you
can
say
a
tenant
can
do
anything
they
want.
You
know
they
are
renting,
they
don't
own
the
building.
They
can't
make
significant
alterations,
they
need
to
get
the
landlord's
permission
for
making
changes
in
the
unit.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
P
Sure
my
question
is
for
staff.
What
what
evidence
did
the
hearing
officer
submit
for
the
basis
that
the
the
claim
that
the
floor
was
squishy
was
communicated
in
february?
Were
there
any
texts
submitted
or.
I
P
I
So
there
were
also
text
messages
from
the
petitioner
asking
if
the
contractor
was
going
to
come.
Had
they
gotten
a
quote
from
the
contractor.
The
responses
were
the
job's
too
small
they're
we're
not
going
to
get
a
response.
I
No,
that
back
and
forth
happened
in
december,
so
the
hearing
officer's
decision
was
that
once
they
were
noticed,
it
was
reasonable
to
allow
them
90
days
to
make
progress
on
the
repairs.
So
she
didn't
start
the
downward
adjustment
until
march
1st,
on
the
basis
that
they
were
notified
in
late
november
and
early
december
of
the
floor
condition.
P
F
More
of
a
scoping
issue,
the
things
that
we
are
looking
at
in
terms
of
our
direction
is
all
right:
the
downward
adjustment
due
to
the
unsafe
condition.
On
the
bathroom
floor,
the
downward
adjustment
do
ceiling
cracks
the
one-time
reduction
about
the
toilet,
downward
adjustment
or
the
non-downward
adjustment
due
to
not
having
enough
information
about
the
mold.
But
basically
these
are
the
list
of
things
that
we're
going
to
go
over
and
then
we
are
going
to
either
choose
to
uphold,
deny
or
send
back
to
to
hearing
officer.
I
Yes,
so
the
landlord
raised
three
issues
on
appeal.
The
first
issue
was
that
the
downward
adjustments
primarily
related
to
the
bathroom,
but
there
was
reference
to
the
ceiling
cracks
should
not
have
started
on
march
1st,
but
should
have
started
only
90
days
after
the
hearing
decision,
which
would
have
put
it
at
august
16..
I
So
I
think
that
appeal
decision
is
really
was
there
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
to
support
the
hearing
officer's
decision.
That
march
1st
was
a
reasonable
date.
I
The
second
issue
raised
by
the
landlord
was
an
issue
regarding
subletting,
and
this
one
is
a
little
bit
more
confusing.
There
was
a
lot
of
information
in
the
appeal
about
subletting,
but
essentially
the
hearing
officer's
decision
did
not
grant
a
downward
adjustment
on
subletting
and
the
decision
just
essentially
says
the
petitioner
needs
to
comply
with
the
csfr
regulations
and
state
law,
and
the
respondent
needs
to
comply
with
the
csfra
petition
or
regulation
and
state
law
that
isn't
relevant
to
the
ultimate
decision
that
there
was
no
downward
adjustment.
I
F
Okay,
so
when
it
comes
to
the
the
summary
of
the
decision,
the
main
thing
we're
probably
talking
about
in
terms
of
narrowing
the
scope
down
from
that
was
a
lot
of
information
that
we
learned
in
the
last
20
minutes
is
really
was
the
the
date
correct,
and
therefore
the
amount
of
reduction
downward
adjustment
correct
is
that
right.
I
Right
was
the
time
period
based
on
the
evidence
you
heard
tonight.
The
downward
adjustment,
assuming
that
the
city
has
signed
off
and
the
inspections
of
the
work
would
have
been
in
effect
from
march
1st
to
july.
7Th.
So
was
that
the
correct
time
period
for
the
downward
adjustment
of
320
a
month,
I
think
with
some
change.
A
I
So
that
is
what
your
petition
process
is
for.
So
under
your
regulations,
the
tenant
has
to
provide
reasonable
notice
and
the
landlord
I
mean
this
is
in
the
csfra
in
your
regulations,
and
the
landlord
has
to
be
given
a
reasonable
time
to
make
the
repairs
so
there's
no
requirement
that
notice
be
given
in
any
particular
way.
A
R
Can
you
give
some
examples
of
why
you
believe
there
was
bias.
J
J
It
was
just
mostly
because,
like
I
said
earlier,
many
statements
have
been
interpreted
wrong,
as
well
as
the
subletting,
which
is,
as
we've
mentioned
many
times
illegal
in
the
first
place,
so
it
keeps
on
being
brought
up,
assuming
that
it
would
be
legal
and
assuming
that
a
roommate
is
a
right
when
I
iris
martinez
is
the
only
name
on
the
istauble
and
like
regardless
of
I
guess,
whatever
agreement
she
had
with
the
previous
landlord,
maybe
tacit
when
we
came
in
at
this
timing
november,
22nd
a
week
before
december,
completely
new
landlords
to
a
fourplex
yeah.
J
Additionally,
with
the
rent
assumption
that
we
would
increase
the
rent
by
1400
when
that
was
an
imaginary
scenario,
and
it
twisted
our
words
into
thinking.
That
was
reality.
I
don't
have
other
really
great
examples
of
bias
as
of
right
now
I
think
the
bias
is
a
point
we
don't
want
to
make
you
feel
like
you're.
We
don't
want
to
make
you
feel
like
you're
being
unfair
to
us.
J
We
want,
like,
obviously,
that's
not
really
nice
to
anyone
involved,
but-
and
I
am
miss
jean's
daughter
by
the
way
I
feel
like
as
her
daughter
like
there
has
been
some
language,
a
lot
of
language
barrier,
problems
that
have
caused
miscommunications
and
misunderstandings.
J
I
feel
like,
as
landlords
they've
done,
the
best
that
they
can
with
the
knowledge
that
they
can
in
december.
It
was
a
week
after
they
bought
the
property
and
didn't
know
anything
about
floors
and
we're
already
actively
fixing
many
problems.
So
I
don't
know
I
don't.
I
don't
think
I
got
biased
that
that
was
just
the
reason
back
then.
F
Just
a
quick
one
for
the
appellant
landlord,
I
I
think
you
may
have
misspoke,
but
you
mentioned
that
you
had
an
inspection
but
didn't
read
it
prior
to
acquiring
the
property.
If
was
that,
did
I
miss
fear
that
I
think
I
might
have
misheard
that.
J
Yeah
there
was
just
an
inspection
report
that
was
200
pages
long.
We
read
it
but
obviously
like
it
was
200
pages
long
and
with
a
language
barrier,
things
could
have
been
missed
very
easily
because
it
was
all
in
english
and
very
new
landlords
to
duplex.
J
And
also
that
inspection
report
was
not
ordered
from
us.
J
G
Actually,
I'm
out
of
order,
I
think,
because
I
I
have
a
question
regarding
the
sub
tenancy
for
for
staff.
It's
my
understanding
from
my
reading
of
the
appeal
decision
that
the
hearing
officer
decided
that
the
issue
of
sub-tenancy
was
not
going
to
be
settled
in
this
case.
G
I
That
that
is
correct.
The
hearing
officer
found
that
the
tenant
had
not
met
the
requirements
of
your
regulation
before
the
decision
could
any
decision
could
be
made.
The
tenant
needs
to
meet
those
requirements.
A
F
Chair
ramos,
I
I
think
I
see
miss
dang
with
her
hand
up
on
something.
Oh,
maybe
not
remember,
ryan.
I
thought
she
wanted
to
say
something.
I
think
she.
E
J
Yeah,
we
agree
that
we
have
said
many
times
that
the
stub
leasing
is
also
irrelevant
to
this.
However,
since
it
was
mentioned
in
the
tentative
appeal
decision
very
recently,
we
also
decided
to
rebut
it
in
our
appeal
to
that.
So
we
have
long
said
it
was
irrelevant
to
this
decision,
but
because
it
keeps
getting
brought
in,
for
example,
with
the
rent
misreportation,
the
doubling
rent
misinterpretation
from
our
example
scenario
about
subleasing
that
was
brought
into
the
tentative
appeal
decision
for
this
hearing.
J
I
Yeah,
can
I
just
clarify,
so
it
was
not
inappropriate
for
the
hearing
officer
to
consider
subleasing.
It
was
part
of
the
petition
and
she
made
a
decision,
but
her
decision
was
that
she
was
not
making
a
finding
with
regard
to
the
subleasing
and
awarding
a
downward
adjustment.
So
it
was
completely
appropriate
with
regard
to
the
hearing
officer
decision
in
terms
of
the
appeal,
given
that
the
hearing
officer
essentially
found
that
until
the
tenant
made
the
appropriate
steps,
as
required
by
regulations,
there
was
no.
I
J
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
It
just
kept
being
mentions
of
it
kept
being
used
in
the
hearing
justification.
So
that's
why
we
felt
it
appropriate
because
it
was
again.
I
think
we
felt
very
strongly
about
it
and
then
the
misinterpretation
made
us
want
to
reiterate,
since
it
was
mentioned
in
the
hearing
officer's
decision
itself,
so
we
wanted
to
mention
it
in
the
peel,
but
in
the
future.
Yes,
it
should
be
solved
in
a
separate
case
and.
I
I
I
do
want
to
note
to
the
chair
that
the
appellant
has
been
given
their
opportunity
to
present
and
rebut
and
answer
questions,
and
this
has
gone
beyond
that.
A
A
A
motion
to
approve
should
include
reading
the
following
items
in
red:
well,
it's
not
in
red
for
you
all,
but
to
adopt
the
tentative
decision
to
deny
the
appeal
in
its
entirety
and
affirm
in
its
entirety.
The
hearing
decision
decision
hearing
officer
decision.
Do
I
see
emotion.
I
do
committee
member
altman.
G
Thank
you.
I
don't
have
the
wording
in
front
of
me,
but
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
tentative
appeal
decision.
As
written,
can
you
fill
in
the
blanks?
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
have
the
exact
organ.
A
N
Sorry,
can
you
put
up
the
the
motion
because
it's
a
little
confusing
for
me.
A
F
Yeah
I,
from
reading
from
what
I
understood
reading
I
I
see
where
the
a
lot
of
this
comes
down
to
a
failure
of
communication
and
then,
when
that
failure
of
communication
happens,
where
is
the
responsibility
of
that
and
to
some
degree
I
understood
why
the
it
kind
of
boggles
my
mind
to
have
a
tenant
being
like
I
was
here
for
20
years
and
I'm
like
under
30.,
so
that
was.
That
was
a
interesting
scenario
that
I
never
even
thought
through
kind
of
before,
but
it
it
there
is
a
miscommunication.
F
I
understand
that
the
landlord
did
not
understand
certain
aspects
of
the
law
and
where,
at
what
point,
if
a
tenant
logs,
essentially
a
a
repair,
habitability
issue
with
a
landlord
at
what
point
does
the
landlord
responsible
for
for
that?
And
that
obviously
takes
judgment
and
takes
time.
But
this
is
a
multi-million
dollar
property
and
I
believe
that
it
is
under
the
landlord
to
to
have
that
kind
of
level
of
responsibility
if
you're
you're,
if
it's
a
multi-million
dollar
property
you're,
it's
not
something
that
you
should
take
lightly.
F
F
It's
just
really
tragic
that
things
really
couldn't
be
communicated
well
enough,
that
the
tenant
felt
that
they
needed
the
city
to
come
in
to
prove
to
the
landlord
that
something
was
wrong
because
they
because
it
was
not
able
to
communicate.
Neither
neither
party
really
knew
how
to
communicate
that
to
each
other.
But
that
is
a
responsibility
that
you
have
when
you
own
property,
and
that
is
a
responsibility
I
feel
like.
F
I
do
have
an
expectation
of
people
who
are
housing
providers
to
have
so
I
will
I
support
the
the
appeal
decision
that
the
the
regular
decision-
I
guess
and
I
vote
yes.
A
A
A
L
So
the
purpose-
sorry,
I
think
we
skipped
one,
but
the
purpose
of
this
is
to
review
and
adopt
amendments
to
the
csfra
and
mhrso
regulations.
Chapter
two
to
further
clarify
the
calculation
of
base
rent
where
rent
concession
is
offered
in
the
first
month
of
a
tendency
during
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy
next
slide.
L
L
So
just
a
little
review.
This
should
be
pretty
fresh
in
people's
minds,
since
it
was
the
last
meeting,
but
nonetheless,
the
rhc
in
march
postponed
the
base
rent,
slash,
rent
concession
regulation,
consideration
to
obtain
stakeholder
input.
Stakeholder
meetings
were
held
with
both
landlords
and
tenants.
L
In
april
on
may
23rd,
the
rental
housing
committee
held
a
study
session
and
provided
staff
with
additional
direction
regarding
drafting
the
proposed
regulations
related
to
base
rent
and
rent
concessions,
and
on
june
20th
at
the
rhc
meeting,
you
adopted
amendments
to
regulations
of
the
csfra
and
mhrso
to
address
how
base
rent
would
be
calculated
in
the
instance
where
rent
concessions
are
provided
during
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy
next
slide.
So
at
the
may
meeting
the
rhc
took
straw
polls
to
provide
staff
with
direction
on
drafting
the
regulations.
L
One
of
the
questions
for
the
straw
polls
was
as
follows:
should
all
types
of
rent
concessions
be
treated
in
the
same
way
when
calculating
base
rent,
including
the
alternate
committee
member's
vote?
The
poll
was
tied
3-3
without
the
alternates
vote.
The
vote
was
3-2
to
treat
all
concessions
the
same
based
on
that
direction.
L
The
regulations
that
staff
drafted
and
that
the
rhc
adopted
at
the
june
20th
meeting
treated
all
rent
concessions
the
same
in
calculating
base
rent
next
slide
after
the
rental
housing
committee
had
adopted
the
regulations
of
the
june
meeting.
However,
some
committee
members
expressed
some
desire
to
consider
treating
differently
rent
conditions
that
consist
solely
of
free
or
reduced
rent
during
the
first
month
of
the
tenancy.
L
This
was
in
consideration
of
the
fact
that
these
types
of
rank
concessions
often
help
tenants
when
transitioning
from
one
apartment
or
unit
to
another,
and
because
this
conversation
took
place
after
the
rhc
had
already
considered
this
agenda
item.
The
a
request
was
made
of
the
chair.
That's
staff
review
options
for
revising
the
newly
adopted
regulations
to
treat
these
concessions
these
first
month.
Free
reduced,
rent
concessions
differently
and
staff
proposes
the
following
approach.
L
In
response
to
that,
so
we
would
add
a
new
bullet
point
to
subsection
to
be
roman
numeral
2
to
the
csfri
regulations
and
2c
roman
numeral
2
to
the
mhrso
regulations
to
exclude
from
the
calculation
of
base
rent
first
month's
free
or
discounted
rent.
L
This
means
that
if
a
tenancy
begins
on
september
15th,
for
example,
a
rent
concession
provided
for
the
month
of
october
would
be
excluded
from
the
base
rank
calculation,
and
this
is
sort
of
to
just
get
make
the
calculation
a
little
bit
easier.
It
gets
a
little
bit
complicated
if
you
do
it
by
30
days
or
31
days
or,
however,
many
because
the
num,
the
number
of
days
in
each
month
is
different
and
therefore
the
proration
would
be
different
to
calculate
the
base
rate
where
there
is
a
first
month
concession.
L
The
initial
term
of
the
dependency
would
be
reduced
by
one
month.
So
again
in
the
instance
where
you
have
a
six
month
lease
and
the
first
month
of
that
lease
is
free.
The
base
rent
would
be
calculated
based
on
the
average
rent
actually
paid
by
the
tenant
over
five
months,
rather
than
the
full
six
months.
L
In
addition,
the
amendments
proposed
to
add
subsection,
roman
numeral,
five
to
require
landlords
or
park
owners
or
mobile
home
landlords
to
provide
tenants
or
mobile
homeowners
or
mobile
home
tenants
with
a
notice
of
rent
concession,
which
includes
the
type
of
concession
that
is
being
provided.
So
that
means
is
it
one
month
free?
Is
it
multiple
months
free?
L
Is
it
a
reduction
over
the
course
of
the
entire
lease?
Is
it
a
reduction
over
the
part
of
the
lease
and
there's
a
number
of
other
options
there
about
the
types
of
concessions,
the
amount
of
the
concession,
as
well
as
the
landlord's
calculation
of
the
base
rent-
and
this
is
just
to
help
both
landlords
and
tenants,
understand
the
concession
and
what
the
impact
of
that
concession
will
be
on
the
base
run.
L
The
notice
would
be
on
a
form
provided
by
the
rental
housing
committee,
and
this
is
actually
not
in
the
staff
report,
but
staff
recommends
that
the
these
notices
be
provided
starting,
except
for
tendencies
that
begin
on
september,
1st
2022
or
thereafter,
to
give
both
landlords
and
tenants
some
time
to
adjust
to
these
new
regulations.
F
I'm
so
sorry,
I
talk
about
communication
issues
with
the
last
item
and
and
a
lot
of
this
happened
because
of
my
lack
of
communication
skills.
So
some
clarifying
questions
how
difficult
would
it
be
to
expand
from
one
month
to
one
or
two
or
three
months?
Is
that
difficult
to
put
in
is
that?
Is
there
an
easy
way
to
do
that
and
I
didn't
think,
oh
I'll,
let
you
answer
that
question.
First,.
L
It's
not
difficult,
it
could
be
done
vm
ocean.
However,
the
committee
should
consider
the
impact,
so
you
know
expanding
it
from
one
to
two
to
three
months:
would
sort
of
change
the
definition
or
would
that
conform
necessarily
to
the
definition
that
is
in
the
csfra
or
the
mhrso
itself
of
the
actual
rent
that
is
paid
by
the
tenant
over
the
initial
term
of
the
tendency
if
it
were
excluded
from
the
calculation
of
base
rent,
and
also
in
that
instance.
L
So
if
you
have,
for
instance,
a
tenant
who
receives
the
first
three
months
free
in
a
12
months,
lease
and
their
rent
is
a
thousand
dollars,
then
in
that
instance,
they're
based
around
to
be
a
thousand
dollars,
but
a
tenant
who
receives
a
25
reduction,
although
they
are
paying
750
dollars,
just
as
the
other
tenant
over
the
course
of,
or
that's
the
average
of
the
rent
that
they're
paying
over
the
course
of
the
12
months.
Their
base
rent
would
be
750
dollars.
L
I
And
can
I
just
add
so
the
intent
to
this
was
to
create
a
very
narrow
exception,
the
more
we
widen
that
exception,
the
more
we
run,
afoul
of
no
longer
complying
with
csfra
and
going
beyond
your
role
of
crafting
regulations
that
are
consistent
with
the
csfra.
I
F
So
I
guess
a
clarifying
question
by
by
passing
this
regulation.
We
are
we're
not
going
back
on
the
the
the
percentage
discount
for
every
month,
so
that
example
that
you
had
that's,
that's
not
a
thing
anymore.
Right
now,.
I
L
I
L
L
E
F
L
I
F
So
one
tenant
is
paying
750,
because
the
landlord
gave
a
25
discount,
but
that
that
not
it's
not
really
a
discount,
because
it's
the
actual
rent
that
they're
paying.
That
is
the
base
rent
as
opposed
to
a
landlord
who
has
a
tenant
who's,
paying
1
000
a
month.
But
they
got
the
first
two
three
months
free
so
on
the
12
month.
Aggregate
they
are
paying
the
same
amount.
F
But
then
one
tenant
is
has
a
lower
base
rent
than
the
other
tenant
based
on
the
free
rent,
but
the
tenants
what
they're
paying
on
month,
five
or
six
if
they
started
at
the
same
time-
and
they
just
had
different
things-
they
are
paying
different
things
so
like
one
tenant
is
paying
a
thousand
dollars
and
the
other
tenant
is
paying
750.
F
and
then,
when
it
comes
to
when
they
come
to
the
renewed
release.
The
person
at
the
750
level,
that
is,
the
base
rent
that
they
are
doing
and
then
the
thousand
dollar
that's
the
base
rent.
They
are
treating
right.
I
P
Always
classic
my
question
was
gonna
be
about
the
noticing
actually,
but
maybe
quickly.
Just
in
that
example,
if
the
person's
rent
monthly
rent
the
rent
their
charge
is
a
thousand
dollars
per
month,
but
they're
given
the
one
month
free,
then
in
the
13th
month,
their
base
rent
would
be
calculated.
In
this
scenario,
there
is
in
the
regulation
that
would
be
that
is
proposed
on
the
13th
month.
Their
base
rent
would
still
be
the
thousand
dollars
not
like
a
smaller
percentage,
the
the
smaller
percentage
of
what
they
paid.
P
Correct
gotcha,
okay,
all
right
thanks!
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
interpreting
it
correctly
on
the
noticing
the
I
like
the
proposal.
I
think
my
question
is:
how
are
how
are
we?
Where
are
we
at
with
noticing
right
now
like?
If
I,
I
think
we,
I
think
it'd
be
notice,
for
the
aga
needs
to
be
sent
to
both
the
tenant
and
to
us.
Is
that
correct.
R
Regular
notices
of
rent
increases,
just
the
aga,
does
not
have
to
be
sent
to
the
rental
housing
committee,
but
of
course
they
need
to
be
sent
to
the
tenants.
Otherwise
they
are
not
aware
what
the
rent
increase
is
copies
to.
The
real
housing
committee
need
to
be
sent
only
when
there
is
a
banked
increase
got
it.
P
P
Was
there
a
concession
given
yes
or
no,
almost
like
a
worksheet
for
the
landlord
and
then
looking
for
a
more
efficient
way,
I
think
to
have
the
landlord
work
through
whether
they
need
to
notice
the
person
or
not
send
a
notice
to
well
sorry,
they
always
need
to
notice
the
individual,
the
tenant,
but
do
they
need
to
also
notice
us
and
so
bank
decrease?
They
would
this
situation
where
the
concession
of
a
certain
type
they
would.
I
I
Doesn't
require
that
they
give
us
the
notice
of
the
concession.
It's
a
notice,
that's
supposed
to
go
with
the
rental
agreement
when
it's
signed,
so
it's
between
the
landlord
and
the
tenant,
but
on
a
form
that
the
staff
would
prepare.
P
It
and
yeah-
maybe
my
my
final
ask
then,
is
just:
can
we
consolidate
that
into
kind
of
as
few
pages
as
possible,
so.
R
L
So
so
there
is
a
notice
that
goes
with
all
leases
at
the
beginning.
That's
just
a
notice
of
the
csfra
or
the
mhrso,
all
right,
yeah
yeah.
So
maybe
I
think
committee
member
greenwald
is
asking
if
this,
if
there
has
been
a
rent
concession,
can
we
just
add
it
to
whatever
that
notice
is
now
and
it
can
be
a
check
box?
I
don't
know
that,
but
staff
might
have
that.
I.
P
Great,
thank
you.
It
would
just
make
just
be
efficient,
save
some
trees
and,
and
hopefully
help
landlords
spend
less
time
and
be
more
clear
about
knowing
the
law.
Thank
you.
G
I
know
it
happens
later
in
the
night,
so
I
I'm
glad
I
waited
until
after
a
committee.
Member
grumwall
spoke
because
I
think
what
he
asked
the
last
time
we
discussed
this
was
whether
this
could
be
included
in
our
mandatory
registration.
Could
there
be
an
item
added
whether
any
concessions
were
made
and
what
they
were,
and
I
think
that
would
be
excellent
information
for
us
to
be
collecting,
but
the
reason
that
I'd
raise
my
hand
is.
G
I
really
I
think
we
have
to
stay
with
the
spirit
of
csfra
and
not
complicate
things
by
one
two
three,
you
know
I
mean
there
could
be
there's
so
many
potential
concessions
out
there.
There's
verbal
handshakes,
there's
all
kinds
of
stuff,
and
I
I
I
feel
like
we're,
making
a
concession
ourselves
by
even
saying
that
we're
gonna
allow
a
one-month
reprieve
basically
and
allow
landlords
to
take
that
one
month
and
still
have
the
same
base
rent.
G
I
personally
would
like
to
stick
to
the
letter
of
the
law
and
use
the
base
rent
as
that
that
which
was
collected
during
the
forgotten
the
language,
but
during
the
initial
term
of
tenancy.
A
N
So
it
is
a
question:
okay,
so
will
this
have
the
potential
to
if
we
were
to
give
this
concession
that.
N
Rent
increase
because,
since
on
on
average
on
your
example,
nozzanin
the
the
renter
who
rents
at
700
on
average
of
700,
they
would,
and
in
essence,
if
we,
if
we
talk
about
the
percentage
that
we
have
now,
which
is
five
percent,
the
landlord
can
raise
up
to
five
percent.
L
No,
so
this
will
it
just
sort
of
impacts,
the
calculation
of
base
rent,
as
as
it's
currently
written
someone
who
is
paying
a
thousand
dollars
over
the
course
of
a
12-month
lease,
but
has
the
first
month
free
their
base.
Rent
would
be
one
thousand
dollars
because
we're
saying
the
actual
term
of
your
tendency.
B
L
L
So
it's
not
going
to
impact
how
much
the
landlord
is
able
to
raise
the
rent.
It's
just
gonna
impact
the
the
base
rank
calculation,
so
I
mean
yes
in
in
an
instance.
Technically,
if,
if
we
didn't
do
this,
what
would
happen
as
as
the
regulations
are
currently
written
without
these
amendments?
L
It
would
be
you
know,
whatever
one
one.
Twelfth
of
a
thousand
dollars
is,
as
you
said,
karen,
that
would
be
subtracted
from
from
the
base
base,
and
I
don't
know
that
math,
but
it
might
be
slightly
lower.
Let's
say
nine
hundred
ninety
dollars
or
something
like
that,
and
then
it
would
be
five
percent
on
the
990
dollars.
So
it's
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
difference
between
what
the
base
rank
calculation
is.
L
N
A
Committee
member,
do
you
have
a
question
for
staff
before
I
go
to
public
comment,
I
think
the
hand
is
just
left
up,
so
I
am
going
to
now
go
to
public
comment.
Would
any
member
on
the
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
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.
S
Hi,
can
you
hear
me
we
can't
hear
you
awesome,
hi
rental
housing
committee.
S
I
recently
moved
to
mountain
view
in
2021
my
landlord
offered
a
couple
months
of
free
rent
for
my
unit
upon
signing
our
initial
lease,
but
not
given
as
actual
free
months
but
implemented
as
a
percentage
discount
over
the
first
half
of
my
initial
tenancy
before
signing
this
lease,
knowing
that
my
apartment
was
subject
to
mountain
view,
rent
control,
I
looked
to
the
protections
for
tenants
under
the
csfra
and
it
was
clear
to
me
that
these
discounts
would
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
my
base,
rent
based
on
the
clear
language
of
the
regulation.
S
S
T
Hello,
can
you
hear
me
we
can
hear
you
excellent.
Thank
you
so
much
so
I
am
a
landlord.
T
We
believe
that
it's
important
that
the
regulation
and
the
required
forms
that
you'll
be
producing
are
clearly
communicated
and
only
applied
to
tenancy
after
a
certain
date.
The
proposed
regulation
is
consistent
with
the
letter
and
spirit
of
the
csfra
which
recognize
the
upfront
moving
cons.
Cost
can
be
a
significant
expense
for
renters
and
that
concessions
really
do
help
address
those
concerns,
and
the
regulation
aims
to
strike
really
a
balance
between
the
landlord
business
and
the
need
for
clear
disclosure
to
our
tenant
about
the
concessions
and
how
the
rent
increases
will
be
calculated.
T
So
again,
we
just
want
to
say
thank
you
again
for
your
general
support
of
the
concept
that
you're
considering
and
we'd
like
to
thank
all
of
you
for
just
really
taking
the
time
to
work
through
this
issue
with
the
stakeholders
and
being
willing
to
find
a
solution.
So
thank
you.
O
O
O
So
I
do
respect
the
comments
about
needing
to
stay
true
to
the
csfra
language
and
by
the
language
included
in
the
proposed
ordinance
that
talks
about
adapting
or
you
know
how,
how
you're
going
to
define
the
length
of
the
initial
tenancy.
O
O
I
think
it's
good
to
keep.
It
short.
I
think
two
months
might
be
a
good
answer,
because
there's
a
reason
you're
talking
about
this
again
and
that's
for
the
benefit
of
tenants,
which
is
part
of
the
csfra
tenants-
are
not
all
good
savers
and
so
having
to
have
when
you
have
a
too
high
rent
but
you're,
trying
to
scrape
together
enough
money
to
move
and
pay
the
security
deposit,
you
might
be
prevented
from
moving
to
a
lower
rent
situation
by
the
absence
of
a
first
month
free
opportunity,
yeah,
I
won't
be
upset.
O
If
you
stay
with
the
language
you
passed
the
last
time,
but
I
think
that
this
is
justifiable
and
beneficial
to
tenants.
I
think
it's
very
important
that
you
in
this
proposed
language
that
you're
separating
the
two
types
of
concession,
the
one
that
is
at
the
beginning
versus
the
one.
That's
over
the
term.
I
think
you're
separating
them
and
they're
very
different
in
terms
of
confusion,
possibilities
and
even
abuse
possibilities.
O
I
hope
you
move
forward
with
this.
I
appreciate
your
looking
at
this
again
and
I
appreciate
that
the
rental
housing
committee
and
you
know
all
staff
are
and
legal
advice
are
saying
we
must
stay
true
to
the
csfra,
but
I
think
carving
out
this
one
exception,
I
find
it
acceptable.
Thank
you.
C
Well,
good
evening,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
joshua
howard
with
the
california
apartment
association.
C
Let
me
begin
by
saying
looking
at
the
timeline
that
staff
presented
we've
been
at
this
for
quite
a
while
and
tonight
I
think
we're
nearing
a
result
that
really
strikes
a
balance
for
housing
providers,
for
tenants
for
the
rhc
for
the
city
and
really
appreciate
the
hard
work
of
staff,
really
appreciate
the
creativity
from
the
legal
counsel
and
and
the
others
who
brought
this
forward
to
you
tonight
on
behalf
of
the
california
apartment
association,
we
would
respectfully
request
several
minor
clarifications
in
the
draft
regulation
that
is
before
you
tonight.
C
A
couple
of
them
specifically
related
to
some
of
the
definitions.
Excuse
me
examples
that
are
used
may
be
inconsistent
with
the
regulation
would
hope
that,
as
you
move
this
forward
tonight,
you
ensure
that
the
examples
that
are
cited
in
the
regulation
comport
with
the
letter
of
the
regulation,
especially
around
some
of
the
calculations,
so
that
it's
consistent
for
housing
providers
for
tenants
for
hearing
officers
would
also
ask
for
some
flexibility
around
the
definition
of
first
month.
C
Sometimes
in
that
initial
month
some
housing
providers
do
structure
their
rental
agreements
in
such
a
way
where
a
tenant
moves
in
on
september
15th,
the
first
month's
rent
is
september,
15
to
october
15,
and
a
prorated
portion
is
paid
from
october,
15
to
october
31st
and
then
in
november.
First,
the
regular
cycle
of
payments
begins.
C
So
it
asks
that
you
consider
that
so
that
it
comports
with
how
several
housing
providers,
both
mom
and
pops
and
others
structure
their
lease
agreements
in
the
city
and
also
would
ask
that
you
do
give
consideration
to
allowing
up
to
two
months
of
free
rent.
As
the
previous
speaker
just
stated,
oftentimes
concessions
are
used
to
help
offset
moving
costs
and
we
know
that
moving
can
be
challenging.
C
So,
in
light
of
the
comments
you've
heard
tonight
in
light
of
the
hard
work,
california
apartment
association
would
respectfully
request
that
you
do
move
this
forward,
but
do
give
consideration
to
allowing
up
to
two
months
of
rent
in
the
initial
lease
term
as
a
concession
and
ensure
that
there
is
clear
guidance
as
to
when
this
regulation
takes
effect
and
that
it
only
applies
prospectively
for
tenants
that,
as
staff
indicated,
begins
on
or
after
september
1st
of
this
year
again.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
C
Thank
you
for
your
work
and
through
this
back
and
forth,
with
landlords
with
tenants
with
staff
and
the
rhc
members
we're
arriving
at
a
result
which
it
sounds
like
meets
the
needs
of
the
city's
housing
providers
and
renters.
So
thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
look
forward
to
this
moving
tonight.
Thank
you.
U
Good
evening
everybody
thank
you
chair,
I
I
just
I
I
find
myself
in
a
situation
where
I
actually
agree
with
every
speaker.
That's
spoken
tonight
and
it
it
feels
really
nice
that
the
committee
and
staff
is
has
stayed
open
to
the
input
from
all
sides.
U
I
would
echo
the
the
thinking
that
two
months
upfront
rent
concession
be
considered.
I
I
do
think
it's
it's
the
proper
balance,
and
I
I
also
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that.
U
I
think
this
concept
of
the
first
full
month
might
pose
some
administrative
challenges,
and
you
know
I
I
heard
staff
council
say
that
it
was
meant
to
sort
of
head
off
administrative
difficulties,
but
I,
but
I
actually
think
it
might,
it
might
create
them
from
from
an
administrative
standpoint,
so
the
request
would
be
whether
that
could
be
modified
to
to
reflect
a
concession
given
within
the
first.
You
know
30
or
60
days,
whatever,
whatever
you
know,
language
seems
to
make
the
most
sense.
U
But
again,
thank
you
all
really
appreciate
your
time
and
consideration.
V
Hi
there
good
evening,
I
would
like
to
echo
comments
that
have
already
been
made
of
expressing
appreciation
for
the
very
thorough
and
considered
approach
that
the
rental
housing
committee
and
staff
have
taken
to
this
issue.
I.
V
You
know
also
concur
with
comments
that
have
been
made,
expressing
that
the
carve
out
that's
being
considered
tonight
for
upfront
concessions
benefits
both
landlords
and
tenants.
I'd
like
to
speak
to
a
particular
concern
that
has
been
raised
tonight
and
also
at
previous
meetings
about
whether
the
amendment
is
is
really
faithful
to
the
csfra.
V
I
believe
that
this
proposal
is
actually
the
most
faithful
of
all
that
we
have
seen
because
excluding
upfront
concessions
is
in
keeping
with
the
the
definition
of
rent
as
being
the
periodic
payment,
I.e,
the
payment
that
is
made
repeatedly
month
over
month
with
the
first
month,
effectively
just
falling
out,
because
no
payment
is
made.
V
I
also
agree
with
comments
by
the
caa
and
and
others
that
the
proposed
there
might
be
some
administrative
difficulties
around
the
narrow
definition
of
the
first
month,
but
but
all
in
all,
I'm
very
grateful
for
this
well-reasoned
compromised
position
on
a
really
important
issue.
Thank
you.
A
Said,
oh
sorry
about
that,
I
said
thank
you
to
anna
and
I
said
we're
going
to
upgrade
stephen
to
a
participant,
so
he
can
provide
his
comments.
H
Thank
you
very
much.
If
you
can
hear
me
now
and
okay,
one
of
the
problems
that
I've
been
having
regarding
a
lot
of
the
talk
here
is
that
supposedly
joshua
said
that
there
would
be
administrative
problems.
Well,
I
understand
regarding
the
way
rents
are
supposed
to
be
handled,
is
they're
supposed
to
be
pro-rated
regarding
the
total
monthly
rent
and
the
amount
of
days
they
have
for
a
period.
H
In
that
case,
then,
for
example,
as
he
explained,
that
some
moved
into
an
apartment
on
the
15th,
then
their
rent
collection
would
be
based
on
only
15
days
of
the
rent
and
not
the
entire
rent,
and
it
would
be
very
simply
applied
in
the
future.
If
they're
trying
to
be
given
30
days
of
free
rent,
that
means
the
next
month,
they
would
only
be
charged
for
15
days
of
rent
for
that
month
and
then
moving
forward,
so
that
explanation
didn't
seem
to
pass
muster.
H
In
my
point
of
view,
the
real
issue
that
seems
to
be
going
on
again
and
I've
observed
it
in
my
building-
is
the
idea
that
you
get
a
teaser
rate
and
then
you
now
that
these
teaser
rates
are
now
being
asked
to
be
considered.
Non-Uh
base
rents,
and
in
this
case
I
really
do
not
believe
that
that
can
be
allowed
again.
H
The
csfra
was
very
clear
on
that
and
you
can
only
modify
the
cr
csfra
as
long
as
the
text
of
the
csfra
is
not
overwritten
and
in
this
case
again
the
the
text
of
the
csfra
does
clearly
say
that
the
base
rent
is
the
actual
rent
paid
and
that,
if
that's
the
case,
then
in
effect,
yes,
your
original
decision
and
your
original
regulation
that
was
passed
wasn't
perfect
connection
with
the
csfra
and
yes,
I
know
that
it
makes
things
a
little
bit
more
complicated
for
for
renters
and
landlords.
H
But
again,
this
kind
of
situation
is
a
situation
where
people
should
be
putting
in
the
proper
consideration
before
they
take
their
actions.
And
in
this
case
then
I
I
would
say
that
again,
there
are
ways
of
doing
that.
But
trying
to
carve
out
a
a
middle
ground
when
there
is
none
in
the
regular
in
the
actual
text
of
the
of
the
the
actual
charter.
H
That's
a
different
story,
you're,
actually
going
beyond
what
the
charter
originally
defined.
The
only
way
you
can
do
that
technically
is
to
go
and
actually
have
a
ballot
measure
written
so
that
the
csfra
can
actually
be
modified
by
the
voters,
and
so
in
my
book.
I'm
simply
saying
this
is
the
wrong
venue
to
take
these
actions.
H
This
could
be
easily
argued
in
court
as
being
knowing
in
excess
of
what
the
this
the
committee
can
do,
given
the
text
of
the
csfra
and
it
could
wind
up
with
a
lot
of
major
issues
regarding
legal
litigation.
H
So
I
would
again
strongly
urge
that
the
original
regulations
that
were
adopted
be
be
upheld
and
any
modifications
of
this
type
should
be
actually
put
into
a
ballot
measure
in
the
future.
K
Hi
all
I
just
wanted
to
again
say
thank
you
to
the
staff,
especially
I
know
how
much
you
went
through
to
put
this
all
together.
I
wanted
to
address
a
couple
things
that
stephen
said
and
also
what
griffin
said.
I
think
that
what
you
have
proposed
is
amazing,
lovely
I
get
maybe
saying
30
days
instead
of
a
month
for
ease,
I'm
not
really
actually
sure
how
that
would
all
work
out,
but
you
know
griffin's
issue
and
steven's
issue.
K
I
in
reality
is
that
pro-rated
rent
issue
where
that
three
months
was
actually
prorated
and
was
basically
a
fake
way
to
lower
rents,
and
this
actually
provides
landlords
and
tenants
to
do
the
the
industry
standard
one
month,
free
rent
that
enables
people
to
move
in.
So
it
takes
care
of
everyone
in
a
good
strong
way.
I
think
it
will
create
a
foundation
for
great
tenancy
and
for
people
who
are
of
middle
and
lower
income
to
still
be
able
to
move
into
mountain
view,
which
is
hugely
important.
K
Lastly,
to
address
stephen's
concern
about
the
legal
issues.
The
staff's
legal
team
has
done
a
great
job
of
looking
into
this
and
understanding
this
and
has
not,
and
would
not
recommend
this
if
it
was
not
in
keeping
with
the
cfsra
and
and
legally
correct
to
do
so.
As
anna
mentioned,
the
rents
that
are
we're
looking
at
are
periodic
payments
became
monthly
payments,
so
it
is
in
keeping
with
that.
K
There's
also
other
ways
to
look
at
it,
as
far
as
I
think,
like
kind,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
the
the
staff
construct
constructed
it.
K
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
but
I
do
know
a
number
of
lawyers
have
looked
at
this
and
that
they
all
agree
that
this
is
within
keeping
and
actually
more
in
keeping
with
the
cf
sra
than
previous,
because
it's
truly
taking
care
of
the
tenant
and
in
keeping
with
the
goals
and
intentions
of
this
law,
and
why
the
mountain
view
residents
voted
for
it,
which
is
to
to
have
a
healthy
community
that
people
can
live
in
and
move
into
and
yeah.
Just.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
D
I
appreciate
staff
pointing
out
that
a
750
dollar
base
rent
if
you
got
a
25
concession
on
a
thousand
dollar
a
month.
Rent
for
your
first
year
is
the
same
as
you
know,
getting
three
months
free
but
then
the
same
case.
If
you
got
you
know
one
eight
percent
off
and
your
base
right
became.
D
You
know:
9166
ish
after
the
first
year,
there's
nothing
special
about
three
months
out
of
12
being
discounted
versus
1
out
of
12
being
discounted,
the
rent
paid
during
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy
is
the
rent
paid
during
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy
and
adding
special
cases
for
any
number.
Any
arbitrary
number
is
a
violation
of
the
text
of
the
csfra.
D
It
makes
the
landlords
happy,
but
it's
a
violation
of
the
text
of
the
law
that
the
people
in
the
city
voted
for,
which
is
the
rent
paid
during
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy.
So
I
mean
you
can
pretend
that
some
math
is
different
than
others.
That's
not
how
numbers
work
but
again
base
12,
yeah,
just
add.
Add
two
digits
makes
a
lot
more
numbers
divisible
by
other
numbers
cleanly
all
right.
Thanks.
A
F
Quick
question
to
staff:
is
it
easier
to
say
30
days
than
one
month
or
or
60
days
instead
of
two
months?
Would
that
make
things
easier
with
how
how
they're
defining
that
free
month,
language
is
difficult.
L
I
just
think
it
gets
complicated
where
you,
the
the
person
moves
in
on
february
14
and
all
of
a
sudden
that
you
have
a
month.
That's
a
different
length
than
the
other
months
so
saying
the
first
full
month
seems
cleaner
and
I
think
you
know
maybe
landlords
can
meet
us
halfway
and
structure
that
and
then
charge
things
the
way
that
they
want
to
charge
things.
But
you
know
ultimately
it's
up
to
the
rental
housing
committee.
If
they
want
to
do
30
or
60
days.
F
I
F
F
I
think
I
I
understand
that,
and
I
think
I'm
just
going
to
accept
that
for
what
it
is.
However,
I
am
open
to
two
months
since
that's
that's
as
much
as
we
could
stress
through
a
ban.
Three
months
is
probably
a
no.
F
I
see
a
few
more
no's,
so
I'm
going
to
I'm
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
adopt
the
amendments
to
the
community
stabilization
and
fair
rat
act
and
mobile
home
rent
stabilization
ordinance
regulations,
chapter
2
to
further
clarify
the
calculation
of
base
rent
where
a
rent
concession
is
offered
in
the
first
month
in
the
first
two
months
of
tenancy.
I
think
that's,
that's
one
minor
change
during
the
initial
term
of
tenancy.
F
A
Question
yes,
so
on
your
motion,
are
you
trying
to
motion
that
the
rank
concession
could
be
offered
in
the
first
two
months,
meaning
you
could
do
one
month,
but
it
could
be
in
month,
one
or
month.
Two.
Are
you
trying
to
say
there
should
there
can
be
up
to
two
months,
rent
concession
offered
over
two
months.
F
I
am
saying
up
to
two
months:
rent
concession,
but
everything
else
is
is
going
to
stay
the
same.
F
F
I
O
I
L
Sorry
one
other
point
of
clarification.
This
is
in
the
agenda
as
two
separate
resolutions,
so
these
for
the
csfra
and
mhrso
there
should
be
two
separate
motions
made
and
then.
L
L
And
then
the
last
piece
is
just
whether
there
had
been
a
question
about
clarifying
when
folks
want
the
notices
to
start
going
out
with
leases
and
whether
that
change
that,
if
you
do,
want
that
change
to
be
in
there,
it
needs
to
be
a
part
of
the
motion.
P
A
I
am
not
seeing
a
second,
so
I
believe
that
motion
dies
okay,
but
committee
member
almond,
you
have
comments.
You
wanted
to
provide.
G
L
G
G
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
adopt
the
staff
recommended
one
month,
concession
as
the
base
rent
going
forward.
I
A
A
Excellent
excellent
and
then
my
thoughts
are
if
there
was
something
else
that
I
would
do
here
to
out
of
deference
for
the
fact
that
the
partials,
you
know
if
you
move
in
on
july
18th,
let's
just
say,
and
your
month
of
free,
is
august
1st
to
august
30th
or
31st.
Whatever
amount
of
days
august
has
do,
we
want
to
make
the
language
first
months
free
or
discounted
rank
where
the
first
month
must
occur
in
the
first
60
days
following
the
start
of
the
rental
agreement.
A
Sure
so,
let's
say
that
I'm
moving
in
tomorrow
to
a
property
and
for
bookkeeping
purposes.
My
landlord
says
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
free
month,
it's
from
july
19
to
august
18th,
and
then
I
pay
a
prorated
august
under
the
current
regulations
as
drafted.
There's
no
flexibility
to
do
that.
So
I
would
pay
a
pro
rated
july
and
then
I
would
get
one
month
free
in
august
and
then
I
would
be
back
to
normal
full
months
starting
in
september.
A
If
the
idea
here
is
that
the
concession
really
helps
the
tenant
with
the
moving
costs
by
having
them
pay
the
pro
rate
in
july.
In
that
example,
they
are
in
essence
paying
more
up
front
than
if
they
could
wait
to
august.
So
it
allows
them
at
least
one
more
pay
cycle,
if
not
two
before
they
have
to
start
paying
rent.
A
If
they're
gonna
buy
bi-monthly
pay.
G
I
I
just
think
that's
makes
it
very,
very
complicated
for
people
to
understand.
I
I
don't
know,
but
I
like
to
keep
it
as
clean
as
possible.
A
P
So
I
it's
about
the
stub
period,
essentially
right
that
the
partial
any
partial
months
I
do
think
we
should
clean
up
the
examples
and
just
be
clear
about
how
yeah
how
how
that
should
how
that
should
be
done
and
to
the
committee
I
mean:
do
we
again
if
it
let's
say
it's
september
15th
and
the
the
landlord
says:
okay
september
15,
to
october
1st,
I'm
going
to
give
you
free
and
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
first
month
free
because
it's
a
partial
and
then
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
first
month,
first
full
month,
free.
P
If
I'm
understanding
correctly,
would
we
treat
that?
Would
we
treat
that
differently?
Then
then?
Would
that
be?
That
would
be
over
and
above
the
one
month
that's
allowed,
and
so
then,
that
that
part
that
stub
one
month
would
be,
I
think,
part
of
the
calculation,
and,
if
so,
do
we
need
to
change
our
calculations
instead
of
being
monthly,
then
to
like
over
365
days
right,
because
if
the
prorated
amount
was.
P
Like
for
that,
for
that
partial
month,
I
I
need
more
information,
I
think,
to
understand
like
if
they
had,
if
they,
let's
imagine
this
has
already
happened.
Let's
say
say
that
a
45-day
concession
was
already
given
to
someone
and
it's
going
to
apply
now
that
happened
last
month.
Let's
say
so:
it's
already
been
done.
P
How
does
that
calculation?
How
does
base
rank,
get
calculated
in
that
situation?
If
there
was
a
partial
month,
that's
prorated,
but
but
the
12-month
period
didn't
start
in
their
mind
in
the
in
the
landlord's
mind,
the
12-month
period
didn't
start
until
september
first,
but
now.
R
I
I
P
That's
fair,
I
mean,
I
think,
I
think,
to
the
without
changing.
I
can't
make
amendments
anyway
to
the
motion,
but
I
guess
I
would
just
ask
that
we
clarify
those
examples,
because
I
think
people
will.
There
have
already
been
leases
that
have
been
written,
giving
concessions
in
different
time
periods
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
able
to
calculate
base
rent
accurately
so.
L
L
Because
I
mean
there
are
two
ways
so
so
there's
two
sort
of
positions
to
take
on
this,
where
if
someone
gets
two
or
three
months
free,
then
you
just
calculated
over
12
months
or
if
they
get
two
or
three
months
free.
Then
you
calculated
over
11
months,
taking
into
consideration
this
one
month
that
we're
allowing
a
grace
period
essentially.
P
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
my
intent
is
is
more
just.
I
think
common
practice
one
month
has
been
common
practice.
I
think
we've
all
heard
about
that.
I'm
not
sure,
and
I
would
leave
it
to
the
committee
to
or
the
rest
of
the
committee
to
determine
how
much
more,
how
much
more
seems
reasonable,
where
it's
not
going
into
rent
manipulation.
P
That's
really
what
we're
talking
about
is
like
there's
a
rent
concession,
that's
offsetting
moving
costs
and
that's
a
move-in
special
and
that
can
that
commonly
what
I've
seen
is
30
days,
but
I
could
see
how
there
could
be
a
stub
period
of
an
additional
10
days
and
then,
like
40
days,
is
probably
reasonable
or
something,
but
at
three
months
I
think
we're
all
saying
like
that,
goes
into
manipulation,
you're
doing
something
where
you're
really
trying
to
like
reduce
that
rent.
So
for
the
committee,
maybe
the
best
way
is
to
to
get
through.
P
How
do
you
make
that
a
reg
that
that
works
for
partial
months,
stub
months,
whether
the
first
month
was
free
or
the
second
month,
was
free?
I
would
almost
leave
that
to
staff
to
to
kind
of
figure
out
those
details,
but
but
the
committee
should
say
how
many
days
they
think
are
reasonable:
offsetting
moving
costs,
as
opposed
to
like
rent
manipulation.
L
I
guess
my
question
for
clarity,
because
I
will
have
to
make
these
changes
and
the
cleanups
if
this
motion
passes
is
maybe
more
so
to
the
to
the
chairs
friendly
amendment
of
cleaning
up
the
examples
I
I
guess
my
question
is,
which
example
do
you
feel
does
not
speak
to
this,
and
is
it
the
two
months
free
one,
because
you
think
that
it
should
be
calculated
over
11
months?
Is
that
right?
Is
that
the
position
that
the
committee
is
taking.
A
My
viewpoint
is,
I
think
it
is
valuable
to
have
the
two-month
example,
but
I
think
you
need
a
one-month
example
as
well.
Okay,
so
you
would
yes,
you
would
calculate
the
the
existing
two
month
over
11
months,
but
then
you
would
also
have
one
that
has
one
month
free
showing
a
thousand
like
you
see
where
I'm
going
with
that
now,
yeah
yeah,
that's
what
I
mean
about
cleaning
up.
The
examples
is
just
making
it
very
clear
that
one
month
is
with
this.
With
the
current
motion.
A
One
month
is
permissible
two
months,
you're
going
to
have
a
calculation
to
be
done
there
so
and-
and
maybe
it
even
goes
on
the
notice
form
too,
but
I
read
that
up
just
yeah
so
committee
member
almond,
do
you
have
something
else
you
wanted
to
cover
before
we?
Let
committee
members
make
comments
and
then
maybe
we
can
vote.
G
Yeah
very
brief.
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
this
was
the
most
delightful
public
comment
that
we've
had
on
this
issue.
That's
been
percolating
for
almost
six
months
and
it
I
when,
when
we
find
agreement
from
so
many
landlords
that
they're
okay
with
a
one-month
concession-
and
we
have
tenants,
also
saying
the
same
thing-
I
think
we
should
honor
their
thoughts
and
and
their
very
sweet
comments
that
that
you
know
the
staff
and
attorneys
are
doing
a
great
job,
and
we
should
proceed
with
the
motion.
As
stated.
N
I
The
motion
is
to
adopt
amendments
to
the
csfra
and
the
mhrso
regulations
chapter
2
to
further
clarify
the
calculation
of
base
rent
where
a
rank
concession
is
offered
in
the
first
month
of
a
tenancy
during
the
initial
term
of
the
tenancy,
with
a
revision
to
those
regulations
to
make
it
clear
that
the
notice
will
only
be
required
commencing
september
1st
2022
any
further
revision
that
the
examples
will
clarify
this
action.
D
A
Q
Q
So
first
I
would
like
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
the
housing
and
eviction
help
center.
We
are
having
our
third
thursday
of
the
month.
Housing
and
eviction
help
center
this
week,
so
that
will
be
in
person
at
the
library
we're.
On
the
first
floor
in
the
program
room,
we
also
have
availability
online
through
zoom.
If
people
aren't
able
to
come
in
person,
they
can
join
at
mountainview.gov
eviction
help
clinics.
Q
So
again,
this
is
the
first
and
third
third
thursday
of
each
month
at
the
library
from
1
to
5
pm,
and
we
have
information
and
in-person
representatives
from
various
community
partners
that
we
have.
That
can
talk
to
people
about
our
run
stabilization
law,
how
to
apply
for
affordable
housing
connection
with
rental
assistance
program
and
we're
also
still
helping
people
check
their
coven
19,
rent
relief,
statuses
online.
Q
Q
There
are
also
representatives
from
plesba
for
legal
resources
that
people
can
get
connected
to.
They
join
virtually
on
zoom
from
two
to
four:
every
single
housing
and
eviction
help
center,
and
we
also
have
other
sort
of
general
resources
from
different
programs
that
we
connect
with.
So
you
can
get
information
about
food
distribution,
different
sorts
of
financial
assistance,
our
mediation
program
and
different
homelessness
prevention
services
and
mental
health
services,
and
things
like
that.
Q
So
that
will
be
this
coming
thursday
at
the
library.
Aside
from
that,
we
also
having
some
workshops
and
webinars.
So
this
tuesday
tomorrow,
I
believe
yeah
we're
having
a
landlord-focused
rent
and
rent
increases
webinar,
so
we'll
focus
on
the
aga
and
other
types
of
rent
increases
that
are
allowed
under
the
csfa.
Q
Q
We
also
then,
on
wednesday,
have
a
tenant,
focused
bilingual
webinar,
rent
rent
increases
and
talking
a
little
bit
about
rent
decreased
petitions,
so
we'll
have
that
on
wednesday
at
6,
30
pm
on
zoom
as
well,
and
then.
Q
Finally,
we
are
having
a
hybrid
meeting
so
in
person
and
over
zoom
at
the
housing
and
eviction
help
center
on
thursday,
from
the
last
hour,
four
to
five
o'clock,
we'll
be
transforming
the
help
center
into
a
workshop
and
we'll
be
having
a
representative
from
the
housing
department
in
mountain
view,
talk
about
preparing
to
apply
for
below
market
rate
apartments
and
affordable
housing,
and
that
also
will
be
bilingual.
English
and
spanish,
we'll
be
doing
it
in
person
and
streaming
over
zoom
people
can
join
both
ways,
we'll
be
our
first
hybrid
attempt
at
any
workshop.
F
Considering
how
our
appeal
went
this
earlier
this
meeting,
are
we
having
any
workshop
upcoming
workshops
about
habitability?
Again,
I
feel
like
that's
something
that
just
needs
to
constantly
be
reviewed.