July 23, 2019 Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: Have a chair yet. I'd like to call the meeting to order of the community civilization and fair rent at council ad hoc subcommittee. We will begin with Moll Call, Council member Clark,

[00:00:15] Member Chris Clark: here,

[00:00:16] Unknown Speaker: uh, Vice mayor, Ave Koga, and Council member Ramirez.

[00:00:20] Member Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:00:21] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. And moving on, this is the oral communication portion. And so this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the subcommittee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topics for up to 3 minutes during the section, state law prohibits the subcommittee from acting on non-agenda item. Do we have any speakers for the, um, oral communications portion of the... Okay, non-agenda items, non-agenda items.

[00:00:58] Unknown Speaker: Are we an agenda? Okay, I...

[00:01:06] Unknown Speaker: Seeing none. We'll move on to item number 4.one, selection of the subcommittee chair. I want to make sure. Oh, thank you. Okay. No, that, yeah.

[00:01:47] Unknown Speaker: How did you make a formal motion? Oh, okay.

[00:01:57] Unknown Speaker: We'll open this up for public comment on the motion. Any public comments? Seeing then, I will close the public comment.

[00:02:19] Unknown Speaker: Do you want to do? All right, thank you. Well, um, I guess shall I take on the next item? Uh, move on to item 4.2, the development of the subcommittee work plan, um, we have a presentation system. Thank you.

[00:02:41] Unknown Speaker: Very good.

[00:02:42] Tim Wong: So good afternoon. My name is Tim Wong. I'm a housing and neighborhood service. And I do have a presentation regarding a nice meeting. So, as a little background, as you all know, the community stabilization and fair rent act, or CFFRA, was approved by the voters in November of 2016, and it became effective in December 2016. And the CS February did institute, trend fibilization, and just caused termination protections for most units in Mountain View. In November of 2018, the council accepted a certificate of sufficiencies for the Mountain View homeowner rent and taxpayer protection initiative or also known as the 2020 initiative. And the 2020 initiative did include some amendments to modify the currency of SFRA. And the council does have the, uh, option of putting it either on the March 2020 ballot or the November 2020. And finally, in May of 2019. The council adopted as a, as a work plan item to hold a study session to explore modification to the CO separate, or the 2020 election, and in June, they uh, established the CSFRA subcommittee. And this is just a very quick summary of some of the key amendments that the 2020 initiative poses that, number one, there's an income eligibility requirement as part of the 2020 initiative is suspension based on vacancy rate. It, what the uh, 2020 initiative does is, it lowers the vacancy rate to um, the threshold to suspend the CS temporate. There's a modification to adjust cause provision. It restricts the use of city funds. Actually, city funds can be used for CSFari expenses for food by the city council that lunch amendment proposed. There's a maximum rental fee, then maximum rental housing fee at $100 per unit, and it's adjusted by CPI. Um, In addition, it amends the CF Sefray with the treatment of capital improvement in the petition process. Lastly, it does establish a dispute resolution program, if the SFRA does get suspended in just a very high level summary about the key amendments. And so, what we're looking at tonight and for future meetings is to get some initial input from the subcommittee regarding potential CF temporary amendments, uh, the amendments, revisions could include modifications of sections of the Fiesta Fray, if you would like to add anything to the Fiesta Fray, and just general policy direction for, for, uh, staff to evaluate. And based on this process, the counseling. Committees, um, recommendations will start putting together language for the initiative. So, the 1st question that is asking of the subcommittee is what potential CSFRA amendment does the subcommittee want staff to begin evaluating. And that's the 1st question that we're asking the subcommittee to see. In addition, this is a proposed timeline, assuming that, uh, for a March 2020 ballot, and so, you can see, there are a number of meetings to be held, even before going to the committee, or, excuse me, the council with your recommendations, and then there will be some, meetings with the subcommittee after meeting with the council in late September. So the 2nd question staff is posing is, does the subcommittee have input on the timeline and process described above? And also, does the subcommittee wish to include proposed stakeholder meetings to this process? And just a couple point things in regards to the proposed timeline. Last month, the RHC did send a letter to the council asking, um, requesting opportunity to provide input, and as part of that, uh, the CSFRA team did hold the RHC, and they will be um, holding a August 12th meeting to talk about potential separate amendment or recommendation. In addition, staff is also seeking input from the subcommittee when you would like to hold the 2nd August meeting. Right now we've kept it open, but that's another question for the subcommittee. So again, to repeat, these are the 2 questions, what potential CSFRA amendments, um, would be subcommittee like that to start evaluating, and secondly, do you have any input in the previous slide regarding the uh, subcommittee timeline? And lastly, a couple others is, uh, direction is that the subcommittee have any additional questions for staff, and would you like to provide any additional direction to staff? That concludes staffed presentation, and so we have to answer any questions. Unky Man Dursen, CSFRA project manager here along with Charlie Quinn. So happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Um, So

[00:09:13] Unknown Speaker: we have a, kind of a hard stop today because we have a regular meeting at 6.30 so, and I see quite a crowd. So in the interest of time, um, if you don't mind, I think we should take elegance at 1st and then we can have our uh, questions and deliberation. Um, I also, oh, how many events would like to speak? Okay. And then answers it, um, and then there's a number and um, again, our time, um, I'm gonna set us to 92nd. um, secret time, secret time. We don't have a nice little chime today. Um, oh, monkey's gonna be able to climb it.. flash

[00:09:59] Unknown Speaker: the red folder with 30 seconds left. Okay. apartment. Right.

[00:10:04] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So who'd like to start? to the podium? And we do

[00:10:09] Unknown Speaker: have pizza cards. Yes. Thank you.

[00:10:33] Unknown Speaker: I just wanted to remind them that today's meeting and the agenda item is to discuss the work plan. So there will be many, as you saw, on the schedule, many other meetings. Um, so if you could please, uh, make sure you focus on today's item and speak to that. I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[00:10:56] Dave Austin: My name is Dave Austin. I'm a long time homeowner in Mountain View. Some economists recommend against risk control, but they are not returning to the type we have here in Mountain View. Mountain View has a life touch rent control because it exempts new housing. It has vacancy V control, and it provides a fair rate of return for landlord. Provisions invalidate the basic assumptions used by economists who warrant against rent control. So the CSFRA is working well in mountain view. If it needs some minor tweaks via new ballot measure, that's fine. But please don't attempt to undermine the existing law by loading it up with major landlord friendly provisions. If you do, our community will aggressively campaign against it, which could prevent even some needed improvements from being implemented. Also, if a new ballot measure seeks to apply rent controlled housing only to low income people, That will create a serious and unwanted side effect. It will incentivize landlords to discriminate against low income renters, which I'm sure you would not support. Thank you.

[00:12:23] Unknown Speaker: Yes, sir. Hello,

[00:12:28] Gary Wesley: Gary Wesley from Mountain View. So I'm reading about this. Uh, and one thing I told you is that the landlord's measure that qualify for the ballot may be invalidated by a court based on a court decision that I've cited new in a collection subsection that still applies. And so it's certainly fair for the council to consider putting amendments on the ballot, but it shouldn't be like what the council did in 2016. Which was to put measure W on the ballot as a competing measure for the purpose of defeating rent control. And in fact, in your packet, from staff, is a suggestion that perhaps you should put on the ballot, a measure that would convert, the rent controlled charter provisions into an ordinance, that the city council could amend, or repeal. Which would just be a cute trip. uh and one would hope they would be defeated. Look, we've got 5 of 7 council members that were against rent control. We've got 2 of 3 members of this committee that were against it. And if you come up with recommendations to undo it, at least be honest about it. Next player? And

[00:13:49] Unknown Speaker: it keeps us moving. Uh,

[00:13:52] Jackie Calchin: Jackie Calchin resident of Mountain View and uh, seem to be very goodplaced resident of Mountain View. Um, I want to go backwards, though, to when rent control was passed, the CSFRA. I was fortunate. I've lived in a building where I have landlords who have knocked down to the rent and our rent increases except for maybe one year when the building needed some big improvements. Um, we really haven't had large increases. And I think I, I don't think I can underestimate telling you how important keeping CFFRA as it is, is to people in Mountain View. Even people living with incomes at or above the median income in the area, which is over $100,000, struggle to make ends to me. People who want to buy a house, need to have a family income of 2 to $400,000 a year to make it and stuff. And with the FFR, knowing that you're going to have a predictable rent increase is going to be published every year. It's going to be relatively low, as these go, you can budget, you can plan, you can figure out, okay, at 3% a year, 4% a year, and it have to be out of my place, and in the 5 years, if the rents keep going up like this. You can adjust your budget. If you have landlords, you can randomly increase their, um, the rent, whatever they want for large amounts. It's just crazy. It does not create community stability. I think I hit my 0 mark too. Thank you. Where are we keeping it? Um, you can put them on

[00:15:27] Unknown Speaker: the table? Yeah, thank you.

[00:15:33] Irene Yukita: Hi, Irene Yukita, Mountain View, homeowner. I want to speak specifically about the, uh, component of the just cause for addiction. Healthing stability is good for the community of Mountain View, measure the greatly improved Mountain View housing stability. Limits on rent increases depend on stare, just cause for addiction rules so that landlords cannot evict current renters in order to get higher rents from new renters. Measure B already provides that criminal activity is a just cause for addiction. So why are landlord asking for greater ability to remove tenants for criminal activity? Because landlords want to become the accuser, the judge and the jury. But the teenager invites friends over, is that a sign of drug dealing, or is that a sign of students in a study group? What is a dispute between neighbors leads to a false accusation. If a mere allegation of criminal activity can lead to addiction, tenants will live in fear. The current regulations for just cause addictions are used by cities all over California. They do not need to be adjusted. It is the role of the city to set policy. Addiction for proven criminal activity is ethical, allowing addiction for unproven allegations is unethical. A policy where landlords receive a financial benefit, if they accuse any indict tenants who have not violated any law, synthesizes on ethical behavior. Thank you. Thanks, thanks. Hello,

[00:17:15] Conroy: for Conroy. I'll be a housing provider. The, um, fair return vision process. is anything but fair, is um, in fact that it's a travesty, of justice, and then insult, of life savings, invested in this great town. Hope that whatever you guys come up with, if you decide that you have, um, want to make some rules that make passing through critical and needed, um, capital improvements, that will actually happen, then it has to be a way other than that fair return process. you.

[00:18:14] AJ: Hi, uh, AJ, we've lived here for over 20 years, and that's okay. Um, our rent is, is currently around 2900. That's safe to measure me. Our landlord, when someone moves out, is remodeling unit, putting in hardwood floors, adding washer and dryer, making great improvements so they can charge luxury wents. So it was the same size muted as ours. To a new rancher will go for 50% more for 4350. If not for visitor fee, we would not be able to afford the rent increases we'd be getting here. We would not be able to stay here near our jobs and their family. So, um, I know that one argument, uh, against Measure View was that it would discourage landlords for making improvements. It is not the Scourage Star landlord, but, um, I'm not sure how common that is. We have families that live in our complex, families that used to buy homes, but now it cannot afford to enter raising their children in apartments, they would be put out, if not for rent control. So please keep those main core protections of measure be in place. Thank you.

[00:19:53] Pam Borst: Hello? My name is Pam Borst, and I'm a resident of Mountain View. I've rented here for 5.5 years, and I've lived in the Bay Area for 46 years. And also, during my professional career, as a speech language pathologist, I got to serve some children in Mountain View. Um, I think that landlords are polling, this is just certain policy, who would think I would support a policy that limits, rent controls, the seniors, that policy terrifies me. If I ever needed to look for an apartment again, and rent civilization, only applied to seniors, would any landlord rent to me. I hope you will not consider a policy that will, over time, displace or make homeless, many gray haired old branos like me. I am only able to stay here because of measure and measure feet. I moved into a rent of $2,800 for a two bedroom apartment. My rent is now 3,401, and will be in September, 3517. Um, I have been in this apartment, as I mentioned, five and a half years. New tennis in my apartment are charged 4,0295.

[00:21:32] Unknown Speaker: Excuse me, can people speak up? Yeah, sure. They don't get those notifications, okay.

[00:22:04] Public Speaker: Hi, good evening, everybody. provider in Mountain View, and I am here to, um, share my experience with a recent, uh, situation, uh, because of, uh, the just cause, uh, bugs, and, uh, uh, one of the tenants being a long term talent, and uh, having a pet situation whereby, So, constant, uh, you know, deprecation of the corporate condition, even witness by me, but because of just cause, was not able to, uh, uh, take any severe action or even held the tenants, uh, to remedy because they know there's just cause. And eventually the landlords, uh, took the burden of the patient be, uh, entire carpet at their cost and the entire incident venture mediation. And even as that place, uh, uh, you know, because of, um, uh, we could not um, find uh, conversation, the landlord, you know, came to transit, whatever the land, the tenant has to say. So just call is definitely a, you know, a concern. And also, how do we keep track of, uh, all these, um, uh, increase in the contractors cost, you know, with respect to, um, the increase in rent. Thank you. Thank you. Uh,

[00:23:41] Andrew Bonan: good evening, council members and vice mayor. Thank you for hearing us tonight. My name is Andrew Bonan. I represent housing provider in the provider in the city of Mountain View. Viewed holistically, Measure V has done the opposite of what it's trying to do. We were concerned that it would constrict housing availability and it has done that. Under the rental units have been taken off of the market, and homelessness is up in the city of Mountain View. I'm passionate about providing housing and I've always felt that the solution is more supply. I do want people to be at homes and to feel comfortable in California. I live here. I grew up here in the East Bay and I love my lifestyle here and I really feel that, um, more supply is the solution. That said, um, my specific recommendation tonight is um, not to add more burdensome and um, an onerous, Um, restrictions to measure be, um, that we have a proposal. I just want to get the name right. We want to make sure that the ballot measure is allowed to be put on the ballot by city council. Um, I feel that going forward, that's, that's the best way to address some of the issues we've seen and, um, really help the production and housing availability that we have already seen in Mountain View. Thank you. Thank you. I miss going.

[00:25:17] Christine Craig Rubin: My name is Christine Craig Rubin. I'm from Santiago Villa. Before Measure B was voted on. I like to remind the council here that, um, Santiago Villa workers and, I mean, we read surrenders. We worked hard to help push that, you know, because we were out there telling people how much it would help him. And then when it was voted on and accepted as mobile homeowners, we found out we were not included. So a lot of the seniors, that was a real blow. I was asked that you would re evaluate to get back on. I believe, at the time, your city attorney, said we did qualify, but it was the rental housing commission that made the decision, and I would like some precious, you know, man, for a lot of the seniors to get that roll back that Measure V would give us, and the fact that we would have a control increase in our rent. Thank you.

[00:26:24] Unknown Speaker: Welcome.

[00:26:25] Evan Marwar: Hi, my name's Evan Marwar. Um, I've been around here in Mountain View for the past almost 4 years, 10 goes by really fast. My husband and I chose Mountain View because we both work out in Mountain View. Um, living in Mountain View, let us take public transportation to work and not put a car on the road, even though we own one. Um, it's easy for us to get to meetings, thanks to the light rail or the cow tree. Um, if you got the CSFRA, eventually we'll have to move out. and probably have to drive a car and

[00:26:58] Unknown Speaker: put a car on the road coming into my view.

[00:27:01] Evan Marwar: So, I would actually recommend that you don't, because rent control, yes, that's one issue that we have, but we also have transportation issues. We have environmental issues, and this is a big thing. The more people move out, the more they have to drive back in.

[00:27:20] Unknown Speaker: Living in Mountain View less to us, living in downtown, let's just walk to restaurants, coffee shops, work out of them, have our meetings there, and we'd have to stop taking our business to downtown. Thank you. Thank you. Hello,

[00:27:39] Ed Cheating: ED cheating. One of the landlords speaking previously said that there's building suppression because of measure V, but because of state law, rent regulation can't apply to buildings after 1995. And so I think you are seeing, for example, it's a village lake redevelopment, that there is a willingness to build new apartment buildings in Mountain View and measure V has not caused depression of building. Um, The other thing, there is mention of 100s of units lost, and that's an accurate statement, but there's another much larger number that hasn't been mentioned yet. Units covered by measure V, uh, covered in both ways for rent stabilization and also for just cause eviction. 13,500 units covers. That's an amazing number. And that's that many households, not people, but households who are receiving the comfort of, uh, knowing that they will not be priced out of their own homes. Regarding seismic retrograde. Is this even necessary? The petition process? could cover the full uh cost. It's, of the improvements for uh seismic retrofit, and, but, uh, you know, there may not even be necessary if the, uh, landlords have had enough vacancy D control raised rents on the new renters and are making a sufficient process that they can pay themselves. Thank you.

[00:29:22] Leo Gunson: Hello, I'm Leo Gunson. I work with echo management, and we've been providing housing to Mountain View since 1960. Um, and we are for the uh, the valve measured, um, for the homeowner, renter and taxpayer protection app. To give an example, we also own a property in San Jose. It will be required to provide data, important information last October. We promise we'd turn around time to 3 to 4 weeks. We just got the information back from the city this July. And that's why I think you see San Jose, anyhow, the housing starts up plummeted in the past year. But we're after, we don't need the traditional biocracy and during the additional reports. We want to leave it up to us providing, taking care of, things we have, but, uh, we want the measure to go on the ballot, uh, not the additional levers for, uh, levels of bureaucracy. Thank you. Singapore,

[00:30:26] Public Speaker: I'm not medium. Um, I wanted to talk about the specific provision about trying to make, um, trying to restrict rent protections to only particular subgroups. So, seniors or the, the 4 One of the problems with this is that it will create a huge bureaucracy to try and determine exactly who qualifies. But there's a lot of things that aren't covered just by income or just by age. So some of the people I've known as my neighbors, um, were teachers who don't know whether or not they're provisional teachers, they don't know whether or not they're going to be renewed by the school district, they don't know whether or not their landlord's going to the victims, who the Googler in their place. They don't need that instability, and it makes them, so when the opening comes up in another town with less competition for housing spots, they take it and we lose our teachers. We have, I've seen parents leave who are looking for the next house for a growing family. I've got young students, my neighbors, or not students, former students. And their 1st job, they're making what would be over the limits, but they've got mountains of student debts. We've got older professionals for caring for aging parents, divorced parents who have to get a certain number of bedrooms within a certain radius of their X within a certain school district. It's tremendously difficult. The eviction, just cause eviction for protections have to remain for everyone, not just for subgroups. My personal experience with measure B. I got 3 renting increases, totaling $700 in the 8 months before Measure V was passed.

[00:32:07] Unknown Speaker: I need to raise my voice. I have my voice. Okay. I'm here to give you a solution for this prices of shortfish and housing. Not to understand, no matter how many housing we build in mountain view, there's going to be always shortage and uh and there's so much demand for it. But the people that have low income or moderate income people, they never be able to get a chance. So they end up living and moving home to and so forth, it can be a solution. It is not the responsibility of the cities and the counties, and the state that is responsible to provide housing. This is the responsibility of the federal government. So, okay, it's a organization called HUT. Probably heard it very 3 times. To do that is that to get the hut to come build a housing for both law and medium income. We need to talk to other city sisters. And there used to be a name for a sisterhood association, a different name, but you know. And then if you talk with them, I'll, I'll read you later on about how to keep you going. But this is the way to go. And, uh, The other thing is that right now they're not doing, but, uh, hot houses, uh, instead of that, they're going after the big guns and military industry, that gives them high, uh, work, uh, high, uh, They're given a lot of pocket money, campaign contributions.

[00:33:51] Joshua Howard: Good evening, Joshua Howard, the apartment association. I guess I'd start by asking the question of why. Why are we here tonight because you already have the qualified measure. So 2020 initiatives received over 7000 signatures from Mountain View voters in an effort to bring fairness to measure V. And I'm sure to be measured with spare and provided housing subsidies targeted to those who need housing assistance the most. Other speakers have already talked about the loss of units. The loss of units also means loss of families. Measure B has brought about the loss of several 100 units, which means 100s of families displaced, because they're units taken off the market, because the owner can no longer comply, or stay in the market, because the owner's requirement for those. Let's not make it more difficult. 13 of the 14 items on the staff recommendation list or questions will make measure be more difficult and more onerous. I guess the question to you is, why, why keep meeting, but stop the subcommittee, but stop the work. So the 2020 measure go forward because that's what's fair and that's what the voters ask for. Thank you. Uh,

[00:35:03] Ron Schaffer: Ron Schaffer, um, resident of Mountain View. I'd just like to point out that the ballot major, as it's a stand and it's analyzed by the city staff, as a graph, that shows that the occupancy rate has been between 4 and 5% for the last 10 years. The ballot measure says that rent control doesn't kick in until you exceed, I mean, it goes away if you exceed 3%. Obviously, this would kill major B.

[00:35:52] Annie Mansfield: Okay, this is... I am still intend to speak, but I do think it's important for me to point out that before measure B, there were devolitions, sales, and families had to be displaced. And after measure B, that has not really not, it hasn't gone away, but it hasn't really increased, increased the rate.. And we did a study, the legal wing voters did a study that showed that whether jurisdictions had red stabilization or red control or did not, the rate of demolition and sales and redevelopment happened either way. So measure V is not the culprit, or this particular action. My name's Annie Mansfield care. I'm speaking out for mobile home community. I just want to keep it very... I like keep things simple, and do the basics, and that is um, my rhetorical question. Hopefully there can be an answer when you talk amongst yourself, is what differs in the mobile home community from apartment rental? Mobile home people, we do own a structure. However, we pay rent for the site that that structure sits on, monthly, just as apartment people pay rent to their landlords. Also, we must qualify to be able to rent space in these communities. Essentially, what I'm saying is, we pretty much have to present to the owner of the, um, manufacture home community, the same data that somebody going to an department has to give to the landlord. So we have to qualify for that. So that's my, so that is why I'm expressing, um, included the mobile home communities on this, as several of them are also, uh, communities for the 55 and over as well. So you're serving the senior population with us. Thank you. Just,

[00:38:28] Unknown Speaker: is everyone filling out speaker cards? I love

[00:38:31] Unknown Speaker: that. All right.

[00:38:39] Alex Brown: Hey, Alex Brown, Mountain View. I'll just speak on behalf of Smolan manufacturing communities. Uh, I've seen the value that this has temporary provider. I know a lot of people who would have moved out if their rent would have gone up too much, but who were protected under the rent civilization. But I also know a lot of my neighbors who have been forced out, including one who is currently in the process of selling her home to the park because she cannot afford rent to increase and she's on fixed income. Uh, these protections are really valuable and I'd love to see them extended to us into our community so that we can get some of the protection and I don't have to keep seeing my neighbors be forced out to Oregon or elsewhere. Thanks.

[00:39:21] Unknown Speaker: Anyone else?

[00:39:29] Let me Siegel: Let me Siegel, I'm going to honor the vice mayor's request to focus on process. First suggestion I have is the next meeting be in a larger room, the sound application. Second, as you may recall, when we developed measure P last year. The subcommittee that worked on that, had a series of meetings, the city engaged, and the members of the committee engaged in a lot of outreach to the entire community to make that happen. We did a couple of polls. I think the same process is called for if the council is going to propose revisions to the CSFRA. It's going to be even more complicated. We need to do the process right. Third, um, As you know, there's a poll that's been going around. I assume it was sponsored by the apartment owners. If you're going to rely on their poll to make any judgments, please ask them to release the entire results of the poll, not just the results that might advance some of their arguments. And finally, I want to make a call for honesty, the opposition to measure V, from the council, from the apartment owners, has been filled with misinformation, from the charge that measure V costs the city money, to what the absurd assertion tonight, measure V, is causing homelessness, or the idea that somehow we're suppressing the construction of housing, the vice mayor and mayor, written a column, 20th and map, views building more housing, just about any community. So let's stick to the policy debate, not misinformation. Anyone else? I do want to give a plug to the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution that says that the right of the people to be securing the person's houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated. Um, and so, uh, right now, there's a giant orange Judo in the White House are pretty much violating, uh, this, uh, amendment for um, vulnerable populations every day. Uh, so I just kind of want to give a shout out to, uh, vulnerable populations are protected by the 4th amendment and, uh, any kind of, um, you know, um, criminal activity, uh, stuff, you know, that's just, um, seems like a perpetuation of what's going on right now, so.

[00:41:58] Unknown Speaker: Anyone else? Hi,

[00:42:04] Megan Fraley: uh, council numbers and everyone's here. Hi. We all know we're in the heart of inequality in the country. I'm Megan Fraley. We all know we're in the heart of inequality in the country and the world. We are at the battleground for housing and justice, and we are in quite the political department. So I just wanted to send love, and I am a hippie at heart to the council members and the staff and the apartment owners and even the California apartment association and Joshua Howard, who California Park Association has been hard on me as an activist. I will tell you that. Oh my, but I just want to send love to you, Joshua Howard, and to council members, and just honestly pray that we can all come from a place of heart and not ideology, but heart and truth, Santa. That's all I have to say.

[00:42:54] Unknown Speaker: Yeah,

[00:42:54] Megan Fraley: go marry him.

[00:43:02] Janet Worton: My name's Janet Worton, I wasn't planning to speak either, but I'm a mountain deer resident, homeowner, and voter, and I just want to echo what some of my neighbors have died here tonight, which is that there is a very strong day of community support. protections in Mountain View, and not just among the wrenters, um, many of my homeowner neighbors, are also very strong supporters, um, because we know that this is this community. We know that we need a diverse, vibrant community of people and we can't just have tax billionaires here. It's not, uh, you know, uh, not a healthy or fair situation, and at the moment, this seems to be the one thing that we can do to have some impact on that. So we will heal it. So thank you.

[00:44:04] Cheryl Smith: My name is Cheryl Smith, and I'm a resident of Sansota State. Um, speaking on behalf of, um, Lieutenant Square. It is a senior community, uh, manufacturer home community, and 2 of the nearby communities have been bought by Hutch Fund, Santiago Villa, Plaza Del Rey, and, um, uh, Sunnyvale. Both of those communities have experienced exorbitant rent increases. In doing so, property values have been devalued exponentially. If you go to one of those two parts, you'll find that the values of the homes have been decreased by about $100,000 as opposed to when you're comparing to other parts. um The landlord in Sunset Estate, the most recent increase went from 1100 to 1827. I think he's experimenting and trying to keep up with the hedge funds, and I think the handwriting is on the wall. The owner of that home, which is for sale, had to reduce the price from $379 to $349,000 and it's still not sale. So this constitutes a pride and taking. They desperately need, we desperately need rental controls for the manufactured home community because so many of the residents are vulnerable. Thank you.

[00:45:39] Unknown Speaker: Any other speakers?

[00:45:51] Public Speaker: I was not going to speak, but I changed my mind. I just want to ask you to please keep the core values to make sure we. Please keep the core values or make sure V. And you, we need to include the mobile phone. It is not true that may should be is decreasing availability

[00:46:16] Unknown Speaker: or homes. All right. Okay,

[00:46:22] Unknown Speaker: I know there's some dogs outside. Anyone missing the street? Does anyone outside want to speak? Thank you, Alex. If not, I'm gonna... Last call for speakers.

[00:46:45] Public Speaker: So I'm just here. to support what the... Hello, just performing to keep the core values of measured me, it has helped a lot of people. And that's how people who does not just stay in mountain view, who at work to eat, make most of you what it is today, and, uh... Just as you, just as homeowners have a right to stay here suddenly. Um, we love, I love mountains, Indians. I live here for a long, long time in this area. My kids were born here. I know it may not be important to you guys, but to me it is, because it keeps it. It's what brings my kids back to this area when they come and visit me. They come and see their friends. They come in, remember, the times as they said, I'm going to high school, going to elementary school. Please don't take that reason. There's every husband doesn't...

[00:47:50] Sandra: Hi, my name is Sandra. At this, um, didn't want to be for about 20 years, and I really want to agree with Guadalupe, please, kept the Corbellos of my Sherbet, and it's very important to keep our communities together. I've worked and I live in Montenville. So, and as you know, we all did that, uh, Meshubi, we all capable to, to keep living here. You know, before make any action, you think about our community. And please, we really need to people in our community. It's really good. I'm so happy for the whole city council members that you're getting another school that you're just helping in other ways, you know, having a lot of, you know, the movies on the park, everything, but also think about housing, please. But thank you very much for you guys done it until now. Thank you.

[00:48:44] Unknown Speaker: Great. Anyone else? Not knowing what? I want to close public comments then. And thank you, and I want to thank you all for limiting your, um, your comments to our times. I really appreciate it. So, we are going to move into, um, well, that's the question and comments together. Um, see things up hopefully. So, um, would like to start. I

[00:49:14] Unknown Speaker: don't have any questions. I'll just run through. I've done some screen notes, so um, hopefully this won't take too long. So for question one, um, I'm trying to, sort of, philosophical remarks, I guess, what, uh, things that are important to me, uh, ensuring the electoral liability of the balance tension. I want to spend a lot of time and money, put a measure on the ballot, but it's not much. So when we, I'm sorry. So, uh, ensuring the electoral viability of whatever ballot measure that we end up, um, uh, promoting, uh, I don't, when we think about things to include, I think we should be, I don't know if we want to do bowling, uh, a question for a later time, but, um, just making sure that whatever items that we are including, um, don't, don't in any way jeopardize, um, measure. And then, uh, sort of also, uh, broader base, just maintain sort of a stratification of the regulatory framework. I'd want to be so overly prescriptive in the charter. I think that was one of the, uh, criticisms uh, leveled against measure B, uh, you know, relevant, the charter generally is higher level as approach. There's a lot of prescriptive language in measure B, and I'm not sure we should exacerbate that problem in whatever modifications we support. So work for specific amendments. When the council, uh, prioritized this project, there really wasn't any specific guidance for what to examine. So I feel like we have a lot of discretion. Um, the way I've been thinking about it is what are the specific problems that we're trying to solve, what are we trying to address? And the things that came to mind were, the relationship of the rental housing committee with the city. Um, and and thinking about it, I thought a relatively elegant solution to the problem might be to uh, incorporate uh, the language about the rental housing committee into Article 9, which regulates the other point of bodies, uh, and already explicitly prohibits compensation, provides for uh, a removal process. I feel like that, that can help clarify, we're supposed to make clear that the artist needs more into the council, and trust some of the concerns that we've heard from the community. So taking a step back. Um, I'm, I'm not prepared to specify solutions generally. I'm hoping that, uh, and come up with options. Um, one option may be looking at Article 9 and there's a relationship here, and if it could be, if it could integrate the rental housing community in there, but there may be other, other and better approaches. The other major one, I think, is clarifying the ambiguity related to mobile phone parts. And again, whether to exclude or include, I'm interested in staff's analysis of that. Um, and then for capital pass-throughs, um, you know, again, not not being overly prescriptive in a particular process, but I think we're all very sensitive to, in particular unfunded mandates. We talked about seismic retrofitting, but there may be other requirements composed by the council of the state, um, that, uh, we need to be sensitive to, um, in, uh, in, in this process as well. So exploring options to address that concern. And then we've heard about the criminal activity, which I think is addressed in the CSFA right now. But I think, looking at the notification requirement in the context of severe crimes, and then identifying an appropriate threshold for when notifications is required to permit the tenant an opportunity to hear in events. is worthy of exploration. I've had a number of productive meetings with various stakeholders. struggling with this one. You know, is there something, is there a threshold where we can feel relatively comfortable pursuing innovation process for someone who hasn't been convicted of a severe crime, but where, you know, there's enough of a problem being caused where it has a material impact on either the property owner or leaders. So, um, pretty broad. I don't have any good answers for that one, but I think it's worth exploration. Um, and then this may be beyond our uh, scope, but I also don't want to deny staff the opportunity to include other changes to the charter, since we don't amend the charter area. If there are things unrelated to the DSF grade, what you think are worth, um, including in this, you know, a beep, consuming that, you know, we have a, a bet that's likely to pass, maybe a good opportunity to, to do some other, I would think minor non-controversial changes. But there may be some things in the charter that we haven't touched for decades and maybe worth, um, uh, reevaluated. So those are the things that came to mind, but. Right, thank you. I

[00:54:35] Unknown Speaker: think my, I view this, it's a very high level, I view this meeting as sort of a stick off and not, uh, meaning in which we define everything that we're going to test because I really want to meet, but we already need to hear their class, but we have a letter from them, but it's super high level, and, um, I don't think this should, the outcome of today should define everything that we do or don't look at. But it is at a high level. I generally agree with most of the items that have identified, but, um, I think the biggest things that we've run into over the last few years are, um, at that budget, by number one, clarifying the relationship between yours, the individual, and who is responsible for what, and ensuring that a lot of our standard processes in terms of, you know, being able to remove people or the appointment process or something like that, it's all crystal clear moving forward. I think that's really important. I think, um, identifying who is responsible for what in terms of financing everything, uh, and, um, how all that load needs to be clarified in one way, um, or another. I think the question of mobile homes has been, um, I think that just needs to be answered one way or another in a more satisfactory manner for everyone involved, um, instead of, sort of just sitting out there, um, as, you know, it's answered one way now, but could potentially be answered. another way in the future. And I don't, I think everyone values predictability more than, um, anything else in that case. So I would be interested in, um, or in that. Um, I think some, some of the more nuanced changes, like noticing requirements in other things, I, I, I saved to hear from the orange, um, seen on in your, what specific, um, positions that are, I think, for it. But I, but, um, we certainly need to address paththroughs. We talked about, um, We talked about the retrofits and other things that we plan to do, is there may be state requirements in the future on other things, and I think we just need to put together a more, I think, sustainable framework, um, to be able to And a very high level, just the way that I think of this is, um, I want to make the GSFRA as sustainable as possible in the long run. I think it's actually done a fairly good job in a number of things over the last few years. It survived a lot of, um, different ambiguity, uh, and, uh, petitions. I think what we really need to do is take our learning from the last few years and, um, just try and ensure that it is a living, breathing document that, um, is adaptable in many different conditions as opposed to the thing that's written in stone in the charter that we have to do, this process for every time something changes at the state level or somewhere else. So my interest is in making sure that it's sustainable for the long run and provide the protections that the voters, um, you know, told us they wanted, um, in a, in a way that it's sustainable in the long run and um, doesn't disadvantage one group or another. Um, Or manage one group over another. Uh, so we talked about past cruise. I think part of making it sustainable will mean that perhaps certain things meet Perhaps certain things shouldn't just be in the charter. Perhaps they should be, um, we should have the ability to look at those things through some, something like a super majority of the council, not necessarily just to the whims of a majority of the changes every 2 years, but, um, you know, a broader vote. I'm not sure exactly what those things are, but I think, um, I think there are going to be things that change more frequently than others in terms of state law and local conditions, and having the ability to, I think, adapt to those conditions, helps make the measures more, um, because if it isn't, if it isn't adaptable, I fear that it will become, there are parts of it that could be, um, very difficult to manage. And I think in those cases, it actually becomes more likely that, of repealing the whole thing to try and fix one small section as opposed to 15 maximum. Those are, um, and then the, the positions and appeals process, any sort of relates to a, a, a few of things, but I, I will, I'd rather hear from the RHD on how that whole process is going. sort of tell them to just help. Those are the, those are the things that jump out to me in, um, sort of overall areas for amendment.

[00:59:42] Unknown Speaker: Um, so, my comment, um, the, you know, reason why I, the, the council priority was, um, since it's been 2 years, since we implemented CSFRA, um, we've definitely seen, um, how it works. And um, I think they've seen some things work well and some don't. Um, and, you know, also be frank that, um, the valid measure put outside the partner association. Um, you need pause because, um, you know, to be frank, I just, I don't want him to have to keep doing this every 2 years to be, you know, to be great. Um, I know that, um, you know, not everybody is happy with everything in the CSFRA, but, um, you know, I will say, um, Chinese, the voters voted, um, Chinese to change. We actually have, you know, rent control when we will potentially be a state wide, um, legislation. Um, so my control is something that's here. And, um, we have this PSFRA. So why not try to make it, um, you know, the most workable we can? Um, and I'm just looking for just me as we could have a forum to discuss, you know, how it's working, what's working, what's not, what can we, um, you know, come together on to make some changes to make it better to me, Frank. And, um, you know, I, I, I'll say right off, like, I just don't want them, that'll have to balance. And I saw this, I see the Prime Association, um, measure, and, you know, there's some things I agree with, but, uh, but, uh, the 1st item on our staff report, um, there's no 3% vacancy. We've never hit that. So, um, and I know that's been the biggest uh, you know, uh, complaint. Um, so in light of that, I just thought maybe it's time for us as a council, and frankly, to be honest, I wish the council back in 2015 has done more of this. I mean, I'm not to blame you, but, um, you know, come together and and try to make something that works. And so, you know, I hope, you know, I know my, I'm personally been accused of whatever, but I'm trying to be make a sincere effort for us to come up with a process and something that we can all agree to. We may not get 100% of what we want and even our congresswoman issue who came last night says that we, you know, we don't. We just don't, but maybe enough that we can all be, um, you know, be settled with it and move on because there are other issues for us to deal with as well. So that's where I come from. Um, and so, um, my, my interest is, number one, um, I appreciate staff list, and I definitely want to take input from the RHD, um, from various stakeholders. So looking at our schedule. Um, I would like to schedule. I think we can maybe identify which stakeholders, we'll try to come be as comprehensive as we can, and invite them to our committee meeting, um, to give input on what they see the, um, working and not. Um, so that's my um, uh, uh, interest, um, in terms of specific areas. Um, I agree with what you both have mentioned. clarifying the most RHD is something we dealt with early on. So I think there's a need for that, the financials. capital improvement and this came up with the seismic test process. So, yes, there is a petition process, but, um, you know, we have heard that it can be challenging, and that was our concern, and I think, you know, our former tax member, plenty, I think he was also surprised that size, like retrofit adults. They're not covered under CSFRA automatically. So, we just want to see if we can make it easier for the tenants, uh, for the landlords to do those things that are public safety concerns. Things really need to be done. So how do we make it so that they can be done and then it's gonna, um, what we decide here will, um, tie into whether we make the retrofit program voluntary or mandatory, right? So we need to have that and make a decision there is what I see. Um, mobile home parts. So, as you, some of you may know, our council, um, did, go to, put a priority goal, um, dealing with the mobile home park. And I would actually like to do it separate from the Safari. We have some being once, um, you know, the issues you brought up about charter amendments, the, you know, going having to go to the ballot. Um, I actually think mobile homes are for friends. There's some different areas, um, from regular rental units. And so I would like to deal with that as a council to ordinance rather than going to the SFRA. Um, Just because I agree, I think we should definitely explore some more. Um, and I like your idea of state may be looking at what we can do as a super majority

[01:05:26] Unknown Speaker: of the council rather than having to go to the ballot. So,

[01:05:29] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you know, my, my, um, interest, just try to streamline it. Um, you know, make it simpler if we can, um, in one area that it wasn't mentioned that I've been looking at is the, you know, the, the, the base that we've seen at the RHC one was the fair rate of return, so I want to see what we can do to simplify that. Jim is, um, you know, I, uh, I would actually, I know San Jose has a flat. I think it's 5% increase. And, you know, there was a whole debate about CPI and with CPI, you know, I don't necessarily want to go through that every time we have new members on the RC. So I would like for us to see if maybe the flat 5%. I actually was reading her see a safari earlier today and noticed, I think I didn't market, but it did say no less than 2% and no more than 5%. So, is that like, is that the range? So if we took out the whole CPI, the session and just kept that, what is that simplified? everything? Yeah, 2 to 5%. Right. So we just take the CDI thing now and just leave it up. Let's just, you know,

[01:06:49] Unknown Speaker: something to talk about explore. So,

[01:06:52] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: um, those are the areas I'd like to have to discuss, um, and I'm going to go to staff suggestions areas that I don't think they need to cover because they're being covered either in the CSFRA or the RHC. I think is to handle it. Um, I don't know what the notices the landlords required to tenants are other than if it's the just cause issue. Okay, so that's, that we'll talk about um, 5 verifying single family homes. Actually, I read it says, no, sale valley homes, but duplexes, so I don't care to change that. Um, utilities. I think we should look at how invoice, if utilities, like 3rd parties should be handled. So the item is number seven, I think the RHD RHD is taking care of us to this. Um, talks about... Oh, the fee. Um, yeah, I would think that. That's part of the top through, through the session. Um... I think I had a question about possession strength. Um, what is that? What's what's the interest in that? How would it be done? So don't we have something already? Like, don't the... Okay. Okay.

[01:08:33] Unknown Speaker: The question is, do you want to make it? mandatory for that goes to register every year or not? Currently, that's not foreseen. Can you see suffering? So we're lacking a lot of input from the landlord into the

[01:08:47] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: data analysis about our topic. So, um, the attorneys, that's something that leads to do by valid, or generally with the council, the RHDs, the.

[01:09:03] Unknown Speaker: And you need some sort of a regulation that would be the, that would require it, you know, stunts, you'd have to have some way to enforce it. Okay, you don't necessarily have to put it by. Okay. So we can't pass an ordinance, but, yes, and we could, yeah, so we can look at whether or not, um, Look at the language of the CFRA, that's probably not what the RAC can do. Um,

[01:09:40] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: and it's open to exploring that too. And on my list. Just

[01:09:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: part of that. I just want to say, examples of things that I would think that I think we should build in the ability for either the RSV or the council would be able to speak would be things like, you know, our utilities, invoid, by a 3rd party event, like those are the sorts of things that should not be in the city's constitution, frankly, there are things that, um, so, um, I think we should look at it. I just think we should look at it from the perspective of who is, who is the best to deal with these things as utilities change or, you know, if you'd written this in the 70s, you wouldn't have thought about internet, if you totally, right? So, and that wasn't even classified, have to use only because it was, well, after the internet was a thing. So, just have to think about how we, how we make this sustainable. I do want to keep it.

[01:10:45] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: This is my main statement. I would say the timeline lines. My interest is to get this done for the March election, um, and I'll try this because next year's gonna be a this year otherwise. Um, so this is the schedule that works for that. I'm fine with it. And, you know, all Frank has is we're gonna, we may have to add some subcommittee meeting. I will open myself up to that, um, and study out because I ask for your, do you have any?

[01:11:23] Member Chris Clark: But I'd be curious to see what it costs, distinction, you know, between... And what the worst case scenario, in my opinion, would be to have one measure on one election and the other measure. And I'd like to sort of keep cost, minimize, reduce the pain in submarine and do like whichever election. The

[01:11:48] Unknown Speaker: city clerk place in the Tush has contained that information so we can provide that to you. So we'll just add that to the next meeting, though.. I

[01:11:57] Member Lucas Ramirez: think the safest way to proceed is not to decide tonight, but to say, we're going to, we're going to target the deadline to, to do something in March, and if we change our minds or, but for something like that, we have the possibility to do it, if we, because we can't do it the other way, we can't target November and then change our minds and accelerate everything. We'll just sleep.

[01:12:22] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Just be honest. I want to do it in March because, like you said, whatever we decide, I want to make sure it's after, and that's going to be incumbent on on our own time, not paying you to cancel time, but on our own time to work on this measure. And, um, you know, again, no blame, but measure W, just putting it on the ballot, if we're gonna do it. It's going to take a full campaign to easy work and I will submit myself to working on it, but, you know, I just need to get it done. Total transparency here. Um, so is that prayer? Is that a, then we have to, 2 questions?

[01:13:04] Tim Wong: clarification on one potential challenge with the calendar. So the calendar is pretty tight to be, it's based on the assumption of a march. Deadline, you basically have to take your final action by that November 19th meeting. So, you know, we build back from, uh, obviously, you can change that timeline later if you want to, but, um, you know, I think it's going to be hard to get more media in there, um, and be able to do research. But I want to call your attention to it, maybe give some clarification. We're right now calling for you guys reporting to the city council on September 24th. Um, and it's a struggle. We want you to get far enough to have some recommendations for them, but not too far that you're going beyond what they may want and not too lately calendar that you can't meet with the deadline. Um, challenge. However, just yesterday, you got a draft of the calendar for the rest of the year, and you might have posted. Have the agenda. Um, other controversial items. We don't think we can get this to you before then, and we're hesitant to bring it to you much later than that, again. The one thought or question for you would be, would you want to schedule a separate meeting? Specifically, just to talk about things coming up with people here tonight, I think we can expect there would be a lot of people who want to speak on this item and add it on the 20 probably is going to be more than anyone can bear. So I want to see if you would like us to explore, pull the full council for adding another council meeting somewhere in that, you know, between September 12th and say October 1st kind of timeline. And it would be just, um, that would be my suggestion. Okay, maybe if there's one other small item or something.

[01:15:08] Unknown Speaker: Is there anything?

[01:15:10] Tim Wong: Well, there... Technically, there's no council meeting on the 19th, which is the 17th of 19th. Um, But we have scheduled a commission dinner for that night. But you could do it. Maybe that'll be a company, you know. Maybe the Thursday of that week, at least, I wouldn't need to pack his week or something like that. And then, you know. No, I think we're okay on the holidays. But anyway, I mean, it's funny, but I think I think we were unrealistically optimistic that September 24th, we could do this and the other items. And it's really, say, we can't move it up and move it back, really. The

[01:16:14] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: other option looking at the list was whether we could see this in March of September 3rd, that would be like a lighter night, that, like, get back to us. So, um, report out to counsel. That 1st meeting in September, but I guess it's the 1st... Yeah,

[01:16:40] Tim Wong: it is a light agenda night bed. We would be hard pressed to get 3 subcommittee meetings. We need to do all the outfits. Right now, we have the 3rd subcommittee meeting scheduled for September 12th, and if you want to compress all that up, that staff is going to need a certain amount of time to turn around your ideas and research. It's, it's, it's kind of...

[01:17:10] Member Chris Clark: We need to do something during the week where we don't have anything to schedule. we don't have, um...

[01:17:29] Tim Wong: Okay, we can do it on Tuesday, right? That's fine. Well, I'd have to call the rest of the council.

[01:17:48] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: So, yeah, I think we're open to that by adding a meeting around that time. You want to pick the date for

[01:17:54] Unknown Speaker: the 2nd subcommittee, maybe. And now the video's in there, I don't know.

[01:18:03] Tim Wong: So the way we've outlined it. It's up to you if you want to do additional or bifurcated outreach, but the way we've outlined it here to be able to get everything in this timeline, is that back of eating, the RHC would give sort of whatever their formal ideas and thoughts are, but it would really be all stakeholders at that one meeting unless you want to add additional meetings. Oh, I'll

[01:18:25] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: stick holders home.

[01:18:28] Unknown Speaker: The RAC will meet on the 12th and prepare that line. And then the purpose of the 2nd subcommittee would be for you to consider that, but also an opportunity to hear all the other layholders. And then

[01:18:40] Tim Wong: the 3rd meeting, you would kind of hold on to what your recommendations to the council. Um, an

[01:18:48] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: interesting time can we just, uh, call the 3 of those. So,

[01:18:56] Member Chris Clark: just to clarify, do we, do we need to have a separate meeting just to hear stakeholder input for, for a lot of items, staff will meet with independent stakeholders, you know, and then summarize the feedback and then give it to them? I mean, this is,

[01:19:14] Tim Wong: this is the proposal in front of you. We're not planning on doing massive outreach in stakeholders. This is very compressed timeline. Um, so if you want more stakeholder input, you would have to add additional stuff. So...

[01:19:33] Member Chris Clark: What are we, what is the objective of the 2nd? Here's the table, here's the... Would it be a joint? Or

[01:19:46] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: we would put an agenda, all right, state presentation. Oh,

[01:19:52] Member Chris Clark: actually, the chair would present, be that computer, be formally, and then we wouldn't case it, and maybe make a decision, which is completely, okay, got it, that's helpful. Thank you. And

[01:20:05] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I, I mean, I would like to hear... The

[01:20:09] Member Lucas Ramirez: 2nd bullet, my preference would be to do, just because I have them blocked off to the Tuesday, the Tuesday after the RHD would be the 20th, but so that would be my preference. I mean, you could do the 13th for the ninth after they meet. Oh, okay. Well, basically that week, I guess. I don't know how long it's gonna turnaround time.

[01:20:47] Tim Wong: Well, then it could

[01:20:50] Member Lucas Ramirez: even be. Okay, I retract my... Okay. Wait,

[01:20:59] Unknown Speaker: did we answer all the questions? Just in general, in that process. and that timeline. Hey, um...

[01:21:28] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Anything else on this item? It's not an item sign, any subcommittee, staff comment, question, or report? So we are turned. Thank you.

• Next →