August 19, 2019 Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: Are y'all ready to go? Yes, all right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our Midsummer community stabilization and fairment act. Safari council ad hoc subcommittee meeting. Yes we're just talking about how summer is just flying by. Um, we'll start with roll call or attendance. um I will note that all 3 members are present and

[00:00:26] Unknown Speaker: we will move on to oral communications from the public.

[00:00:30] Unknown Speaker: This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to dress subcommittee on any matter, not on agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced to no less than one. 5 minutes. State lot per se that's the subcommittee from acting on non-agenda items. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak? On a non-agenda item. Okay, we will move on then to item 4 our minutes approval uh from our 1st committee meeting on July 23rd. Are any additions changes? If not, I will take a motion to approve. Oh,

[00:01:17] Unknown Speaker: I was just going to say, Adam, if you could ask for public comments.

[00:01:19] Unknown Speaker: Okay, yeah, sorry. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on our draft minutes from the July 23rd meeting? If not, I will motion.

[00:01:31] Member Chris Clark: No approval a minute?

[00:01:32] Member Lucas Ramirez: Second.

[00:01:33] Unknown Speaker: So motion by council member Clark. Second that council member Ramirez. Any other discussion? If not, all those in favor, I, any opposed or extensions, motion carries unanimously. We go on to item 55.one, potential city initiated 2020 ballot measure to amend the CSFRA, and I believe we have our presentation. We'll start it off with Mr. Tim Wong, or I forget your total, your long title, neighborhood, something. Housing and neighborhood services manager. It is a long title.

[00:02:08] Tim Wong: I understand. Okay,

[00:02:10] Unknown Speaker: I don't have any prompts today, so welcome and thank you.

[00:02:14] Tim Wong: Okay, so thank you. Good evening. CS Safari subcommittee, again, my name is Tim Wong. I'm the housing and neighborhood services manager, and the purpose of tonight's meeting is to uh review recommendations from the rental housing committee. They had a special meeting on August 12th to provide input about potential CSFRA amendments. Uh, the 2nd is to receive input from the public and stakeholders about potential amendments. And lastly, to provide additional direction from some items that had been discussed previous at the July 23rd meeting. So speaking of the July 23rd meeting, uh, staff had asked, initially, of the subcommittee, are there any items that you would like to, uh, explore as potential amendments to the CSFRA, and there were, um, many items discussed, but there was a common theme, uh, coming from all members of the subcommittee, regarding, uh, the relationship between the RHC and the city. Uh exploring rent stabilization for mobile homes. Uh interest in a an amendment regarding streamlined uh streamlined petition process and lastly more of a high level want to make the CSFRA sustainable, flexible, and so that is summarized. In addition to the meeting, uh, the subcommittee approved a timeline in anticipation to try to get any city sponsored, uh, initiative onto the March 2020 ballot, and so, this is the proposed timeline. There is an agenda item that will, will discuss the timeline in a little bit further, but as you can see, uh just to let everyone know, the next meeting will be on September 4th, 2019 from 515 to 645, and then, we will still need to work about uh a scheduling the 4th and 5th subcommittee meeting. So again, tonight's meeting, the 1st recommendation is to review RHC input in regards to potential amendments, and so, uh tonight we have Matthew Grunwald, who is the chair of the RHC, and he is here to, uh, provide the RHC presentation, so, one sec as I toggle to his presentation. And so. So if you've just got the tires. Hmm, sorry. Hello,

[00:05:11] Matthew Grunwald: subcommittee. Thank you for having me. And thanks for including the REC in this process. Uh, I think, despite the language of the CSFRA, uh, of us being very separate, uh, separate body, we would like to, um, we welcome the opportunity to have more back and forth with city council about, uh, these issues that we know a lot about and I've dealt with for several years now. Um, I will uh, I'll provide a brief overview of our conversation. uh the meeting that we had where we discuss these topics uh but we are a diverse group uh on the committee by design and uh with different views so I would for more detail feel free to watch the replay of our meeting. Uh, you know, on what each member felt, we did get each member the opportunity to weigh in on these topics. Uh so we'll begin with um. The 4 topics uh that staff put together for us based off of your 1st meeting where the 4 you see here. Um, and we did cover each of these topics in our meeting. gave everyone the chance to speak, and then after that asked for additional topics that we thought may want to be covered, um, where we saw, CSFRA could use, um, you know, maybe there was an omission, maybe there's a lack of clarity, and uh, those things that we've seen that we may want to change. uh so those will come after this. Uh, for topic number one uh, the relationship between the RC and the city. In general, we would like to maintain the current nature of the relationship, where the RHC works independently of the city, uh, but per my earlier comments, I do think that we welcome these opportunities. I think in general, um, and again, this is my, um, perspective on the meeting, that, in, in general, um, our relationship is structured pretty well. Um, I'll be there. I guess that it that it wouldn't, nothing would, nothing rose the level of, um, requiring a part of an amendment. I think that's the to that level. That's what we were thinking. Uh, topic number 2 is uh, something with a long and story history. Uh which is the applicability of the CSFRH mobile home parks, um it was the RHC as with the decisions that have, um, come about in the past. We've been um divided on this topic. Uh but each time I would say that a majority didn't feel as though the CSFRA extends in its current language to mobile home parks. Also, uh, that there was a lot of, um, complexity with the relationship between a park owner and a space renter, uh, that is very different from a typical tenant, uh, and uh, tenant landlord situation. Uh, however, I would say that, you know, majority feels that a separate ordinance, uh, specifically for mobile home rent stabilization is more suitable than incorporating mobile home parks as an amendment in the CSFRA. Um, again, I, I think the, to step back, the committee, really thought that mobile home, space renters, you know, deserve some sort of protection from rent gouging, um, and uh, just cause, eviction, things, things of that nature. But just that the CSFR and its current form is a rudimentary tool and not necessarily equipped to deal with that uh question. So, with the previous decision to uh, you know, say no. Um, to not extend the CFRA to uh, mobile homes. I think we were hoping to clear a path for city council to take action. Um, there was a comment, a public comment during that time. Uh, that, I think the mobile home community is, um, you know, just hoping that decisions can be made either way as opposed to this issue. Um, uh, kind of being left out there in a, in an obtuse, uh, uh, uh. Uh, topic number three. Most of the RHC, so for the streamlined petition process, um, the RHC would be supportive of a streamlined petition process, especially for, um, perhaps the mandatory retrofit. Currently, the process would require going through the larger petition process, which would require that a landlord present all the materials. Um, all their essentially financial materials, to prove that they deserve, um, you know, adjustment in rents. And, uh, we felt, uh, obviously the majority felt as though, a streamlined process for these specific issues would be something that, um, uh, would be in line with the spirit of the CSA parade. Um, because it, it is a burden to ask um, landlords to, to provide documentation, especially if it were a, um, a specific case like this. For the last topic that you covered in your meeting, uh, sustainable and flexible CSFRA, um, the RC would like to recommend to implement high level language, uh, regarding the ability to address implementation issues, and further regulations, um, I think for, I'm sorry, this might, do I have enough time? my uh my limit. um. There's another issue that they'll cover in a 2nd uh where there are some emissions and things that um could be cleaned up in the CSFRA. Um, and we don't necessarily have the flexibility to, um, correct those based on current language. Uh one of them being what to find, how you define a duplex. If there is a way. to, um, provide flexibility for other, uh, use cases for a streamline petition. I think that would be wise. So, I'm not sure what the mechanism should be to, um, control that. So that we're not, the, the, maybe the RHC shouldn't have the ability to edit the CSF array in an ad hoc way, but, um, certain petitions and in the future, things similar to a seismic retrofit, it may be, uh, wise to have some flexibility, so it doesn't need to go back to the, if it's in an amendment, not go back to the voters, uh, just to correct something, that's, uh, that we could correct. Um. There within 3 topics that the committee members brought up. Uh that, you know, what on our wish list of things to think about. Um, one was this issue that has just come up recently of how certain duplexes on the same plot or parcel are not treated as a traditional duplex, but the language of the CSFA doesn't allow that to be covered. Um, so I think that's a pretty easy fix. Um, I think the question, one of the questions that was brought up in that, uh, topic was, um, if there's a duplex exemption and let's say there are 6 duplexes on a parcel. Should the CSF array or this edit that you're making to the CSF array? Still allow for one of those duplexes to be an exemption and then the rest to not be. Uh, so those are some of the things that you may want to think about and, um, in general, uh, I think, um, you know, we, we'd like to provide any of that feedback because it gets into the details. A lot of these are, uh, it's about the fine print and we're happy to, uh, help weigh in on that in the future. Uh, I'll quickly run through these, the uh, compliance and monitoring, so that was another uh, item where we have a system that we built uh using our budget and funds to uh, have all properties listed in Mountain View and to track them uh, for the purpose of tracking what our average rents are, and also to send out our uh, annual bills for the fee. Uh staff. Um. I think there's an opportunity to perhaps use the carrot or the stick, to um, encourage more property owners to register with that system. uh so we have more data. I think the RIC was, um, there are different ideas, as we discussed, of what could be done to encourage that, and I think in general, um, we wouldn't want to make it all mandatory. It was more, um, more nuanced, or there'd be different options about how, which pieces to make mandatory. Uh, and finally, um, the, we discussed the, the path through uh, or a, a potential pass through. This is related to the petition issue, where um, currently landlords pay 100% of the fee, and other jurisdictions, um, landlords have the option to pass through 50% of the fee, the annual fee to the tenant. Um, you know, it was the feeling of a few members of the RHC that, splitting the fee is, uh, which right now would run about $50 for each, uh, and I think a lot of landlords wouldn't necessarily pass through that for every tenant, especially, uh, tenants that are, you know, at, uh, that have recently moved in and are closer to market rate. But, um, it's almost a symbol, a few members thought it was a symbolic gesture to have it split. Um, that makes it a little more, um, you know, like, oh, everyone's in this together. I think that was the feeling of that potential change. So with that, uh, sorry for running over time, Tim. Um, I think we'll take questions later or, um,

[00:14:54] Unknown Speaker: we're gonna ask, uh, Mr. Wong to finish his presentation, and then if you wouldn't mind coming back up, I think, committee members have questions. Thank you. Okay

[00:15:09] Tim Wong: thank you. Matt. And so, continuing on with the presentation. Uh, staff is requesting additional direction from the subcommittee based on those 4 items that were discussed at the previous, uh, previous meeting, but this is more to unpack, some of the, some of the comments, for example, relationship between RHC and the city. So, in, in that statement, to explore the relationship with RHC and city, just trying to understand more from the subcommittee, what that really means is that, are you okay with the status quo in, in the current relationship? Or are you looking for more oversight, less oversight, greater roles, in the CSFR, CSFRA process? So those are just some questions that staff is posing to the subcommittee to think about when it comes to, uh, providing direction on this particular topic. And lastly, are there any areas you would like to address as part of this, uh, this relationship? And then, secondly, the mobile home rent stabilization, it was, uh, a frequently brought up topic, um, as part of it, understanding that there are, there is a council goal, but is this something that the subcommittee would like to pursue in the CSFRA, and so, uh, that type of clarifying question. In, in addition, the streamlined petition process. You mentioned, it, the subcommittee is interested in exploring a sub, uh, streamlined petition process, but what does that involve? What type of parameters would you like to put around the streamline petition process? Is it just mandatory capital improvements? Would you like to see sustainability items put in, whether it be drought tolerance or solar panels? Would that be something? the subcommittee would be interested in, in some ways, incentivizing, if you will, um, or any other type of capital improvement? So just trying to, uh, find out from the subcommittee what additional parameters you would like in this process. And lastly, it goes back to the, the statement that all the subcommittee's members made. We'd like to see a CSFA that is flexible, that is workable, that is sustainable, but in your, in that statement. What does that mean? Is that, is that, an overreaching goal, that you would like to see everything apply, all amendments apply to this, uh, guiding principle, if you will, or are there any areas of the CSFA that you're interested in amending to get to this, goal of the of sustainability flexibility, those type of things. And so that really concludes staff's presentation, again, the 3 recommendations are to review the RHC input. To hear input from the public and stakeholders, and lastly, provide additional direction to staff, and so that concludes staff's presentation. Have to answer any questions that you may have. Great, thank you. So,

[00:18:48] Unknown Speaker: I just wanted to go over um, the flip our agenda or format for this evening is um, Mr. Wong mentioned it, so um, you know, my hope is that we get um, stakeholder input as well as public comment um, tonight, um, from as many of you as you would like to speak. But, um, I wanted to, um, just trying to ensure some kind of balance. Um so what we did was um we asked uh a representative from the tenants um groups uh and I know we didn't, we, we, we asked one person and asked that person to kind of organize um the various um individuals uh representing the tenants um and we, and then we did the same with the landlord side and we've asked, are we um, are giving 7 minutes to each. Side um to do a presentation in any way they want. um they can use that 7 minutes as they please. Um so we will take that input. Um, but what I'd like to do right now is since we just um, had, Mr. Grunwald's presentation, um, ask, open this up for committee members to, uh, ask him any questions you might have about the RHC's recommendations, and then after that, we will go to the, to presentations from the tenants and the landlords, and then after that, I'll open it up for public comment from anyone wishing to speak. Um and depending on how many folks and I'll ask you to raise your hands. Um, I may have to shorten it from 3 minutes, so just uh, to uh, let you know in advance so you can think of what you want to say. So, um, would you mind coming back, Mr. Goodwald, and are there any questions? Can I guess please go ahead?

[00:20:34] Member Chris Clark: Thank you chair. uh just one question. Um, so I, uh, I went to the, um, the meeting just to, to, to hear the discussion and it sounded interesting. Um, one thing I, I, I'm still not certain about though is, uh, to what extent can the rental housing committee, today, um, require some of the monitoring and compliance, um, uh, modifications that you're seeking here already. Do you need a charter amendment to, to implement that or can you already require participation in the uh, the registry, for instance?

[00:21:08] Matthew Grunwald: That's a good question. I might, uh, I might kick it over to Honky for that one.

[00:21:13] Unknown Speaker: Yes, so we discussed that in the rental housing committee meeting as well. And, um, uh, gave us answered that it could also be done in regulations, but it has a stronger, uh, requirement, essence to it when it's in the CSF for itself.

[00:21:33] Member Chris Clark: But the practical impact would be the same. It would still be required, whether it's a regulation, an ordinance or okay, thank you. Uh, um,

[00:21:44] Matthew Grunwald: I would just add that regarding, um, you know, what you need, if we wanted to, perhaps, change the fee that it's charged to different people who do different things. So, if we try to using, trying to use an incentive to get, uh, you know, if you register your fee is X amount less. Right now, there's language that, you know, every uh unit must be treated the same. Uh, so I think it kind of depends on the solution there, um, similar to, uh, to the, the path through the splitting of the fee. Um, that's language that, uh, that, that would require language change, I believe, um, uh, can keep me honest there. Thank you. But it depends on that. how creative you want to get with uh, the registration and then what, how you want to incentivize or punish that. Got it, okay. Yeah.

[00:22:30] Member Lucas Ramirez: And just because I was gonna ask someone, but my assumption would be that, even if you couldn't require it through the regulations, there are, like you said, some carrots that could be introduced, such as, you know, you're, you're, um, eligible for this streamlined process, or you can, uh, pay a reduced fee or some, you're sort of in the preferred system if you're, um, if you're, um, registered. But then my assumption would also be that just like we require a register for Airbnbs, the council could through ordinance. um, do something, but, again, as Unki said, it's much easier to get compliance with that if you have, you know, reasons for them to do that other than we told you so. Um, yeah, I just

[00:23:10] Matthew Grunwald: comment quickly, I would say that, um. In, in some ways, it depends on exactly what that card is, because there is very specific language that will, that might prevent you from doing something. Yeah, in terms of treating everyone equally. And then have you, um.

[00:23:27] Member Lucas Ramirez: Have you looked at just, um, either through curiosity or or more, um, um, like RHD, uh, or sort of committee structures in other cities, where that maybe they aren't necessarily a standalone body set out in the charter, but maybe they're a special body where, you know, with planning commissions in some cities, they have legislative authority. They're not really, not as much advisory to the council as they are sort of acting more independently than a traditional word, but they're not set up in the charters, an independent organization. Have you looked at anything like that or, um, I'm just curious if you have any sense of how these things are structured in other cities.

[00:24:07] Matthew Grunwald: Um, I have a sense of a few, a few jurisdictions. I think when we're tackling a question, typically staff will put together a pretty extensive report on what's, we always like to look at what all the jurisdictions are doing, and it varies widely. Um, based on the number of people that are in the, in the jurisdiction, but also when the, when the law was passed for that jurisdiction. Um, I think specifically to the relationship piece. My sense is that the, the strong language about separation, was um, to perhaps avoid, maybe some situations that has happened in other um, jurisdictions. So, I don't have a full, uh, full view into that. But, um, you know, our, uh, our staff, typically, when we have those questions, they, they, do present us a, many pages of, of what's happening in the jurisdictions and can give us that, that bundown. Um, so I, I would definitely, if you're considering that, I would definitely, uh, recommend trying to put that together. Um, offhand. I don't have any sort of share yet.

[00:25:12] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Great um I had a couple of questions. So the 1st one uh regarding the the relationship between the city council and the RHC um there's in a staff report comment about wanting to be completely separate but then another comment saying you want to have more interaction. Um, what, what other specific areas or points that you could describe that you'd like to see both? Autonomy, or what, I guess what, what, what's the concern in terms of uh economy, like what do you, what's the concern? What would you are you concerned about maybe losing autonomy on? Um, and then are there? yeah How would you like to uh strengthen the relationship between counseling RHC?

[00:25:59] Matthew Grunwald: Sure, I, I, so 1st it's unique for. We've we've been for these years working within the bounds of what it says and really parsing that language and then, you know, ha- asking staff, what can we do here? What's possible? Uh, so it's, it is somewhat novel to uh, think about how we would change it in the 1st place. Um, I would say, uh, I would say for that question, to get the, all the views and the diversity of the views, you may want to watch that segment of our, uh, of our session, but for me personally, Um, I think, I think anything like the, the seismic retrofit, right, that will impact, um, our, uh, either landlords or tenants, I think it is, um, helpful to be, be feel like we're part of the process. Um, I think, you know, one of the other issues, you know, that that's been, um, talked about. I'm not sure where, where it is, but we, you know, a moratorium on, um, exiting the market. Uh, you know, I've, I've heard that as a, a topic that might be discussed. And, um, you know, that's one that that would, again, impact, impact, uh, our constituents, both landlords and tenants, and then there is language that may apply to that, right? Um, so, for me, anywhere where there is a topic being discussed that, that might, um, overlap with, uh, with our, you know, what we work on every day, uh, our, on a regular basis, that'd be helpful. I think, uh, but as far as how their relationship works now, I think that this setting, uh, you know, and be able to give you feedback and have members of city council attend our meetings. Um, I, I think for most, as far as the structure for most of the members of the RHC, they were okay with the status quo there, that seems to be working so far. Great Thank you.

[00:27:49] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: And then, um, the same here along the same lines that there was mentioned in the staff reported, might be a staff question about, um, your interest in the RSC's interest in being able to streamline the petition process, but the way the CSSI is worded. There's only a way, but you don't have the option or flexibility to look at other ways. Is that, is that accurate? Is that, uh.

[00:28:18] Matthew Grunwald: right. So there were of the of the topics we talked about, there were a majority of members for a few topics that thought an amendment really did make a lot of sense. I think that, principle, the duplex, um, definition, seem to everybody. There was, there was kind of consensus, and it was an easy fix, and an amendment would be a good way to, to, a good mechanism to fix that. Um, similarly, um, with, um, uh, uh, the specific question was, uh, streamlining the petition, right, thank you. Uh there's a lot. There's a lot that we I like. So for the position process, it is, it's really set in stone. Uh, it's this one process and our uh, staff said we could find ways to try to have a process where it's just about a specific topic, but really you, you still need to include all the financials. Um, and and staff has done a great job already since our 1st edition to now, and helping to streamline that process in general. But, you can't get away from a few of the calculations that need to be made in order to make those calculations, you have to have all the documentation, uh, as, as per the CSF array. So, that also seemed like another, um, topic where an amendment really, uh, seem to make sense, uh, to a majority of the, um, of the count of the committee. Um, especially if it's something that, uh, is kind of spurred or um, required by council, right? So, you know, now there's, uh, there is a status quo, the VSA parade was written under the assumption, under current assumptions, and then if every landlord will then need to pay. a significant amount to retrofit. How do we kind of, um, maintain the balance of the CSRH? That's, you know, that both tenants could pitch in as well as landboards. Um, and do that. Uh, the other, uh, I think the, if, if I may, uh, the other thing that that would affect is we have budgeted based off of the, of the number of petitions we get, each petition we pay for a hearing officer, uh, of the fee pool. You know, uh that comes out of our budget. So if something were to happen on, uh, city councils and where, a lot more landlords would then go to petition, they could blow our budget. The fee would go. We been bringing the fee down generally from, um, down to $100 now. I think that, correct me, what the 1st fee was, but we really tried to make it equitable and fair for, for the landlords. Um and even doubling or tripling, the number of petitions would have a significant effect. Sure, got it.

[00:30:50] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Well, thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. All right So we are now going to, um, open it up to the, I'll call it for lack of better word, panelists. Um, I think, I mean, did we flip a coin to pick who goes 1st or?

[00:31:09] Tim Wong: Uh, no, we didn't flip a coin, they can, um, but, that, that was a question who would go 1st so.

[00:31:16] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: A political order, so is it LNT? Depending on what you pick, um, okay, uh, well, start with the landlords then.

[00:31:44] Joshua Howard: Better than slipping a coin, so. I'll special orders. We can count on that. Joshua Howard, the California Apartment Association. I just want to begin. CAA did work with the proponents of the measure that they qualify for the 2020 ballot to amend the CSFRA. We do stand by the measure that qualified primarily for 3 reasons. Number one it allows for capital improvement pass-throughs to be considered and for owners to make more value add elective capital improvements. Second, it allows for easier eviction of tenants for criminal activity, and 3rd, it encourages targeting the rent control benefits to those families who need it the most. Because of their financial circumstances. Tonight, I've asked 2 local housing providers to speak to the challenges of providing housing under the CSFRA and offer their input. on changes they'd like to see made to make the CSFRA more workable, and many of the themes you'll hear tonight. I believe will be similar to some of the things you've already heard from the RHC, and do support some of the elements of the qualified measure around capital improvements, and around, um, making the process more simplistic and direct. The 1st presenter is Jim Claus, a small property owner in Mountain View. He'll then be followed by Linda Curtis, who operates a 7 unit building here in town as well. And we'll be happy to answer questions when you're done. Thank you.

[00:33:10] Jim Claus: Well, good evening. Um. I'm Jim and over 35 years ago. Um we purchased and continue to own and operate today a 40 unit department building in Mountain View. Our building is old, like most of the units under rent control, and ours is built in the late 1950s. So, what that means is, it needs more and more maintenance as it ages, it seems to be a little any emplace. Um, Knowing that about 20 years ago, we decided to do some major repairs to the property and significantly upgraded. Uh, we began saving money over a period of time, and um, we also expected that rents were going to rise modestly, and that, as a result of that, we would be able to cover all the costs for the capital improvements we were planning, or at least at that time.. Um, So we did not, we also did not give a whole lot of, we did not give large rent increases. Um, in fact, as a result of the rent roll back in the CPI limits, uh, that we're put in place currently, 23 of our 40 units are $300 to $600 below the market rents. All of those tenants moved in more than 6 years ago. Um and have been with us for a long time. A number of them make, um, more, let's just say more than what we would consider to be low or even middle income, uh, incomes. Between 2011 and 2015, we spent about $450,000 on improvements, uh, including the complete replacement of the pool and deck area, replacement of our main drainage line, um, repl- uh, complete replacement of the asphalt base and surface, uh, completely due to the front of the property, and we did a voluntary, uh, earthquake reinforcement installation for our tuck under parking. The cost of the earth, just the earthquake was about 130,000. Uh that would have been 8 years ago. Um, our intention, uh, was to continue with the improvements, including the energy, uh, continue with the improvements, doing energy efficient roofs, safer decks and railings, new double pane windows, paint, and appliances and interior improvements. However, when rent control arrived, we broke all those plans. The problem is how do you pay for it? Ultimately, you have to pay for this. Um, and uh, with the new restrictions, it made it difficult. We had used the money that we had previously, previously saved for the previous improvements, and we can only increase our available cash by either continuing to save over a period of time to build up enough money. Or raising rents, or borrowing. Each of those has its own separate set of problems. Um, but it became difficult to save when we could no longer raise rents, even by a small amount. So our capital improvements are delayed, or in some cases, we probably won't do them. Um, today, uh, we cannot share most of those expenses with our tenants, our residence. Um, well, we might be able to share those costs, um, after an extensive review by the red board, who, after requiring a substantial amount of time and energy and information, may or may not allow those, uh, allow that sharing. Frankly, we're reluctant to take the chance. Uh so we're continuing only to do what is necessary and what we can afford. With major V, uh, we have to justify our improvements to our property. We'd like to see ways to easily share up to some reasonable amount. The cost of capital improvements, when those improvements have a direct benefit to our residents, our city, the environment, or if they are being mandated by the city, as a result of new laws, or new orders from your code enforcement department. Uh it is looking to us. It's looking like to us, more and more, the city is going to be guiding our property operations, without any consequences to the city. and with significant consequence to us and to our residents. Whether we sell or reinvest out of state hasn't been determined for us yet. But some simple fixes to major V, would allow us to easily and fairly share capital, capital costs and keep local residents in their home. Thank you. Oh, thank you. So,

[00:37:48] Unknown Speaker: a quick time check. You have 2 minutes remaining on your panel. Hi,

[00:37:59] Linda Curtis: I'm Linda Curtis. And I'm, I've been in one apartment for 44 years now. I came in, and for over 30 years, I worked as a manager to take a small bit off my rent, and painted the interior, see the apartments myself. I laid down wax by hand on my hands and knees and buffed it on the hardwood floors. They kept their costs down. The building was built in the 50s like 52 or something. Looks much newer because I take really good care of it. Well, in about 07. The partners that I'd found the building for, decided to retire. They gave me 1st crack at mine it. My husband and I bought this billing, and we'd always get the rents really low, less painting and waxing if we had less turnover. Well, so we're thinking we're going to do some things I dreamed of doing. And we'll put the rent up. A little, you know slowly. So we added 9 solar panels for each of the 7 units. Now we're paying their electric. Because we have to pay about $1200 a year to clean them and other maintenance. We had to get a whole new electrical panel box. We rebuilt a whole entire balcony and deck, because the board went bad and building department, no longer grandfathered it. All the safe department said it was safe. We had to hire an architect and a draftsman. And draw, and build it exactly as it had been, but it cost over 10 grand. And okay, we know we're safe. That's good. So all these costs, we never raised rents for years. We didn't have to roll back the rent to October 2015 because we hadn't raised it. I could do that that. Sorry, is that better? Oh,

[00:39:59] Unknown Speaker: um, yeah, time, time. Sorry, that is the time, time. So time is up. May I just say one more thing? We

[00:40:07] Linda Curtis: want to see a, an easy pass through, like present the invoice for the same roof for the other, you know, to read the photos, maybe. Or maybe that, you had to do this and it, it proves that, and we'd like to see a simple raise, each year of like 5% or 6 like, or San Jose, so you can plan. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. If I were a good business person, I quit. Alright,

[00:40:37] Unknown Speaker: thank you. So, um, that is, uh, the one panel so we'll go to the next group and I'm gonna give you a little extra time because I went over so we'll go 8 minutes, um, to you. So I guess that the timer's working. I didn't see the clock on so if you hear when you hear the chime that's uh your time is up, right but welcome.

[00:41:01] Eddie Keating: waiting for our slide to come up. Okay. So,

[00:41:07] Jackie Cash: hi, my name is Jackie Cash, and we've met before, and I'm a member of the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition. Even more, I'm a Mountain View renter. Before measure V, some renters were lucky like me and only had reasonable rent increases. Many other renters were far less lucky, uh, with 20%, 50% or higher rent increases. Not unusual for renters to receive multiple rent increases per year. As a result, many renters were displaced from Mountain View by these excessive rent increases. Good

[00:41:44] Sandra Sparsa: evening, everyone. My name is Sandra Sparsa, and I'm part of the café seat of San Joseph Church and Sonata, Massachusetts. Also, I'm living here in Monte for about 20 years. Plus, I'm working for the Montemew West Mexico district as a, it's just an assisting of preschool. We have, we all hear, the expression not, not a little affordable housing measure be. It's the main tool, saving, mountain view, supplies of natural affordable housing. 13,000 apartments, 13,000 homes are protecting by the CSFRA. The community of Mountain View, my community, and your community, depends on major P protection. Hello? My

[00:42:44] Eddie Keating: name is Eddie Keating and I was one of the many volunteers who worked long hours to pass measure V in 2016. Supporters of measure V are listening carefully to your deliberations. We have heard your comments. We have a pay, we have paid attention to the landlord polling, and we remember the much weaker measure W, put forward by the 2016 city council, and rejected by Mountain View voters. We have read the landlord's sneaky repeal of measure V, and we have watched the videos that are still up on the landlord's website. We know that any of the items listed on the slide before you would harm Mountain View renters. We also trust that no member of this subcommittee would want to harm Mountain View renters. One landlord tells you how difficult. Metro B S, remember, that they can charge market rate when anytime, a new Chinese movement. The protection of measure be, I know too much. They are simply enough. Make sure B is doing its job to stabilize rents, to stabilize community, and to allow renters to simply live without fear. Rent your advocates. Would be happy to discuss possible ballot measures, but not if the ballot measure would weaken measure V. Poison pill items, and these are listed on the slide, include weakening just cause for eviction. Increasing the annual allowed rent increase to be higher than the inflation rate higher than the CPI. A lower vacancy rate trigger for turning off CSFRA protections. Under funding, the RHC budget with a fee cap. Limiting renter protections to only low income families, which means no landlord would ever again rent to low income families. Allowing landlords to charge tenants for luxury upgrades. And giving council ability to modify the CSFRA. Renters

[00:45:23] Jackie Cash: don't always get a raise, but sitting a 3% increase into our budget is reasonably possible. Despite that, Mountain View rents are still very high. Well, we would welcome measure V coverage for duplexes and mobile homes, and while we would welcome a rent registry to better track compliance with the allowed rent increases. We may need to oppose an initiative with these features, if the proposed initiative would weaken measure V protections. As you know, my family will soon be displaced from our apartment by demolition. Uh, we expect to move to a smaller apartment that appears to be the only choice we have to stay in the area. But so far, I'm hopeful it will still be an apartment in Mountain View, close to my work, and near the bus line that my daughter takes to her job. Uh, there have always been apartment demolitions in Mountain View. Well, we may lose 100 or 200 pounds a year. That is not a reason to end meaningful housing security for the 13,000 families who are covered by the CFFRA. Do not weaken measure V. I encourage you to honor your time that has been put into this and staff time that has been put into this. And finally, any initiative that does try to measure or we can measure V will be defeated. Thank you. Thank you and I appreciate

[00:46:46] Unknown Speaker: your being under time. um if we can please hold any kind of demonstration plauses or um other uh outbursts. I would appreciate it when I try to get through this um quickly and when I give everybody, um, the opportunity to say, they say, I know we don't always agree on everything, um, but I would like to ask for the respect of everyone to listen, um, quietly to everyone's comments. So uh moving on. Uh, we will now open this up to public comment. And can I get a show of hands as to how any of you would like to speak? All right. um, I am going to, so do you, will you have the clock on or we do? Okay great. Oh, is it that, is it, do you see it? Okay, great, all right. Um, so I will, let's see, there are quite a few, so I'm gonna limit us to a minute and a half per speaker, and if you can just move to the podium, um, I don't expect everyone to stand in line, but if you see the light, if, if you could line up, maybe at least 5 folks um, ready to go, that would be helpful to move things along. So, we'll start with the 1st speaker, and if you could please state your name and um, where you live, sure.

[00:48:12] Lee Middleman: My name is Lee Middleman. I am a landlord here in Mountain Dew. I live in Portola Valley. Um, briefly, I'm going to talk about uh our experience. Uh, we're probably like the typical investor of these apartment buildings that are old. We're not a large corporation, um, 40 years ago, we started, uh, amassing some small properties, and finally bought a large, what we considered a large unit here in, a mountain view about 20 years ago. We have 19 units. We charge less than $2000. There are 2 bedroom and one bedroom homes. They tend to have young people who. stay there, uh, and maybe some small families. The current cost of living restriction on the increase is just not enough to maintain the place. Um, and like the, one of the speakers earlier, we had plans to improve the place. Uh, and we've just put them on hold now. We don't feel we can afford it, um, and we feel that, uh, there's no way we'll be able to pay for this, um. I think one of the discouraging things is the, uh, um, a process by which we ask for an increase, seems very hard on a small, uh, landlord, and uh, uh, we think that's pretty much unacceptable, almost all the communities, and including the state of California now, uh, are proposing rent control that usually involves an increase above the CPI. This is very, very hard to live with now, because all our expenses are going up and usually much more than this EPI.

[00:49:40] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Thank you. Perfect I love that. Everyone can follow suit. Next speaker, please. welcome. My

[00:49:50] Ali Ortiz: name is Ali Ortiz. I work as a chef at Google Campus. Even for me, it's still not affordable, what it's a affordable. I just living in a speaker company in a 2020 Layton. I had to move out because I know Renny will clean some store and I luckily I got affordable and uh 77 night is Evelyn but still for me it was difficult because I had to make some requires to get in in there. They show me the same as amount of land so I had to move out for 4000. I don't know how I did it, but I did it, and uh, I have a teenager going college, and I have a toll to go, Mistral, and I wanna vacate from Mountain View. I think mountain view is for all parents to be a drink, to or keep the success, and I think as a member of living um, being on this earth with a serf, a roof, but it has to be affordable. I've been living here like all my life. I immigrant here in a 1998 and I've been living in Monteville and I will not leave. Thank

[00:50:52] Unknown Speaker: you. Welcome, Misty. Hey,

[00:50:58] B Hanson: uh, B Hanson from Santiago Villa. This is input for the ballot measure, the ordinance. Uh, specifically from Santiago uh, uh, mobile home parks. Even though I'm the long term residents of San Diego Villa. I can't tell you what I've learned since I moved in in the 90s in a minute and a half . Even with help from this collection. of documents. uh that I found on the through these laser fish uh collection collection. Repeating patterns are too numerous to discuss. Uh, but in short, the, the end of properties of use of mobile home residence has been going on for decades. Since 1989. The city has been getting sincere assurances that mobile home residents would be protected from abuses like high rents and vacancy decontrol, but because Dianza is an enormous litigious guerrilla, the city's assurances of support have been nothing more than empty promises. It's clear that Dianza is an enormous threat to the city, and I do understand why RRC did not feel comfortable implementing its staff guidance on CSF FRA in the February 2018 meeting. It would have assured that the city would be sued by an organization with huge financial resources instead of residents, uh, as did happen. But will anybody in the city government ever have the courage to confront this bully and stop allowing Dianza to run roughshod over its most vulnerable residence. It's been happening not since 2015, but for decades. Thank you very much. Next

[00:52:40] Unknown Speaker: speaker, please. No,

[00:52:49] Olgamelo: no, no, no. Good evening. My name is Olgamelo, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to share our sentiments and opinions about the topic guy. Uh,

[00:53:08] Unknown Speaker: MVD is lucky for Muchicimos, my, I know, mas pequenos, de la high school, estaracistiendo, alcolejo communitari. So

[00:53:19] Olgamelo: I've lived here for over 15 years. My youngest son, uh, is um, to graduate from high school and um, to go to community college. Uh,

[00:53:28] Unknown Speaker: tenes called Grupo de comit de, the encilinos, y también, estaben volucrada siempre and muchos comites, uh, trabajando con la communidas, de mostrando, que estamos aqui, para cer personas de bien, en volucrando, nos haciendo voluntariado, en escuelas, y en differentes lugares. Um,

[00:53:52] Olgamelo: I'm a part of the committee of renters. Um, I've, we have done our best to stay involved to demonstrate to volunteer to the benefit of the community. Ah,

[00:54:03] Unknown Speaker: Bengo, universidad, ahora esta trabajando, yes, duo, por cinco, años, en el comite de la cerade, monte, view. So,

[00:54:14] Olgamelo: uh, I have a daughter who graduated from the university who is now working, and for many years, she was a part of the youth uh, group, the youth coalition. Okay,

[00:54:22] Unknown Speaker: familias como la Mia. Um, family

[00:54:56] Olgamelo: is like mine. I mean, so you have to leave this city. Um, if you really wish to consider the diversity of good harmless people living in uh, Mountain View. Take action, please, we need action. We want action. So,

[00:55:08] Unknown Speaker: Avesis, Escuchamos, que tienen que tomaro decisiones, por las personas, botantes. Ah, a la mejorno estra comunidad, algunos, no podemos, votar. Pero samos la gente, que mantien monte mio, somo los que trabajamos. Thank you. If you could translate that, sorry.

[00:55:31] Unknown Speaker: I mean, ask the translator to finish it. We

[00:55:33] Olgamelo: often hear about preserving the rights of voters. Well, we may not be able to vote, but we are the people that maintain the city. We are the people that contribute to it. Great,

[00:55:42] Unknown Speaker: thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:55:48] Unknown Speaker: Your time's up, so. Okay, let me check it out the next person this week. Thank you. Thank you for filling out the cards if you could do that after is great.

[00:56:10] Unknown Speaker: Just speaking to the mic. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:56:35] Angelisa: Hi, my name is Angelisa and Ducho, and same as old guy. I am part of the Catacito group. Um, my building is to be demolished. I don't want to leave this city. I want to keep fighting for uh to stay in the city and for people that wish to do the same. Okay,

[00:56:53] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: thank you very much.

[00:56:54] Angelisa: Thank you.

[00:56:55] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks, take care. welcome.

[00:57:01] Steve Gazara: Good evening, Steve Gazara, landlord in town. We own 7 units in in the city. I live in Mountain View. Uh I just have a few comments. I do feel that the, the um, the rental control ordinance. I can't remember the name of it should be actually as a charter amendment. I would like to see it become an ordinance rather than a charter amendment, so there is some council oversight over the rental housing committee. I'm happy to see this process going on where, there's a subcommittee, you're exploring, you're asking questions. You're bringing up topics for discussion and so forth. This is a good thing, oversight of a, of a body like this is good. Um. I think the petition process should be made more reasonable for uh cost recovery and rental increases a petition process that takes a year and a half where a landlord has to submit a 1000 pages of documents. This is, is overkill. I, I think the petition process needs to be uh shortened, reined in, and, and made more reasonable, uh, and I do not support a rental registry. I think that, uh, it just, it, it seems that, uh, uh, the, with the ordinance and and all the new regulations developing, the city amount of view is just taking over the operation of the rental housing business, thank you very much.

[00:58:34] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Have a nice evening. Thank you Next speaker, please, welcome.

[00:58:43] Cara Futches: My name is Cara Futches. I've been a resident of Mountain View for the past 15 years. I'm a lecturer at Stanford University and has been employed there for the past 12 years. Uh, I wanted to mention that, in from 2014 to 15, my salary increase was 3.02%. The following year, it was 3.04%. 2016. I got an increase of 2.5%, followed by 3.one%. In the past 12 years. I've never gotten an increase above 3.5% and I'm a lecturer at Stanford University. So I wonder how many of the people who are renters here are able to count on salary increases of more than 3.5% and it seems, uh, somewhat unfair to think that it would be justifiable for some people to count on 5%, um, increases as landlords. One other point I wanted to make is that my husband was a renter in this area for, uh, 10 years before we married and he lived in California Avenue and um, in that time. Uh, I've never seen any, nor has he ever seen any capital improvements. So it's interesting to me that suddenly landlords have such an interest in capital improvements. Thank you.

[00:59:55] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thanks, speaker, please. Welcome.

[01:00:00] Joe Mayak: I'm Joe Mayak. I'm a housing provider here in Mountain View, and um, the streamline process, what needs to be streamlined is that landlord petitions need to sometimes be able to pass. I don't believe there are any landlord petitions that have made it through the process. Uh, the data is impossible to find on the website, I was asked to submit a, um, a request for that information when all I was looking for was a link to the stats. There are other stats available. Um, so when people ask about um, having more transparency, I hope the landlords get some input into what that transparency is. Um, I know a lot of people are saying that they can see decontrol will solve all of our problems. I, I had 39 rollbacks and in 3 years time, less than half of those people have moved out and RHC was convinced that uh vacancy decontrol would solve all of my problems within 3 years. It hasn't even been half of what they predicted. Um, as far the other part of the streamlining process, the, RHC made the rules for the petition process, the, uh, section 1710, 3 C, requires that, improvements required by the city to stay up to code, would not be part of the process, but no landlord can get a petition through, not one landlord. You need to look at that data, please. Thank you.

[01:01:46] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Awesome. Hello? Hello?

[01:01:50] Conor O'Brien: Uh, my name's Conor O'Brien. I'm a Mountain View resident and renter, and I think some of the changes that have been discussed are interesting and potentially useful regarding things like covering mobile home parks, creating registry, closing loopholes for duplexes, things like that. And I hope that you can proceed those, whether that does take the form of a balance measure or some other approach. But, I am concerned about some of the other changes that have been discussed here in the past. Uh, regarding weakening this, yes, safari's protections. I think, uh, my fellow attendants who spoke earlier were right to call the kinds of changes listed on their slide poison pills. uh and I think it's going to be hard to have a useful conversation about improving the CSFR item unless weakening it is is off the table for that discussion. Uh, in particular. I would agree with them that allowing higher rent increases by raising the one of the CPI CPI would be a serious mistake and quickly leave a lot of residents unable to keep up with their rent for the reasons others have discussed in terms of incomes, not keeping up with that. Thank you.

[01:02:51] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. How come. Hi,

[01:02:59] John Lashley: my name is John Lashley. I live in Mountain View and I'm a landlord. Just kidding. All the landlords are old people because landlord is modern day feudalism, generational warfare. The young people are happy to move here and pay taxes and have jobs. Silicon Valley is a great place to live. Why are we transferring our money to landlords? It doesn't make sense. Okay. So, 1st off, the snake here, oh, Actually, 1st off, it's a joke. It's a joke that landlords can't present all their documents for MNOI increase. What are they doing all day? Good god. Okay. 2nd off, in addition to the joke, it's an insult that we would have to pay for the privilege of rent control. Why would we pay any of the $100? We got rent control passed so we would have protections and now you want us to pay for the protections. Okay nonsense. Takes me to my next point. These people are not responsible to the citizens of Mountain View. We we elect you at least you have to receive our votes. What do they get? The relationship from them to you should be subordinate because you're our representatives. They're not accountable to us so pay the action. Okay, sneak your appeal. BS. This is an attempt to get us trick us into appealing rent control. We want to decide through a political process to strengthen rent control. That's why you need to give us a positive option to extend a maximum rent control to everyone in Mountain View in addition to the sneaky repeal on the ballot. thanks

[01:04:27] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello,

[01:04:37] Brian Parkman: my name is Brian Parkman. I do want to echo the cinnamon of the previous speaker before me. I do believe that if we are going to offer people a weakened version of rent control. We do have to actually offer a stronger version as well. I think it is really only fair that for something that was voted on 2016 you do have to ask both options. Thank you and have a nice day.

[01:04:59] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thanks, speaker. welcome. Hello,

[01:05:06] Sharon Seng: my name is Sharon Seng. I am a Mountain View tenant and I also work in Mountain View. Um, I also agree that we should be discussing ways to strengthen measure V, uh, residents of Mountain View as government officials of Mountain View. Our duty is to protect and look after the people who live and work in Mountain View and if the people who live and work in Mountain View cannot afford to live here. Then, um, I really think we have failed as a community. Thank you so much. Thank you.

[01:05:39] Sue Russell: Hi, my name is Sue Russell. I am speaking on behalf of the Los Altos Mountain View League of Women voters. We did a comprehensive study of CSFRA after it was passed by the voters, including a study of rent stabilization programs throughout California. The study resulted in our support of the basic tenets of CSFRA, including both the rent stabilization and the just cause components. We would be very opposed to any modifications that would undermine the basic intent of CSFRA, which we concluded benefits the entire community by providing more stable housing. Generally, we support the points that are on your screen that were made by the tenants earlier. But I wanted to highlight one of the issues that was mentioned by Josh Howard as being one of the 3 issues that's correctly important to them, and that is the means testing. I think anyone that thinks the main testing, means testing through, realizes that if you do means testing, then you won't be renting to low income tenants in the 1st place, so, CSFRA won't be helping the people that it was intended to help.

[01:06:41] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Big speaker. welcome.

[01:06:45] Katie Fanton: Good evening, my name is Katie Fanton and I'm the director of housing programs for abode services in Santa Clara County in San Mateo. I live in East Palo Alto. The boot services is a local uh nonprofits whose mission is to end homelessness by assisting low income on house people, including those with special needs to secure stable housing for the long term. We do this by working with over 900 landlords in the Bay Area, with about 1800 active rental units. Additionally, we pay over 16000000 per year of rental assistance to landlords and property managers. As part of that work. We were fortunate to develop a small partnership with the city of Mountain View. To work with those living in RVs. And so we started a rapid rehousing program earlier this year to work with those folks. That pilot project began and we've got 6 families enrolled, 4 have been housed, and 2 are in housing search. But the majority of our work happens as we engage market landlords working back on behalf of participants who are looking for units, and one of the honest struggles that we have. It's really difficult to encourage landlords to work with housing subsidy, housing vouchers of any kind. We notice a tremendous amount of pushback in those situations, and I would simply ask that the city of Mountain View considers following communities like San Jose, who has said that it's not appropriate to discriminate based on income, and that those folks should be equally able to access housing, which might be a wonderful addition to the things that you guys are trying to do tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, we have a question if you wouldn't mind.

[01:08:15] Member Chris Clark: Thank you. I appreciate it. So this is, I think, I hate to say it the 1st time all evening that I've heard something new. Uh, so, uh, can you give us a sense of how often this occurs in mountain view?

[01:08:27] Katie Fanton: Sure. Yeah, I mean, I did a little research before coming tonight, and I realized we have a handful of landlords that are currently working with abode, who take rental subsidy from abode, but generally speaking, on a given day, a housing team member can walk around Mountain View, go to Craigslist. Start having conversations with owners and often, the 1st mention of any rental subsidy support has an owner saying no section 8. And I get that. Um, it's a, it's an appropriate response in the sense that people, I think, have some stereotypes or some feelings about traditional section 8, but uh, it's a pretty, I would say 50% of the time, at least, if not 60% of the time, that can be the 1st response to a call from a housing team member at abode, to an owner, um, and I suspect that really is based on false information, perhaps some false stereotypes, and not necessarily an adequate understanding of the process.

[01:09:19] Member Chris Clark: And then is, is, there are different kinds of subsidies and Dodgers available. It is the response the same regardless of the subsidy or voucher program. It

[01:09:28] Katie Fanton: can be. I mean, I think whenever there's a sense that maybe a tenant has additional help from somewhere else, the immediate assumption is that it's some kind of section 8 program. And again, we have great partnerships with the housing authority. I'm a huge fan of housing vouchers, but there can be this sense, even when someone has one, that there is some sense that they're not going to be a model tenant, that they're really going to struggle, that it's going to be too much of a hassle, and unfortunately, before we can even have the conversation about how that isn't the case, sometimes those conversations get ended. Because, yes,

[01:09:59] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: thank you. I like, ask, you mentioned, I know there's a, like, section 8 program, but what are some of the other programs that you get your subsidies from?

[01:10:08] Katie Fanton: Good question. Um, we primarily our partnership here in Santa Clara County is with the Office of Supportive Housing. So we are contracted by them and they allow us to provide partial rental subsidies for program participants. This can be um what we call permanent supportive housing, which is longer term housing. It can be rapid rehousing, which is sometimes between 9 and 12 months. So essentially abode would pay part of the rent and the participant themselves would pay the remainder of the rent. So we, and we do sort of the things that you might assume a housing authority would do, like housing inspections, and a quarterly case management and and interaction. So it's essentially, uh, we're sort of a bridge between, say, a housing authority and a tenant and an owner. And a little more of a, maybe an accessible bridge, partially because as a, as a local nonprofit, we have different ways of doing our work again, the housing authority is wonderful. We just have a different way of doing our work.

[01:11:01] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Is that primarily then is it county funds or? It is,

[01:11:05] Katie Fanton: yeah, Pamela county funds. I do get some funds directly from HUD and so we have some of those programs as well.

[01:11:10] Unknown Speaker: Any cities that come out? Well, besides the Steve Mountain View. We

[01:11:14] Katie Fanton: do, and we really have a great program. And the city of Sunnyvale, uh, Santa Clara, and San Jose directly as well.

[01:11:22] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. App appreciate it.

[01:11:25] Unknown Speaker: Next daycare. Welcome.

[01:11:30] Elizabeth Linkist: Hello, my name is Elizabeth Linkist. uh, I'm a time of 30 feet from Mountain Vale, over the board range, Sunnyvale. and this is Sunnyvale, my rent has been hiked up to 15% every year and I have 0 protection against eviction. Uh, as the thank you appeal is coming up, I hope that you will live up to the expectations of your citizens, that this is a city where everyone has the right to. Some stability in their lives, something that we can currently only dream about it, when, so anyway. Uh, introducing additional restrictions, conditions, means testing and loopholes. We do nothing for tenants. It would only be in the interest of those. Can't be making a profit from the basic human native health, like. Encourage you to instead use this opportunity to propose measures that actually work in the interest of tenants. Uh protecting more people over more profits. Thank you.

[01:12:18] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Thanks, speaker. welcome. Christine

[01:12:24] Christine Pereira: Pereira Mountain View. After listening to the last subcommittee meeting and the rental housing committee meeting, it sounded like the most important problem for Mountain View to address is how difficult it is to raise the rent, but that's not really the problem, the problem, which we really have to keep focused on is predatory behavior. The landlords had predatory behavior before, measure V was passed in response to that, and any changes you make have to consider the predatory. preventing the predatory behavior as the primary objective. Seismic upgrades should not have a lower standard approved for expenses. I recognize that if you were doing it retroactively and you were not tidy with your bookkeeping, it might be hard to prove what your expenses were in 2015 or 2016. But if you know you're going to be presenting these charges for reimbursement, just like a business trip. You're going to keep your, you're going to keep your receipts, and any competent business person should be able to provide the proof that they actually did the work and it was necessary. Any changes we make have to be geared toward preventing predatory behavior. If you lower the standards, we could wind up with the same thing we saw in the hearings, where they were tried to present, um, salaries misrepresented, to misrepresented, and miscategorizing categorizing improvements, to increase their own income. The hearing officer through this, through those out as well they should have. Don't allow that to happen for the seismic improvements. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:13:54] Emmy Chu: Hi My name's Emmy Chu and I'm the landlord of a small apartment in Mountain View. I live in Mountain V for over 20 years. To answer some of the questions that I've heard here that what do landlords do? Let me tell you. I work from 8 in the morning until 2 AM. I scrub the floor. I do my own maintenance, because I cannot find people to do tile work, uh, just uh, unclog the, the disposal, uh, uh, fix the doors, because we're such a small part, a small, uh, business, that most of the resources these days goes to home renovations as well as the big companies. As a result with more regulations passed on by the committee, like registry, there's no time left. I mean, I can appreciate these people of asking, what do the landlords do all day? I procure our product. I put them in my car to transport them. I bio the material. I support my workers. I sweep the floor. I throw trash away, all of those things and none of the renters ever appreciate, but when they call me, I'm there right away and take care of them. So that is what a landlord, a good landlord does. I didn't raise my uh tenants rent, unfortunately, and when the rent and pro came in, they erased, they got their raised, their tech professional, they lived there for 10 years. I can't raise anything and I hope that you guys take into consideration a landlord's paying. I don't eat until 2 AM in the morning. Okay? And all of you have vacations, I don't. Thank you, thank you.

[01:15:28] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Next speaker. Lenny

[01:15:35] Lenny Seagull: Seagull Mountain View homeowner. Measure V is working. what it was designed to do. It limits displacement. It limits hardship for tenants, and stabilizes our community. It doesn't solve our housing crisis, but it, you know, the argument somehow that rent control would stop new construction, you don't have to go too far from here to see that Mountain View is building a lot more housing than our neighbors. So it doesn't prevent us from addressing the root causes of our housing problems. It may come as a surprise to you, but I haven't always been an advocate for rent control. I didn't start circulating a petition for rent control until 1978. When after proposition 13 passed, landlords took advantage of the control on their fixed costs, property taxes, and they got the benefit of prop 13, but they didn't pass it along to the tenant, so we circulated a petition called rent relief. When landlords say that their expenses are going up, above and beyond the consumer price index, they are being fully true, because they have fixed costs in their mortgage, and they have nearly fixed costs in their property taxes. So, if anything, the consumer price index is more than they deserve or they need to keep their property up. Thank you.

[01:16:58] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, next speaker please.

[01:17:04] Public Speaker: Hi, uh, so 1st of all, I definitely like to say, uh, to the mom and pop landlords. honestly, I empathize with you guys. I have a landlord who never raised my rent, even though they could have for so many months, and I know that you guys definitely work really hard and made investments in your properties. Um, and I find it unfortunate because, uh, you know, when the landlords that Josh Howard brings up here are not, uh, Prometheus are not Avalon Bay communities is not Todd speaker. We have massive corporate landlords in this area who have been taking money from people like me for a very long time for decades. Housing has not been been built, and now we're in a position where people, in all their wisdom, put a charter amendment. I'm sorry, passed a charter amendment. Specifically to prevent the city council from trying to disrupt protections that we have passed for ourselves and everything that is happening right here was specifically what we aimed to prevent. And unfortunately, nobody wants what the city council is doing. Josh Howard himself came up here and said that they have their own ballot measure that they're perfectly happy with. We, the tenants have already told you which conditions will trigger a response from us that will defeat this. Remember measure W. It went down in flames. It was a 1000000 or more dollars that got spent on, it failed attempt to pass a milk toast rent control law. So nobody wants it. Please, there's no reason to be doing this. Save us the trouble. Thank

[01:18:32] Unknown Speaker: you next speaker please. Hello,

[01:18:37] Terry Borman: Terry Borman, president of the Mountain View mobile home alliance. Um I'm sure you know why I'm here. We would love to be covered under this. We consider ourselves covered, your staff, some lawyers, the RAC's lawyers considered us covers. It's your appointees, that interpreted the law, to not cover us. We hope that, as we uh look at this, we will also start looking at the way we are appointing the people, because it'd be nice to have a balance in favor of renters for once, the ones that have elected you as our representative officials. Um, as far as this amendment goes. I agree with the previous speakers, you have a choice that was put in front of us by a sleazy dirty method. I hear nobody talking about how we're going to prevent people from going around and paying $50 a signature, to have this happen again in Mountain View, that should be being addressed. So 2 choices, one the dirty slimy one, one that protects renters more. I think are appropriate. Um, if, yeah, I, I just don't understand how the landlords and uh, uh, apartment association is crying about how they don't have money when they pay $50 a signature, think about that, eat in housing, is a property um, that's being built affordable housing, directly across from uh, Santiago Villa, which is between Google and Microsoft. They're building affordable housing there, new construction, with rents that are much lower than these people are talking about. So if they can do it. maybe we should bring them in and talk about how it's done Also the last point is I think that this measure should go up on the November ballot. So elected officials can respond to why which one they're behind. Thank you.

[01:20:19] Alex Brown: Good evening. Alex Brown, Santago Villa, North Bay Shore, Mountain View. Uh, like to thank the members of RC for showing up to this uh, and elaborate on what happened last week and everything. Uh, I'm Godville home protections are being discussed at every meeting. It's great. It's good to hear. I like that it's on the presentations that it's been discussed. Uh, the majority that, Matthew talked about, is a one person majority, both last February, and last Monday, uh, in terms of who thinks that this year separate should or should not, be interpreted as covering mobile home protections, but I don't care about that. Honestly don't care. Not gonna worry about it. I just want something to be done. Uh, and it was unanimous that we should get protection somehow, and I, and everyone I talked to, right, loves and respects the mobile home residents in Mountain View. Uh, but we just need to take action and do something, somewhere, soon, like not, not, you know, eventually, uh, it, I'd like to see it on the agendas, but I'd like to see it, you know, on the books, actually doing something to protect us. Thank you.

[01:21:32] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Thanks, speaker.

[01:21:40] Ron Lipsey: I'm Ron Lipsey from 433 Sullivan Avenue Mountain View, and I'm here to talk about mobile homes and particularly senior mobile home um owners. Uh, I have a little email from one of the elder people um, in our community that couldn't be here tonight. I like to read. I'm sorry, I can't make it tonight, but I feel very strongly about the need for some governance, a mobile home rents, personally. I am now paying half of my monthly income for rent, when I own the house I live in, plus I have to, uh let's see, a 4% rent increase each year is unreasonable for the average senior, or even for the families in family parks. We are on, um, fixed incomes. We don't get uh, raises like a lot of people who are working, and the elderly people who live in our park, definitely need to be overseeing and helped, and I hope you all uh pay attention to that and work at that. Thank you very much.

[01:22:54] Unknown Speaker: you. Uh,

[01:22:58] Kelsey Beans: good evening, my name is Kelsey Beans. I live in Palo Alto, uh, and I just want to kind of make a general comment about rent control in Mountain View. We dont have rent control in Palo Alto and I will just commend you for having it here. I think it's a really important uh way to prevent homelessness. Um, just to give you a brief background on myself. I am a psychologist. I work as a VA Palo Alto. I'm not here as a representative of the VA Palo Alto. Um, but what I do as the VA is I work with homeless and formerly homeless veterans and try to get them housed in the community. Uh, what my specific job is, is I'm a substance use disorder specialist, so I tend to get referrals, uh, of people who really struggle and need a lot of services and a lot of support, um, to get their lives back on track and to stay on track. And a lot of, we have a lot of great services at the VA. We have a residential program, and uh, it's 6 months and people stay and do all this uh, great work for 6 months, and then when they leave, we try to find them housing, but it's really hard, uh, to find housing enough close to the hospital. One reason is the price, so rent control helps with that. But the other reason is discrimination based on source of income. So I hope that you'll consider as you're revising things, uh, something similar to what Mountain View did, uh, where uh, people can't be discriminated against if they're using vouchers, um, and that's being really important to maintain diversity. Thank

[01:24:25] Unknown Speaker: you. I'm sorry. We have a question here. Sorry, a quick question. So, um, can

[01:24:31] Unknown Speaker: you give us, can you give us a sense of how often, um, property owners in Mountain View are refusing to accept, um, the the veterans you're working with, uh, because of the voucher that they're receiving?

[01:24:45] Kelsey Beans: I don't have any data on that, and I wouldn't be allowed to share it if I did, but, um, it's just, if you look on Craigslist, you'll see ads that say no section 8 or no vouchers, and then if you tried calling landlords and asking, um, you'll find that, if people have a choice, usually they would prefer, uh, to go with market rate, because it's kind of less, um, paperwork and less delay. Um, although I won't put a plug in if you rent a veteran, you do get uh, incentive, so you get uh, like a bonus payment when you rent to a veteran. Um, but um, but yeah, I don't have any data. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. See 2 more

[01:25:28] Unknown Speaker: speakers. Anyone else wishing to speak if you could line up? Appreciate it. Otherwise I'll close it and I. Hello.

[01:25:37] Fred Kiani: Hi, Fred Kiani, Mountain View resident. I want to bring your attention about the, um, measure, uh, measure, V, and, yeah. Just uh just cause for eviction. Um, it just cost is not really just, only one item just cost is just, and that's if the tenant did not pay rent. Otherwise, the landlord cannot evict the tenants that violate the laws or violate the policy of the property that's living in. So what happens is that causes chaos. I served on rain controlled boards, um, for 7 years, and uh, I've worked in communities that had drink control for 30 years. It's, it's been a problem. I can give you stories of lawsuits, 1000000s of dollars, lawsuits because of this, uh, uh, just caused for eviction, and other causes that just caused us to cause damage to the city. So you go talking about huge lawsuits in the 20s and $30000000 lawsuits. So you might suggest that look into it. Look at the other cities, what kind of losses they have, and consider, do some changes to just cost. I think only one item works on just cause, non-paymental rent. The rest of it doesn't work, and it affects the tenants, more negatively than affects the landlords. Thank you. Thank you. Um,

[01:27:07] Unknown Speaker: I believe we just spoke already, and we only allow for one pass, so...

[01:27:15] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, we, we just have that rule that it's one, one, one speaker at our time, so I mean, I see, next member to, I, I need to have the next speaker speak. We've limited, we've limited to one speaker per time, so. Can we? Yeah, can we just um. Yeah let's chill out of it here we really I really want us to listen to everyone please keep your comments to yourself um out of respect for everyone. This is our attempt. We wanna hear from everyone equally so I would ask for all of your cooperation in that as well. Thank you next speaker please.

[01:28:03] Jeff: My name is Jeff. I own a couple buildings in Mountain View, man, there's a bunch of stuff down in San Jose area. Um, no one's gonna give me a separate opinion, I don't really care. Uh be honest with you. The, um, I looked at who I'm running to, and you know what? I'm subsidizing something like 11 Google employees, another bunch of Facebook employees, and all these people through rent control. Average rent on one of my buildings, the tenants bring in 160,000 per unit. Other building they're bringing in $130,000 for you. I'm not sure why they need rank, I'll be honest with you. Um, one of the things I want to talk about actually is a source of income stuff. And I, and she brought up a good point with the value because I, because I had a lot of experience with this. Section ain't really don't have a problem with because the vouchers don't expire. Problem is with the abode, stuff, the health, trust, the Bill Wilson, the rapid rehousing. I've had to evict every single one of them I've rented to for either nonpayment or rent after the voucher expired, or for behavioral issues. I've had 2 VA tenants. Behavioral issues, both of them had within 12 month period. These are hardships that the owners, landlords cannot absorb, forcibly, with these issues, you want to talk about, they'll be honest with you. you all the answer you want. You don't seem to want to question me like you did her. Here's your opportunity. I'm telling you the truth, it's not a good thing to have happen. All right, thank you.

[01:29:32] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I have 2 leather speakers.

[01:29:39] Public Speaker: Good evening, committee. So I am here just to one make a comment and to ask questions um one comment is um. I am really disappointed in how the committee is actually doing this and the reason why is because we already have vote we had already voted for what mountain view wants and need and I feel that we are circumventing what the voters want in the city. My question is this, so, I, I, one comment is, I hope that you will ask your staff members, do landlords ever win increases with the petition, one, and question 2, or to explain, the, uh, to explain, the, maintenance, net operation, income calculation. I understand that is a guarantee for landlords, a growing profit. So if you could do me a huge favor and asset to staff, because I think that's been one of the biggest misconceptions, that uh, that this process has brought up. Oh, by the way, I live in San Diego Villa. Thank you.

[01:30:46] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: In our final speaker.

[01:30:53] Yamlex: Hi, my name is Yamlex, and I've been living here for 18 years. I'm gonna be my 30 year college and I just kind of wanna give like a little background. Um, Mountain View is really expensive to live in and it's really hard to maintain to live here. Um, I have multiple jobs and I go to school full time. My mother passed away, so it's just me and my father, and it's so expensive. And I want to continue to live because there's so many great opportunities here, but it's really hard for people who really are working so hard to like stay here, because it's so, because of the rent, and that's just pretty much all I wanted to say. Thank you.

[01:31:31] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. All right, final call. If not, I will close public comment. Thank you. To everyone for your patience. Uh we will now move back to the committee. And, uh, do you have any further comments or should we just open up for discussion like, sir, committee?

[01:31:55] Tim Wong: No further comments. I will probably follow up with some clarification to get better direction, but go ahead. Questions, besides, toggles.

[01:32:05] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Are there some specific questions you'd like us to answer? We had that, um,

[01:32:11] Tim Wong: no, that's true. You can either talk about some of these additional items that, uh, staff is asking for, um, subcommittee direction on or you can start with the input, hm. Um, well, why don't we go ahead with these additional since the question's already there? And then uh the subcommittee can follow up with any other questions it may have. Great. All right, who would like to start?

[01:32:42] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Let's just roll through all of them. If we get into more detail, we can go back and go back.

[01:32:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you chair. Um, so, 1st uh, just some uh, preliminary comments. I appreciate, uh, a good, sheer groomwald is still here. Um, I, uh, thank you for your presentation and and for the, the work that the, uh, the rental housing committee did, uh, in your special meeting. Um, I, uh, I want to commend in particular, one remark you provided during that special meeting, uh, because I think it is something that we, we ought to, to keep in mind as we deliberate, and that's, this is, when we, we have, There's a political sensitivity here. We're placing a measure on the ballot. Uh, and we don't want to waste time and money, so we have to be careful of which constituencies we may be offending by, by placing certain provisions in the prospective charter amendment. Um, you know, I, I, I, the, uh, rental property owners have their preferred qualified measure. Uh, so I'm, uh, unless we, we have a, you know, a measure that's amenable to them. I'm anticipating as they have shared already, that they will be supporting that measure, and that's fine. Um, the other 2 stakeholder groups, I think, have expressed in very clear terms, the, uh, their, their poison pills. Uh, I think that was the term that you had also used, um, in, in the, uh, the, the special rental housing committee meeting. Um, so I, I, I, I do think that's, that's something I intend to keep in mind and I think we'll have to sort of be very careful about how we want to proceed with, with all of these because I, I, there, there needs to be a constituency that will support this measure. Um, and, you know, as as we take him, but it's, it's increasingly hard for me to find, you know, what, what that constituency might be. So, just some preliminary remarks rolling through all of these, uh, regarding the relationship between the rental housing committee and the city. Um, this is, I think one of those questions where we need to be very careful about the problem that we're trying to solve for the potential, um, with, with, with potential revisions to the charter. And the, the things that come to mind, I think, are the, the, the, the qualified measure uh, addresses, I think that's, that's worthy of consideration. I don't believe personally that any appointed bodies, uh, should have the ability to vote itself, you know, uh, a stipend or any form of compensation. And we had talked, uh, or I had suggested in the previous meeting that we explore, including the rental housing committee, uh, within, um, in the same article that regulates the other, the other appointed bodies. So that is, again, one idea, one way of addressing that and also clarifying any questions about a removal process. Those are the, the, the 2 things that I think are relatively easy um to address. More challenging. I think are, um, the, the staffing and budgetary considerations, the, the rental housing committee does have, uh, uh, considerable authority over the, you know, the, the budget for that program, and I know there are some concerns about the ability of the rental housing committee potentially to tap into the general fund. So I, I don't have a, uh, recommendation for addressing that right now, but I would be interested in, in, you know, clarifying or, uh, or, uh, addressing those concerns regarding staffing and budget. But I do support retaining, um, some degree of independence and I think that's best expressed through, uh, the work plan. So the council has the ability to, uh, uh, or the council approves the, the work plans for all of the other advisory bodies. I'm not sure it's necessarily appropriate for the council to have that approval uh to to require approval of the rental housing committee work plan. So I think that's a clear instance where independence is appropriate. Um, Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in having the council weigh in on a lot of, a lot of rent control issues. I've seen this in San Jose and it's, as we're experiencing now, it's, it's never fun. There's there's there's very little middle ground here. Um, so that's, those are my, uh, sort of my, my thoughts on, on where it would be beneficial to clarify the relationship between the mental housing committee and the city. Uh for the mobile home park issue. Um, this is one of those things where I think there, it'll be very difficult to, um, you know, there isn't a, uh, a great way of addressing this. The concern I have with explicitly excluding mobile home parts is that we, we lose a, a voting block for this. You know, there's, if we exclude mobile home parts, then uh, it's very hard to see the mobile home park community supporting the measure. Um, that's, you know, I, I'll leave that to them, but that's, I think the, the specific value, uh, as I understand it, of including mobile home parts within measure B, is, uh, the, the potential for the rent roll back. I don't know, I assume the rental housing committee has, has deliberated this. I don't know if they would still be, if, if we were to subject mobile home parks to CSFRA, would they still be eligible for the rent rollback? I actually don't know the answer, but if they are, that's a significant incentive to continue advocating for inclusion. And so, not explicitly, including mobile home parks, provides, I think, a deterrent for the mobile home park communities to support uh, the measure. Um, so that's, that's, you know, I, I'm interested in hearing what, what the other members of the committee have to say about that, but that's, that's the one concern I have about, uh, about not including mobile home parks. Um, the for the streamlined petition process. Um, I'm, I'm quite supportive of streamlining the petition process, uh, particularly for, um, uh, what I call unfunded mandates, so, where the council or the state of the federal government, um, requires property owners to, um, to, you know, invest their projects, have some, some kind of capital improvement. Um, I think it makes sense to have a streamlined petition process, uh, to help um, address those, the impact of those costs. Um, and I think seismic retrofading is, is probably the, the, the key instance of this in, in Mountain View. I think that was the direction the council was provided. Um, for the CSFRA flexibility. This is another one of those things where I think we need to be a little careful. Um, I, I would agree that part of the rationale for placing the CSF array and the charter is to deny the council explicitly, the opportunity to make modifications because of, of a lack of trust, I think. So, um, are there certain things that we could remove from the charter and place in an ordinance? Probably, I'm interested in having that discussion, but I do think we need to be very careful, um, and, uh, I have some ideas for, you know, what that might look like. Um, I mean, I'm just getting to them. you know, I think the monitoring and compliance issue. I don't think needs to be on the charter personally. I think that's something we may want to provide the, you know, the rental housing committee already has the authority to do this, but to the extent, it's beneficial to have an ordinance that regulates this. This may be an opportunity to explore that, uh, as I understand it, and I'll, I'll defer to the city attorney on this. We do have the ability to modify the charter and also concurrently establish an ordinance or modify the municipal code. Yes, that is correct. Okay, so that that's, thank you. So, I think that's where, you know, for those kinds of issues, the monitoring and compliance, and then the other one that was new to me is the discrimination based on source of income, if that's something the subcommittee is interested in. I think that makes sense to, to include as an ordinance concurrently with modifications to the charter, um, and, um, I think the duplex thing will probably need a charter mend because I believe duplex is explicitly defined in the CSF array. So we, um, I, I don't, I think that would require a charter amendment. Um, so I, for, for flexibility, again, I'm interested in hearing what, um, what everyone on the, the committee has to say about that, but I do think we need to be very careful about which parameters we allow the council to modify moving forward. Um, and I think those were, those are all of the things that were being asked to uh, to weigh in on. Thank you.

[01:41:22] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, thank you. Councilman Clark, can't comments.

[01:41:25] Member Chris Clark: Yeah. Um, so the high low, I feel, um, similarly in the sense that my, um, my goal here is to have the, the council is least involved in this as possible, and so the things that you'll, when we get to it, that I'll talk about where there might be a council role are typically additional protections to ensuring that the RHC, um, with some additional flexibility and the charter doesn't try and roll things back. So, I'll, I'll get to those um, in a minute, but, at a high level, um, you know, I was thinking over the last few weeks about, you know, I, I really don't think that we should be, just as one of my criticisms initially of Major V was, you know, sitting down and trying to define all these things in a charter. I don't think we should be doing that either. I don't think we should be arguing about should we redefine duplex or not in the charter? I think what we, if we're going to put something on the ballot. I think what we should do, is give the RHC the flexibility. And if there's something that's really critical that might involve, um, removing protection for certain folks, um, or changing, um, the, the units or the persons who are covered, that those would have a, a check and a balance with a council super majority. So with respect to the, the RHC council relationship. Um, I think what I'm interested here is, is less sort of changing the fundamental nature of what has been established today, and um, just clarifying some certain things and sort of bringing, bringing them into the more standard, sort of set of, of bodies that are, not even just mountain view, but a traditional city would have. So, in our charter, I believe we sort of define that, you know, there should be an environmental planning commission. They have certain authorities, they have legislative authority. Um, the council has, um, you know, some, uh, has appointment authority there, um, and budgetary authority, but they are defined in the charter. And so I don't have, I think it's perfectly fine to leave the RHC as a, um, as a defined body and the charter that the charter can say that mountain view is going to have, you know, this here in the council can't just, you know, wipe it out one year, um, because it's defined in the charter and it shall be appointed. I think what I'm interested in is just making sure that, um, the, it's in the charter, their roles and responsibilities are, um, are clarified in the sense that, um, they, they follow the same code of conduct that every other advisor everybody does. Um, they, um, they can be removed from his conduct or things that, that should just be very, very clear. And so if the code of conduct changes over time, We shouldn't have to redefine the charter in order to, um, to, um, handle that. And so, it's less sort of taking away some of their independence and more just ensuring that, we, the, the elected leaders of the city, um, have the ability to have a little bit of, um, um, oversight, um, on, on all of the bodies that, um, that have an impact on, on the voters directly, um, of residents, not just voters, but, um, residents directly. Um, I think, um, ensuring that, um, which also allows us to ensure that they're, um, fiscally self sustaining, which they are doing a great job of today. I think, I think one of the things that, um, I just want to make sure is that the council has the ability should things get out of control, um, to, to step in, and let's say, for example, if there are years in the future, where the, where the body isn't self-sustaining, uh, we get into, um, rape, um, legal issues that require city funds, um, to cover some of those costs, that we have, um, as I'll get to in a minute, a process by which the council with, with 5, votes, which is necessary for appropriations, that they can't just, um, you know, dip into seek coffers for those things without the council sort of taking a proactive role in protecting, um, are, um, you know, exercising our fiduciary role in terms of ensuring that the, the RHC, um, uh, we, I, we're not in that situation now, but in terms of where we might be 10 or 20 years from now. I just want to make sure that we have that ability. Um, and then having the council, um, um give the RHC additional um roles and responsibilities shouldn't make sense. So, for example, should we, um, decide to cover mobile homes by mobile home parks by ordinance, um, being able to, um, pass the RHC with administering that as well, um, and not necessarily the council directly as, since they would probably have the most, um, um, knowledge about that. So, that's just one example, there might be others in the future that would just make sense for them as the, um, I guess, um, the most knowledgeable on the topic or the folks who are most experienced to be able to handle those sorts of things. Um. And then, um, my other notes sort of combined, uh, mobile home park rent stabilization, as I've stated before, um, I'm, I'm open to that, whether it's through the CSFRA or an ordinance, um, I'm, I'm interested in the, the thoughts of my, my colleagues. I just want to make sure that if we do go that route outside the CSFRA that, there's some way that, um, either, um, that, um, the, the RHC can sort of administer that as well, um, and that whole apparatus can do so. And then on the streamlined petition process and the modifications to make it sustainable and workable, um, what I was thinking of, is just having the RHC have the ability to, um, to define a number of these things. So, for example, um, having the charter clearly state that the RFC can, um, can set and modify the petition processes, um, as they, as they see fit. So, if they, if there should, if, if, um, they feel there should be a streamlined process for mandatory capital improvements, and the pass throughs should be allowed at X percent for mandatory, pro- process, um, or mandatory capital improvements, then they have the ability to do that, um, if they feel that there should be, um, pass throughs allowed for, um, for upgrades necessary to preserve the useful life of the building, not necessarily luxury upgrades, but perhaps, in addition to seismic retrofits, um if the building is going to, you know, remain, um, remain safe and and be in good condition, then maybe that should be a separate percent pass through that's perhaps lower than something that we require that's mandatory. Um, and then be able to say that those combine with whatever the allowable annual increase is, whether it's CPI or CPI plus something, they don't all exceed an overall total percentage per year, right? So there's there's, um, everyone has some certainty about what all those can add up to. Um, I think the RHC should be able to define what can and can't be included in those pass throughs and in what level? Um, I think, um, I don't think those are the sorts of things that the charter should define because those things are going to change over time. Um, we may find from an environmental sustainability perspective or areas and flood zones or other things that there, um, are, there's new technology or things that we want to implement citywide to protect folks, and I think we need the ability to have the RHC, um, be able to propose those as, um, as following into, you know, some category, whether it's mandatory or, um, um, or preserving the useful life building. Um, and then I think we should just make it clear that they have the ability to maintain a registry and whether we need to, um, if we need to modify something in the charter to make that, um, possible then, um, I'm okay with that. And then I think, um, Um, and then there were a few roles that I saw for the council here, mostly to prevent adding to be checks on some of those things that I just mentioned. So, for example, if there were, um, the RHC can propose a change to the definition of units covered, so the duplex definition or something like that. But the council, they could, they would recommend, uh, that that change be made, but the council would sort of affirm that, with either a 4 or 5 vote majority, so that the RHC can't just, with a simple majority, make changes to what units are, are covered, right? That's currently spelled out in the, in the charter amendment. So there's, uh, there's sort of a, a, a, a check and balance there. The same for people covered. So things like, um, uh, means testing or anything that they might try and do around, um, uh, that might not cover everyone equally, if we're, if we're sort of removing the every unit, is, is treated equally for the sake of being able to do other things. We need to make sure that we're putting protections in place that they can't just sort of change the, um change, uh, the coverage of, of individuals equally. Um, without some sort of, um, uh, meal check imbalance. Um, I talked about use of city funds and resources beyond, um, beyond them sort of being self-sustainable, right? So if they need additional budget or authority or something like that, then, you know, we, we may very well be supportive of that, but it would just be something that we would. We would have the ability to approve. Um, so it isn't just an unchecked access to, um, to city funds and resources. Um, I think any significant changes to those pass throughs that I talked about, um, where, you know, if they were adding a whole bunch of new categories for passengers that might have a really significant impact to, to renters, then, um, we may want to have the ability to chime in on those things if we really think it will have a, uh, a very significant impact on the community. And then the last thing would just be, um, um. If there were any um, additions or removals to, um, just cause production categories. So right now there's a very specific list, and I would envision, I, I don't, I just don't see the charter is the place to define those things. And so I'm not saying it should be easy to change them. But, um, I'm just coming at this from a principal basis of there are certain things that should not be in the constitution of the city of Mountain View. And lists of what pass throughs are, are allowed or what, what, um, is a valid reason to evict someone probably isn't the right place. But I also don't think they should be super easy to change. Um, so I think those are the sites of things that should be taken out of the charter and left to the RHC with the advice and consent of counsel and maybe some sort of supermajority threshold to change, they're difficult to change. But they aren't in the city's founding document. um clarifying. Yep.

[01:52:59] Member Chris Clark: The council member Clark, just to, just to clarify, um, so would the rental housing committee and the council both need to approve a modification, or are you suggesting that the REC play a more advisory role? I'm treating it as a, the way that I, the

[01:53:16] Member Lucas Ramirez: way that I was thinking about these things is sort of the advice, advice and consent role. So they would, they would propose something sort of as the, the executive in this particular case. They would, they would say, we've identified a need to change. We shouldn't be the ones identifying things to change probably in the in this wheelhouse because we aren't the experts, but if they say, you know, look, counsel, we've got an issue with the duplex definition. Um, we want, we really think it uh, makes sense to change it to this. We, a majority of us, um, have voted to send this to you for, um, um, for affirmation, um, or to move it forward, and as long as whatever number of us agree with that, whether it's a basic majority for some things, maybe there's a supermajority for others. um, then it proceeds, and we just sort of set up a specific set of things where, um, uh, we're the, we're sort of ultimately the, the approving body on anything that might have a really significant impact. The other thing would be, the vacancy rate drops full of a certain amount, sunsetting the whole thing. I don't think it should be as easy as a simple majority vote of the RHC, if unfed it. I think that is something that should go to council too, because that has a very significant impact on us and the city and everything else, and to leave that to a body, uh, uh, something as substantial as that to a, um, a committee. I think is, um, an appointing committee is just not wise, and just,

[01:54:48] Member Chris Clark: again, to be very clear. So would the RHC need to tee up an item 1st before the council considers?

[01:54:54] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes. We can ask them to, as we have in the past, like, hey, you might want to look at seismic retro, but, but I think ultimately it should be their responsibility to, to, uh, propose something. And there should just be a certain set of things, where it, whether it's the units covers, the people covered, use of city funds, significant pa- um, passenger changes. I'm not sure about. We have to think about, but sunsetting the whole thing. There should just be a, a, a subset of things where it comes to us, um, before it actually gets rolled out. Thank

[01:55:28] Unknown Speaker: you. um so I guess it's my turn and I'm gonna try to synthesize what you both said and as I make my comments. So, starting with the relationship, um, to me, this was actually quite simple, it was, and I actually, I like, um, Councilman Ramirez's suggestion, I, I, I believe it's policy A 13 where we, um, prescribe our commissions and advisory boards, and I, um, you know, the main issue that came up with this was, um, we have an appointment process, but we don't have a removal process, so, um, it was really about that, and, um, I agree too, but we do require a code of conduct, and, and so forth And so I would um, I would want to require the same of the RHC. Um, so uh, that would be the similarities. Um. I think the difference and I do agree with the work plan. um, I, I don't think we, as the council needs to approve a work plan for them. So, uh, how do you, right now, just go, do you? Are you okay with that or?

[01:56:38] Member Lucas Ramirez: I think that's fine. The only thing that makes sense to me. The only thing that the other thing that's unique about them is they have the ability to impose fees that no other committee does, right? And so, um, the idea with them being self-sustaining, which I think they've done a good job of so far. But I just want to make sure that there's, and maybe this gets into other questions at some point, but I just want to make sure that we have a way to augment their budget if we need to, but they don't just have direct access to city coffers for, um, to appeal, um, litigation or, or do something like that. Like we have some role in protecting, um, the taxpayers, um, role in this too.

[01:57:19] Unknown Speaker: Okay great. Um, and I I agree. I, actually, I'm probably more, more stringent on the financial peace and that I, you know, just as we are expected to balance our budgets. I would expect the same, so, um, I, I, I think I can be okay with them, uh, if they need to augment and come, request the council and the council can consider, but, I frankly think that they should have a balanced budget just like the city council does, so, um. That's where we go with that. Um, so, this is really, I, I really, um, I'm fascinated or, um, intrigued by council member Clark's comments about the, the economy and the, um, I guess I'm, I'm sort of looking at it as, um, I mean, we're, we're dealing with this with your other body A bag and MTC where we have 2 agencies and China, the states trying to decide who gets to introduce, um, housing funding measures. And so, um, I, I, I kind of, I relate it to that in a sense that, the RHC should have the ability to bring up, uh, or initiate, um, a, a change or policy change. Um but as the policy making body, the city council would need to approve of that change. So, I think overall, that would be a, a good process. Um. So, yeah, I'll have to think more about how to do that. um but that would be my set, my, my interest. um so or what actually I guess would be like what would fall under that. Um, I agree. I I don't really want the council to get heavily involved in the RHC's uh work. Um, that's really up to the RHC, so, um, you know, in terms of just process and so forth, that's up to the RHC, but, and this is really why we're, I believe we're doing what we're doing, is that there are certain issues that are prescribed in the current charter amendment, that we are now looking for some flexibility on. And um, so that's why, you know, it's come to us and we're looking at what those changes should be. Um, we have to do it. So, it's not circumventing measures. It's just that we have to do it this way whenever we want to make a change. And that's some of that's part of the conversation we're having here is how can we streamline it when we see that there's some challenges to the administration of the charter amendment. So, um. So, yeah, so I don't have interest in our, the council getting involved in our, RHV matters and I'm happy to leave them as autonomous as possible. Um, but if it comes to policy change, then it should come to the city council. Um, going on to, uh, more Torium? Oh, I'm sorry, I was thinking of moratorium as a, a somewhat a comment that was made as an issue, but mobile home parks, so, um, I, I really believe that mobile home parks, um, have some distinct differences to, your, to, your traditional rental units, um, someone mentioning, and you have the, you know, ownership of the unit, plus the rental of the space, and that, that creates a different scenario. Um so I, I don't think CSFRA is, really the right um, mechanism to address the, the issues. um, and I, I still need to also understand what state law allows and also covers on local home parks because there is state law that already has quite a bit of um, authority and, and so I, I, I just need, think we should be looking at that more carefully separately of CSFRA, so, um, I would like to keep it separate, um, and deal with it as a goal, counselable by ordinance. Um, regarding the streamlining, and oh, I guess my question with that, though, was that, if I remember correctly, the issue here is that we have to clarify that, and state, whether CSFR does or does not cover mobile home parks, is that correct, city attorney? Yes,

[02:02:04] Unknown Speaker: is your, is your question uh in, in the charter amendment or?

[02:02:08] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, because my understanding of the, you know, the, the issues that has arisen and then the potential legal matters had to do with just. the clarity of whether it's covered or not. Right now, it's

[02:02:22] Unknown Speaker: not, not clear in the litigation ensued, so if, if there is a desire for clarity, that would be a, a good place to put it in the, in the charter amendment, you can also do a standalone ordinance, but some level of clarity would be desirable. Yeah.

[02:02:39] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Desirable in the CSFRA or? Uh,

[02:02:42] Unknown Speaker: I mean, that would be the clearest place to put it, yes. Okay. Um, I

[02:02:51] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: can, can I ask the, my 2 colleagues how you feel about that? Item.

[02:02:59] Member Lucas Ramirez: Um, so, I think the the technical challenge right now is that the rental housing committee has the discretion to subject mobile home parts to CSF array. And so you can sort of bounce around, depending on the composition of the rental housing committee. Um you know, one way or the other. Um. in the, I, I, I don't disagree with you, that, it, it, it, isn't totally a natural fit, because the, the CSFA doesn't explicitly address a number of the concerns about mobile home parks that we've heard. Um, but this, I kind of view this as more of a political decision, if we include it, that, you know, that, that's a compelling reason for a, a, a voting block, a meaningful constituency to support the measure. And if we exclude it, then, um, then I don't think it'll jeopardize the measure per se, but it makes it that much more challenging to, um, to, uh, to pass. Uh, I, I personally don't have a problem with, including mobile home parks in the CSFRA, of, uh, I, I, I think we can, we can make it work, and particularly if we include some of the provisions that comes to member Clark's, including, where we allow some flexibility, we may be able to modify, you know, sort of, sort of on the, the back end to, to make it work better than it might, with just, you know, including it, sort of shoehorning it into the current language. Uh, that's

[02:04:32] Member Chris Clark: what I would suggest. I would say, in the charter itself, making it very explicit that the, um, The BRHD through its ability to modify, you know, the, the types of units covered, like the duplex definition, make it explicit that, that includes the ability to add mobile homes, um, and um, that gives us the flexibility to say, let's do it through the CSFRA. There is clear authority to do it, or if we feel it's better to do it through ordinance, we have that ability to, but the question about whether or not the RHC has the ability, you know, we've argued that they do have the ability, um, but it's not written there. And so what I'm suggesting is just make it explicit in the charter that, in addition to their authority to, um, um, change the units covered with our, uh, with our consent, that that includes the addition of mobile home park, uh, mobile home parks. The only concern I would have is, in,

[02:05:34] Member Lucas Ramirez: in being flexible with definitions, is you could, you know, sometimes duplexes could be covered, sometimes they're not, sometimes mobile home, home parks could be covered, sometimes they're not, and I, I do appreciate some level of consistency with an area of the base language. I

[02:05:50] Member Chris Clark: do too. And that, that's part of why I want those things to come to us. Um, so that it's more difficult. Once they're established, it's difficult to change them. But it also isn't the definition of duplex isn't written in the city charter or the definition of mobile homework isn't written in the city charter. um those sorts of things. So, if you, if you wanted to say, I don't know what the best way to do it is, whether to say that they're explicitly covered by the CSFRA and the authority of the RHC, um, to do that, then that's fine with me, because that provides some clarity, but it also doesn't disallow us, as long as it doesn't disallow us from covering them through other means. That's one of the other sort of, iffy areas that we've gotten into as, well, especially with relocation and other assistance, right? Well, if the, the charter now says that the RHC sort of has the authority to do that, does that mean the council doesn't have the authority to touch any of that, right? Sure. So we, I just want to make sure that we, We aren't tying our hands there either, that we have the ability to cover Omaha Parks in whatever way we feel is best, whether it's through the CSFRA or, or through uh, through an ordinance.

[02:07:02] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: So, would you actually want to add language in the charter amendment to state that or not? I

[02:07:11] Member Chris Clark: would say the, I would, I would make it very clear that the, the Mohumbars are covered by the CSFRA to the ex, just, just as, uh, but with this new, um, definition that the, um, With this clarified role that the RHC, um, has the ability to cover them or not through, through those definitions. Uh unless you, I'm trying to avoid a scenario where the coverage of mobile home parks is the CSFRA and there is no other option. That's what I don't want. I don't want to preclude us from covering them by ordinance. Okay. So

[02:07:51] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: then, actually, I mean, I guess I'm looking at it as not being so clear or not, clearly ha- stating, mobile home parks are covered by CSI, sorry, if you want the options. I'm

[02:08:04] Member Chris Clark: not saying they shall be covered. I'm saying the RHC has the ability to cover them. It makes it explicit that they have that role, which you could argue they don't right now. We, we, we, we would certainly argue that they do. But, um, I don't think it's quite as crystal clear as we would prefer it to be. Yeah, I believe they do,

[02:08:27] Unknown Speaker: and I want to make sure I give clear guidance to the subcommittee here. If there is, of course, a desire to address this issue in a standalone ordinance. That's a, that's a clear uh preference of the, subcommittee and perhaps the council, that is certainly an option. I just want to be clear, but you could, uh, have them covered in the, CSFRA as well, but I know there has been some desire to, pursue a, a standalone ordinance and, and address this topic separately, that I didn't mean to preclude that option at all. That is certainly, but there should be some consensus as to whether that direction is, is preferred by the subcommittee and and ultimately the council.

[02:09:14] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: So, yes, so that's how I read it too, is that they do have the authority, the, the, um, the decision by the, um, well, the, with through the lawsuit was that, the RC had the authority, and the way they interpreted it, it is up to them, and they interpreted it as such. So our question tonight is, do we want to include in the CSFRA, um that clearly that mobile home parks are covered, or not, and I, you know, my, my preference is just that I, I just don't, want to have to do this every time we make a change, and so the more we have, um, ability to do by ordinance. Um, I just find it, it's a much more efficient and streamlined process and, you know, I understand folks may not, um, trust the council and whatnot, but I go back to the fact that we are voted in by the voters. And so, if, you know, they don't like what we're doing, they can vote us out, and that is the, you know, most accountability and transparency that we have, and so, um, you know, by ordinance, um, it, I think is, is fine, and I believe, I really believe that my little home parks have some unique aspects to them, apart from a traditional rental, you know, development. And so, I would really like to look at mobile home parks, you know, very, and, and there's also, I'm gonna be frank, a time issue. I don't know if we can stop and get all of that back to us before we want this to go on the ballot so um I understand your political concerns. Um, you know, I probably would say the opposite. It's not that we're not doing anything from mobile home parks, we're actually gonna look at it to me comprehensively and so, I, I don't think it would, should necessarily, I don't know, folks, go vote for whatever, but, you know, it should necessarily, um, really impact, have their decision on this ballot measure, should it go on? So, the, so yeah. So I guess uh going back to the 2 because 3 of us I need to get, at least 2 of us on one way or the other, um how do you feel about this? My

[02:11:34] Member Chris Clark: preference is to, as I say, before is to do it by ordinance. Okay. So if you, that, that means one or 2 things, either sort of leave that language as it is now, because it's been established through a legal process, so they have the authority to include them. The other thing that you could say is, they're covered, um, they're covered by the CSFRA unless covered by, um, um, a council ordinance, but that muddies the water of it. I I'm fine either way. My preference is to, is to do it by ordinance so that it can be done. Yep, probably sooner. Um, and um, with a little bit more specificity for that particular case use case, as opposed to lumping them in with every other group. Um, maybe the same protection, but we have the ability to sort of address anything that state law causes to be an issue for us to need to address specifically. Okay So,

[02:12:30] Member Lucas Ramirez: I, I guess maybe another way of stating this is, it's, it sounds like we have, um, I, I don't want to speak on your behalf, but I, I, I, I'm kind of taking this as we're interested in providing protections concurrently with this process, um, because I think if we, if we wait until after the measure passes or fails to do something, then, it's not a very meaningful process for mobile home residents. So if we provide some level of assurance by having a concurrent process, or using this as a vehicle to implement protections, then at least the residents of the mobile home parks know that they're going to get something sooner rather than later. I think that's right. Okay.

[02:13:11] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Is that clear? Yes,

[02:13:15] Tim Wong: I think, uh, for, for the mobile, uh, mobile home ordinance issue. Uh, I think it's in an ordinance, that's declared direction, so, uh, as CSF or a subcommittee staff. We won't pursue that as part of an amendment. Or, uh, we

[02:13:34] Member Lucas Ramirez: could we could introduce an ordinance in sort of the conventional way or use this as a vehicle to introduce an ordinance through through ballot measures. So, I guess that's the question, you know, that we we got to ask. Are we basically directing staff to not use this as the vehicle? Or are we saying, okay. Or are we saying we want to have staff concurrently work on an ordinance that would be included in the ballot measure? So either way, you know, you know, people know that there's, there's going to be some level of protection provided. So, um, yes,

[02:14:09] Member Chris Clark: I think my recommendation, if it were just me making a recommendation to counsel, it would be to go the ordinance route, and to try and draft that such that it is passed around roughly the same time that this is taken to the voters, or at least in some final-ish form, where the voters have, as they're looking at this, and they see that maybe mobile homes aren't specifically called out. They know that we're committed to moving that forward through a separate process. I

[02:14:38] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: agree. Um, you know, I'm gonna use minimum wage as an example of how, you know, San Jose did it through a ballot measure. It took a lot more effort and resources, and here, we get into ordinance, and so there's a lot of benefit to getting things done more quickly through ordinance, and so that's my preference. So, I think that's clear, at least, you know, some majority of the committee, um, to keep it separate. All right, so moving on to streamlined petition process. I agree with a lot of the comments already made, um, uh, you know, this came up, uh, is a lot of you know, because we were talking about soft story buildings, and this need for seismic retrofits on those buildings, um, many of them, I think is 50 per- at least 50, no, there's quite a few that need to be um, retrofitted for safety reasons, and the challenge here was that without a guarantee of reimbursement for the costs, Um it would be difficult for the city to. make it mandatory. And, um, so, to do so, um, you know, and I, my interest was to figure out how the, process could be streamlined, um, in light of the comments that we've received over time. Um, I do understand that the process has probably gotten better or more streamlined of, you know, folks of, large sea and the, the staff has gotten used to this, but, um, I just want to be able to, you know, guarantee, the land, or the, the property owners, that they could be reimbursed for those costs, because, especially if we're going to mandate it, then they should be able to get those costs covered, so, um. I like your, uh, suggestion comes from the clerk about, um, you know, allowing the RHC to determine the process, and from what I, my understanding and clarification of my question earlier, there is only one process right now, and so I would like to expand that or give the RHC the, um. The ability to expand that to make it more streamline. Um, I was actually leaning towards, at least calling out certain, um, capital improvements, one being the seismic retrofits, uh, to energy efficiencies, like, you know, double pane windows, so forth, um, and 3 this is what I see moving forward is gonna become an issue. It already, we're already talking about it, but environmental sustainability, um, improvements, and I appreciate, uh, Mr. Wong also brought it up, but, you know, I'm on the air quality management district, and we're trying to make, push out, um, easy electric vehicle charging stations, and, um, it's fine. You know, we can require new apartments to have that, but the big challenge is gonna be retrofitting the older apartment complexes and it gets quite costly. So, you know we want that to happen. We want to go all electric eventually for the, you know, environment, um, so, how do we incentivize, how do we make it easier for apartment owners to do those types of, um, improvements, same with, um, the, you know, the water heater, the hot, the pump, hot, hot water pump, water heaters. I don't get that. I never even say right but um these are coming and you know we want uh more and more folks to uh make those improvements so I want to make it as easy as possible for them to do that and and be able to get reimbursed. So, I know though, and I know this is a concern is I can become, right? uh, you know, unlimited, and so, my, and I don't have numbers today, and I hope maybe staff can look at, and see what, what other best practices are around this, but perhaps we allow for some kind of amortization, um, timeline, you know, caps on how much, I think you mentioned caps earlier, um, council member Clark, um, about what the, uh, the increase could be. So having some parameters, but allowing for these specific, um, capital improvements to be done in a much more streamlined fashion. Any comments on that?

[02:19:16] Member Lucas Ramirez: It was just, just as an example, um, in the staff report, it called out, you know, do we have any comments on, um, amortization periods, um, you know, pastor expirations, those sorts of things, like those are the sorts of things that I would, hope the RHC would, would come up with and, um, as opposed to either of them being in the charter or something that we get too terribly involved in. So I just want the amendment to this to ensure that they have the authority to set these things up and then to ensure that if we want to set up a structure or they want to set up a structure that I hope that they would, where there's uh, there's a total allowable, um, sort of with the annual increase plus any pass through, there's sort of a, there's a cap, um, so no one would pass throughs plus, um, annual increase, wouldn't experience more than X percent. Um, But there would also be different levels of passers, right? So any any mandatory capital improvement. Um, like a seismic retrofit, that would have a percentage passed through, that's probably higher than the percent passed through for things like sustainability measures. um, or preserve, you know, extending the useful lights of building, um, dual pane windows. So it's not that those things shouldn't be passed through, but they're probably shouldn't be passed through perhaps at the same rate as, uh, as seismic or something that we are, um, imposing on, or mandating. And maybe some sustainability improvements will be mandated at some point and they fall into the other category. But I don't want to preclude them from doing those in advance now. And then the, and my guess is that the, some folks have talked about the, the, the annual fee and the sharing of a percent. My, my assumption would be that that would fall into like the percent of pass through for, um, you know, preserving the useful, whatever that ends up being. Um, I'm guessing, in my head, 50% would be the pass through for, um, you know, extending the useful life of the building, um, fees, those sorts of things, and a higher percent pass through, um, might be allowed for, um, something mandatory as long as it's extended over, it's amortized over a long period of time, and it expires at, at, at some point, there's some maximum period. Um. So

[02:21:35] Unknown Speaker: would you want to prescribe at least the amortization and the cap?

[02:21:40] Member Lucas Ramirez: I would, I could, I, I would say that, um, So, that was one of the things on my list of things that should be prescribed at the outset, but shouldn't be changed with, it's one of the things that should go to, those percentages should be something that come to us for sort of a, yes, because it, it, it has a very significant impact, um, if you change a, a 50% pass through to 100% pass through, or you, um, Or, um, we didn't get into this before, but I also think, um, um, deviations from the annual allowed increase that are, whatever, we agree it should be, um, um, or maybe what that total allowable cap is, like those are the sorts of things that I think, um. Any, anything really significant, and I get that it'll be difficult to establish that at the outset, and I'll probably look for the RHC to propose or what those things should be, if this passes. But, um, I don't think those are the sorts of things that, um, I think the process, the, how the, how all those things, um, are processed by the RHC should be totally, um, up to them, you know, what are the amortization periods, those sorts of things, but in terms of like the actual, um, um, percentage of things, uh, percentage for the pastor should probably be something that, um, I would book to. Yeah, yeah. It would be something to say, here's what we think the right framework is for this, or this isn't working. Um, you know, there's all sorts of new mandatory sustainability measures. Do we want to put these in this bucket or not? So

[02:23:20] Unknown Speaker: we would, we just need to, include in the CSFRA, language that states that the RHC has the ability to create, um, petitioning processes for these various categories of capital improvements. Does that make sense?

[02:23:38] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and then did you want to have the language that, that bumps the, the decisions on the percentage increase delegated or council's authority for that? Yes,

[02:23:47] Unknown Speaker: so any of those policy changes and it would have to come to counsel for an approval. Does that work for you? Um,

[02:23:56] Member Chris Clark: so I'm, I'm comfortable with seismic retrofitting and, and mandates coming from, from whatever level of government. I do think we need to be fairly prescriptive about other um discretionary or, I guess, non-mandatory kinds of capital improvements. Um, the more ambiguity there is. I think, um, the less palatable, the measure may be to voters, and because there's a sense that we want to know what could be subject. And if we leave it too much to, um, so I agree with council number Clark, that, you know, certain things could be left to regulations, like, uh, percentage of pastors and amortizations don't make those need to be spelled out in the charter. Um, but I, I do think what is eligible, um, should be fixed because the more ambiguity, the more mission creep that there may be and the easier it is to, to bite

[02:24:46] Member Lucas Ramirez: the measure. Are you saying they should be fixed in the charter because it's, it's one thing if, I'm okay with the ballot language going to voters being like, and here are some set examples of things, but it's not an exhaustive list, because I don't want to have to voters 10 years from now because like some new technologies out there that makes this, um, just makes, um, retrofitting certain homes, um, or, or, or certain dwellings, you know, much, much more efficient, and it's in our interest as a city to meet our GHG goals or um, uh, emission goals or whatever to, um, put those in the, in the 2nd category, and I don't think we should have to go to voters to do that. So, I'm comfortable with, like, putting up, uh, a list of examples in the ballot language that, like, here's what we plan to start with, but, um, and then saying, like, you know, there may be others, but they can't just be changed on a whim. They have to go through the RC and the council, right? So I think I know people won't understand that, maybe not see those nuances, but I still don't want to just lock it into the charter. It's just not the right place to lock these things in it. Is

[02:25:55] Unknown Speaker: it something similar with the business license tax? Yeah,

[02:26:00] Unknown Speaker: I think there can be language drafted with some breaths to encompass, you know, it doesn't have to be razor specific. I think you can have that flexibility that Council member Clark is is looking for to avoid having to go back. I think there can be language drafted to capture that. Right.

[02:26:19] Member Chris Clark: So like, um, language regarding sustainability, you know, with, I mean, maybe a little bit more fleshed out than that. And then maybe also, um, public

[02:26:29] Unknown Speaker: safety, health, health safety and sustainability measures.

[02:26:35] Member Chris Clark: Maybe coupled with some language explicitly excluding certain kinds of capital improvements from this process. You know, so we often hear about the granite countertop and that kind of thing is a justification to raise rents. And I think maybe explicit, continuing to explicitly prohibit those kinds of improvements, um, or, uh, make them non-eligible for a streamlined petition process could be helpful. Yeah, such a... Anything,

[02:27:04] Member Lucas Ramirez: you know, cosmetic things, things that don't preserve the useful life in the building, right? But,

[02:27:10] Unknown Speaker: you know, I will say, you know, if they want to put a new coat of paint on, I, I think that it can be argued as presenting the useful life, so, you know, I, I don't know if we can capture everything, but we can give it a shot, right? So, um, yeah, staff to bring it back. Yes, and I actually can have a lot of say in that so um. Let's see so the other streamlining measures, um, I think that was it, uh, for me. We had a comment about, um, covering duplexes and I, I guess that when I read the CSFI, I clearly stated, not, not, I know there was this, uh, example of multiple duplexes on, of property. Um, so, I think times have changed, and um, you know, there's state legislation now, also moving through, and AB 1482 is probably going to pass, and those, that is, uh, they're describing it as a rent control measure. Um, so I'm inclined to not, um, add, definitions, um, and just let those become covered under A B 1482. Any comments there? You know, you were saying you would give the RHC the ability to decide? Is that? Well,

[02:28:39] Member Lucas Ramirez: I think there should be a baseline that's set, right, with all these other things, like there should be a baseline of, like, these are the definitions of these things. And if they need to be tweaked or something, those are like the, the really critical things that I think should have a 2nd set of eyes, as opposed to just being done. But that's just my opinion. I'm not, um. So,

[02:29:02] Unknown Speaker: are you want, do you want to add language or the way, if we do this clause about any changes that are, the RHC initiates needs to come to the council, is that sufficient?

[02:29:17] Member Lucas Ramirez: Well, not any, but I, there's, there's just a category of things that, that, like it's, if you're changing the units covered, so that would be definitions of units covered. Um, the really fundamental things that today are in the charters, like the, the units covered, definitions of those things, persons covered. So if you're manipulating that based on like means testing or other things. Oh, yes. Um, or, or saying that, um, I, I just, if they try and tweak those definitions, I think that, that should be something that have a 2nd set of eyes. I think the use of city funds or resources outside of what they can um, you know, cover themselves today. Um, significant, um, changes to the, the pass-throughs, like we just talked about. So, uh, my, my assumption, let's assume this passes, which is the big assumption, but, let's assume this passes, and, um, we, and, and we, at that point, we have to morph from a world where everything is currently set into a charter to this new structure where it's defined by the RHC. My guess is that they'll propose just like they did after, um, Major V Pass. They'll propose sort of a set of structures for things like passers and all these other things that they now have the ability to, um, to, uh, work through, um, not starting from scratch, but just tweak some of the things today that we feel need, um, need to be, um, better settled. A lot of those things like the pass throughs and all those other structures that are meet these definitions would come to us, just for sort of ascent. And then once they're all set, then changes to those would go through that same process. And then the last thing that I, um, um, the sunset or removal of protections. Um, so changes to the definitions of just cause, the sunsetting of, of measure V, um, or whatever, it's, um, whatever part, you know, version 2 of it is. Um, um, those things would need to come to us. Those are the categories that I thought through over the last couple weeks that I thought or things that I think that we should be involved in and everything else should just sort of be left to the RHC. So

[02:31:32] Unknown Speaker: you don't need to, you don't, we don't need to prescribe duplexes or not at this point. I

[02:31:39] Member Lucas Ramirez: don't think in the charter. I think it's long as the charter says that, um, The the RC has the ability to define who isn't isn't covered. Um, and but that, but that's one of the things that has to come to us, right? So that it's very clear. And if you want, if there, if staff feels it's good to have a baseline in the, um, charter that says, just like it is to say that these, um, this is covered and this is excluded in terms of single family homes and duplexes, but the, but the RHC has the ability to propose tweaks to the definitions of duplex or, um, make administrative changes that may be unique to the city or. Yeah, or, you know, the, the, the status of multiple

[02:32:27] Unknown Speaker: duplex. Yeah, well, we don't have to get that specific. But yeah, I think there's flexibility for that type of. If it's

[02:32:32] Member Lucas Ramirez: going to create all sorts of, of panic if we just remove those definitions from the charter, then I don't want to do that. But I, I, but I do want to find some way for the RC to be able to deal with situations like they've identified here where you have, um, multiple things on, on, on single sites. So,

[02:32:48] Unknown Speaker: I have a question on that in your staff report. You talk about, um, ADUs and, um, I'm trying to find, let's see, it was, it had, it said something about, when, uh, a single family dwelling owner adds an ADU, the ADU isn't covered, but the single family unit is now covered. Could you explain that? That didn't make sense to me.

[02:33:13] Tim Wong: Yeah, that's, uh, on Keating better explain it, but yeah, it's, it's a. And that was interesting. Yeah,

[02:33:20] Keating: when this season very took effect and we were trying to answer a lot of questions because, of course, people wanted to know whether they're complexes and properties were covered under CSFRA. We discovered and had a whole legal evaluation of that definition, uh, the definition of single family home, is that the single family home is excluded when it is, is, the single structure on a separate legal parcel of land. A single family is, okay.

[02:33:51] Unknown Speaker: So as soon as you buy another,

[02:33:53] Keating: put another structure on there, it's not a single structure on that legal parcel of land anymore. So then, why is the ATU not covered by... The next sentence and the exclusion says that ADUs are exempt. Okay.

[02:34:11] Tim Wong: And just to take the nuance, if they're attached, they're okay, but if the ADU is detached, that's when the CSFRA covers the single family home, but exempts the ADU, because if they're attached, they would be considered a duplex at it, and so. So

[02:34:30] Unknown Speaker: I'm gonna, I, I, this is my recommendation is that we leave this up to the state to figure out because one, right now they're trying to encourage and incentivize ADUs, um, but I think they're gonna have to figure this piece out too, um, because I think that's gonna be a real issue if uh single family homes are gonna be, you know, kind covered under a separate. Well

[02:34:53] Tim Wong: in addition. I believe it, you know, it's a council goal to spur for, uh, housing production also. So, you can take advantage of this time to amend, to clarify that, so that, it doesn't arrest ADU development, if you will. Can

[02:35:12] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: we do that over state legislation? I

[02:35:17] Eddie Keating: think currently it's, it, the definition, if it could be tweaked, then it's clear for the people in Mountain View that a single family home, even if it comes with an ADU, they're both exempt. Okay. That

[02:35:30] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: would be nice to clarify that. Okay. That's how that's, I would. I would definitely clarify that

[02:35:37] Member Lucas Ramirez: Well, isn't isn't it sort of a moot point for as long as Costa Hawkins pre-amps our ability to impose rent control on single family homes? Well,

[02:35:47] Eddie Keating: we're trying to keep them excluded. So, because our definition is tweaked around. The single family homes are now not excluded if another structure is on the parcel, and I think of the Hawkins didn't mean for those to be covered under rent consultant.

[02:36:08] Member Lucas Ramirez: What is the definition of single family home that you're alluding to? Is the definition in Costa Hawkins and not CSF? It's in the CSI. What is the definition of single-family home under Costa Hawkins? Okay. Because I feel like I, I, I think it's worth clarifying, um, but it, it feels like a moot point for as long as Costa Hawkins, I think, pretty clearly explicitly excludes single family homes. So it's, it's a nice to have, in the event, Costa Hawkins is repealed or, or changed, but for now, single family homes under state law. I think are pretty clearly uh exempt. Yes. Okay. Just a comment.

[02:36:50] Member Chris Clark: No, I would, I would just say, I would, I would just clarify that in the, in the charter amendment, but also make it clear that the, the RC going forward can, um, can tweak the definitions of those things, right, in events like, like this. So not necessarily like if AUs are exempt in the charter. They can't just, you know, cover ADUs, but at the same time, is there, you know, citing issues or other things that, that come up that we have the ability to, to tweak those without going through a charter amendment? Yeah, there can be flexibility for that. Okay, okay. Um. So

[02:37:31] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I think those are the questions, is there one more? Oh, flexibility. So, I think we covered that, um, I, I, I support the idea of getting the RHC, that, um, flexibility to, to make certain, or recommend certain changes as long as they come to council for, uh, and I, I, I would support the categories that you brought up. Tell us number click.

[02:37:55] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, so I think I have a minority view on this. I think it's, it's important to have some baseline definitions in the charter that we could not modify, um, because I think it, it's, introducing ambiguity, I think, complicates the electoral vi- viability of the measure, and if potentially, you know, certain categories of buildings would no longer be exempt. Um, if potentially, we can introduce means testing. I, I think it would be hard. I don't see the community supporting that personally and I'm uncomfortable with the ambiguity. Uh, we may, the rental housing committee and the council, I, I mean, the ideas intriguing. Council member Clark's suggestion to have both bodies sort of review and affirm a given policy change. Um, but I think for certain things, there are just some baseline expectations in a rent control program. Um, and I think allowing for changes in the future, what is, is, is one of those poison pills that we were alluding to earlier. So would

[02:38:52] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you be able to state what you would, you would want to not touch. Sure.

[02:38:57] Member Lucas Ramirez: So I, I think the definitions for, for building types covered or explicitly exempt. I think are important. Um, I, who's covered? I think is also a very sensitive issue. You know, the, the means testing, um, uh, policy idea is interesting, but I think that's several folks have, have alluded to the concern about discrimination based on, I mean, Kevin. I'm personally concerned about that. Um, I, I, I do think it's, it's a good idea for, for certain kinds of things where you, you, you know, we may not be able to have a precise definition right now. So, the, the capital improvement bucket of, uh, sustainability oriented kinds of, of modifications to a building. I think is, that, that's, that may be evolving. Um, there are certain things you could probably include in the charter, just to make it clear, this is the intent, and then allowing the rental housing committee in the council. Yeah, I think I would support something like that. But sort of the, um, and, you know, I, I, I wish I could sort of spell it out. Right now, what sort of the no-goes are. But I think, I think, in my opinion, uh, buildings covered or not covered, um, who's covered. I think are very, you know, foundational aspects of the program that I think the community would be uncomfortable with modifications too. I do, I, I actually really like the, the suggestion that uh, the vacancy rate provision should have council affirmation because that is a significant uh, impact. The other thing that I'm not certain about is, could we, could the charter define something? Could there be a provision in the charter that allows that, that says this is covered and also allows the council or the rental housing committee to make modifications? Because in, in my, in my understanding of the charter. There is no mechanism by which the council or the rental housing committee or both bodies would be able to modify language in the charter. The charter would always supersede any decision that we make.

[02:40:59] Unknown Speaker: If you're interested in, in having areas to change, it, it would, it would be best to have a provision that says, uh, you know, decisions of this nature may be decided by the council, whether that's in another process, but, you know, the, um, I want to make sure I understand your question correctly, because

[02:41:19] Member Lucas Ramirez: you just, so, I just, as an example, um, the charter says duplexes are exempt from the program. We couldn't say duplexes are exempt in the charter. And the rental housing committee and the council have the ability to define duplex. I guess. No, it would be best to have that in the charter, yes. Okay, so I, the regulatory framework that, uh, Council member Clark has described. I think, you know, we need to be very, we would have to remove those parameters from the charter, repeal that language from the charter. introduce it in an ordinance that includes the mechanism for modification. Yeah, and you would have a, ideally,

[02:42:05] Unknown Speaker: a reference in the charter, saying these components of this rent control scheme are, you would spell out the, the types of things that would be, the ones that you mentioned would be brought before council for, for, uh, approval. So, you, you could spell it out and then have, uh, kick it over into um, outside of the charter process, but you could be, you,

[02:42:30] Member Chris Clark: you should be very, we should be very clear about those. Lucas, just so I can share what my original thought process. So, 1st of all, I wasn't trying to introduce a means by which the RC could do means testing, that wasn't the goal at all. Um, but, but you, but you bring up a, a good point. So the way that I, when I was thinking through the sunset and removal of protections, basically repealing, um, with, uh, which the RIC can do today, uh, below a certain vacancy rate. What I, what I was contemplating was in the charter, uh, or in the charter itself, saying, you know, setting forth initial definitions and things like you had suggested. And I think that's a good point and the council majority may agree with you. I'm, I'm just thinking through how, how they might, um, be changed if necessary. But what I had thought about was, you know, the, um, the, the sun setting, um, or removal of, of, of protections under the, um, or, or any other, um, modification, um, um, or any other changes under, under it, um, not sort of, um, left to the RHC. Um, basically, the, the city council can, with a 6 vote majority after the RHC does something, can, um, can either sunset this or make other modifications, so that would include, basically, any other modification to the, to the, um, to the charter amendment, right? Including its, its sunset or repeal or something like that, as long as certain things are, are met. So, it gives you, uh, it gives you the ability, for example, to, sort of do what you just talked about, like setting out initial definitions and things like that, but under extraordinary circumstances. um, either change or,

[02:44:31] Member Lucas Ramirez: or sunset um, For my benefit, it would be helpful to better understand what you think are the inflexible aspects of the charter. So what, what, what would remain fixed in the charter and then where would the rental housing committee and the council have this new authority if the charter amendment is approved to make substantial money? So you had?

[02:44:54] Member Chris Clark: So I have, I have my list of, of 5 vote things, and my 6 vote thing was the sunset of, of, of the ordinance, and I would argue, I mean, others may not agree with me, but I would, I would argue that that 6 vote majority, just as we can do an urgency ordinance, should be able to make any change or repeal, um, repeal it, um, if necessary, the law in its entirety. Yeah. Just as we do an urgency ordinance. That's what I would say. But I realize I'm in the minority life. So I, I, I think this is, this is maybe

[02:45:24] Member Lucas Ramirez: a technical hangup I have, if it's in the charter, even with 6 votes or 7 votes, we couldn't repeal it. Right. I was talking about the vacancy. Well, we can if the charter says we can. Can

[02:45:36] Member Chris Clark: you, if the charter says that we can, we can just visit, says today, the RHC can sense that this whole thing, um, in certain circumstances, if the charter says that the council can suspend this or make modifications to it with a 6 foot majority, then that's what we can do.

[02:45:54] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Are you talking about the, is it 5% now of a vacancy rate? Right, right. I'm

[02:46:01] Member Chris Clark: not composing we do this. I'm I'm just giving you an example of a mechanism by which you can do what you were talking about, which is start out with having cleared definitions, and then also having in the charter a clear way to modify them if you need to. So here is the standard that's set at the outset, and here is the high threshold by which you can change it without having to go to the voters. That's the same concept.

[02:46:29] Member Lucas Ramirez: So I guess I'll, I'll, and this is maybe an unfair question to spring on the city attorney, but, you know, being very explicit about this, Canada charter include language that allows the council to modify the charter. If

[02:46:44] Unknown Speaker: it's explicit, yes, I believe so. I mean, it, it, it would, it's, I would say, unusual, but you could have, uh, you know, if you're very specific, and, and spell out those circumstances, and, you know, the voters are going to vote on that charter measure with that provision in it, and, and if it's explicit and allows that, that authority, then, yes, I believe you can do that. I'm

[02:47:11] Member Lucas Ramirez: personally not comfortable with that idea. I think that... You need to decide. I

[02:47:18] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: can have you come back with some...

[02:47:20] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we can, I would like to look at that a little more carefully because the charter is, um, you know, it's intended as a voter, um, initiative to have, um, you know, very clear provisions in it, but I would like to maybe verify that, uh, and and we can come back to you at the next meeting with, with options. Great. Okay. Um, let's

[02:47:47] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: see. Any other items that we haven't covered? So there's,

[02:47:51] Member Chris Clark: there's 2 um, one, uh, I wish I thought about the last meeting, but one of the things that I recall, um, Chaney bringing up at certain points when we were having discussions about, um, displacement and relocation assistance and things like that was, you know, perhaps the conflict with, there are certain things that are set out now in the charter in terms of what people are and aren't eligible for. And in some cases, we wanted to go above and beyond that, or we wanted to do certain things, and it's always, it's been a little we've assumed that we can do it, but it's been a little iffy. And I think it would be nice if we could clarify that, um, somehow, um, the, those sorts of relocation assistance are things that are associated with, um, um, with folks being, um, evicted for, um, uh, in certain circumstances that, um, those things can also be tweaked or by the, by the RHC or the, or the council, right? So not, or, or in the charter, you could set a baseline, but it's just very explicit that we can go beyond that if we want, or that there, that we have the authority to do that, right? Um. I just, I recall there being some friction in the past where there are certain things now that are in, in terms of, um, uh, my location and other assistance that are explicitly called out in terms of who's eligible and those sorts of things, and I just want to make sure that we, we don't miss an opportunity to clarify those things and give ourselves the ability to not get into a circumstance where we're, in litigation because we, we're in conflict with what the charter amendment says.

[02:49:32] Unknown Speaker: We, we will certainly look at that to make sure there's no conflicts. yeah. Yeah,

[02:49:39] Member Chris Clark: the other is the, the really big thing we haven't talked about yet, and maybe we, we want to say this, but um, is CPI the right number. And should that be locked in in the charter, maybe it is the right number for now, maybe it's not. I don't know. But my, um, and I know people call this the boys and pill, but I will argue all day home that CPI is not a CPI is not losing money. See, it's not, the whole point of a CPI is, um, right is to keep up with, um, basically, um, inflation. And so I think from a long-term perspective, there are going to be certain markets in which, um, you know, CPI in the long run isn't going to be, um, uh, isn't going to be suffision and is why a number of cities don't, um, tie it to that. Or if they do, they tie it to CPI plus some percent, um, or something else. And so, um, I would, alongside that, I would argue that absolutely there should be a total, um, cap and pass-throughs, whatever the annual is, um, but I'm not sure. Um, and I think the charter amendment should state that there's a baseline, whether it's CPI, 5%, um, some multiple of CPI, you know, one. 55. I don't I don't know. But I, but I do think that that should be something that the RHC, there should be like a, a standard increase every year that just happens, unless the RHC takes certain action to, um, to say, no, it should be less, or no, it should be more, as long as it doesn't exceed some certain amount, so that folks have some certainty. So I just don't think when we talked about having a sustainable rent control measure that isn't constantly being challenged by outside groups every election cycle. I think we have to come to some better reasonable rate of return than just not losing money, because it, whether we like it or not, housing is a business. And I, I just don't, it, it is, and in a, in a free market economy, and you, you might say that all, housing should be public, and it shouldn't be a business, but that's the way our economic structure is set up, and so there has to be some means by which, um. They can make enough to cover, um, other things and, and, um, I'm not talking about big corporate landlords. and talking about a lot of the mom and pops who are who are here today. So, I, I, I think we, we can't ignore that question, and maybe the whole council will feel that CPI is the right number and it should be locked in stone. I personally feel like that's something that, as long as it floats within a reasonable means. Um, uh, that isn't significantly higher than CPI, that it should probably be something that isn't locked in in the charter.

[02:52:36] Unknown Speaker: Just comment on that? Yeah, I thought that I'm, I, I don't mind having the conversation, but I think, I do think it's, it's really hard to pick a number that doesn't feel arbitrary. I don't like arbitrary numbers. So if there's a justification for a particular number or formula, then I'm, I'm very interested in, in better understanding what, what that might look like, but, um, I think this, this will be a hard sell. Of course, I'm

[02:53:04] Member Chris Clark: not saying it. Well, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, uh, a hard number that's tied to something, and that there shouldn't be an overall cap on that plus pass through so that folks have some certainty that they're never going to experience an increase in more than X. And in most cases, it will only be whatever this number is. I'm just, from a long term sustainability standpoint, if we're, if we want to have any hope of having, um, you know, folks come together on this in some reasonable way, I think it's really hard to justify CPI being a reasonable rate of return. I think you're optimistic thinking that I'm still an optimist

[02:53:42] Unknown Speaker: even after 7 years. Yeah, this is one of those things where I don't think there's a middle ground. I think there's going to be opposition no matter what formula we use. Um, I just have one other suggestion to add. Oh,

[02:53:55] Unknown Speaker: actually, if I can weigh in on that one, I have to break the tie here. Um, so I brought it up for the last meeting. You know, it's in the CSFRA as is, as 5% is the cap. Um, I know it's CPI or up to 5%, but it's in there, it's 5%, so at some point in time, it's going to hit 5%, um, and I just, uh, that's what San Jose has, you, I believe you would know that. Um, I believe Los Gatos has the same and so, you know, I just believe in some consistency here, you know, that I tried to do that with like minimum wage. So um I'd say we just keep it simple and you know if someone bought it up about um wanting some certainty and um I've heard it from the tenant side saying you know they wanted a rent cap because they wanted certainty regardless of whether you're a tech worker or a service employee. You want to know what your rent increase is going to be so you can plan for that um and that's what the you know CSFRI does for them. Um, uh, and I would say, you know, to balance that out, as we heard today, the landlords want the same. So, what, you know, just setting it and I felt, I felt also just think it would simplify it. I know it was on a fair rate of return, but we had the whole, you know, battle of Matt knows about what the CPI is and which CPI do we use and just to try to eliminate as much of that ambiguity as possible. I'd say, up to 5%, so it doesn't have to be 5%, and you heard from, you know, we've heard from landlords who weren't raising their rents for many years, right? So, there's no, you know, definite that everyone's gonna do that, but, um, I, I just think, uh, uh, just a, a number, um, that's consistent would be, um, easier to implement, um, state, uh, AB 1482 I think is at CPI +7 so we're going to significantly lower than that at 5 so I feel comfortable with that number and I think I mean I could justify it so that would be my recommendation. So it might be a 21 vote here. Sometimes I miss that. Um,

[02:56:07] Unknown Speaker: the, the only other thing I would add is uh, the, uh, discrimination based on source of income. Uh I'm I'm interested in in exploring what that might look like. I know San Jose, as somebody referenced, just adopted, um, a similar protection, and I, I, uh, I didn't realize this was an issue in Mountain View, but if it is, then I think it's worth exploring. Um, if

[02:56:35] Member Chris Clark: we don't know tonight, it might be of interest of whether through an ordinance or through a structure, like this, if there's a way to, um, I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. But if there is a way to limit the, um, The sort of deposit requirements. So, um, you know, can can they not say, you know, not more than 1st and last month's rent. Um, I know we can't, we, we couldn't say, you know, don't do income complication or something like that, but in terms of the deposits, is that, um, is that something, That's

[02:57:13] Keating: currently state law? That's okay, we have to search to see. how we can divert from that. Okay at all.

[02:57:20] Member Chris Clark: Well, if it's if it's as simple as that, I guess we don't need to do that much research. I just wasn't sure if that was something that was controlled by state law or not. I'm

[02:57:30] Unknown Speaker: open to, I'd like to look at the language. I don't know the satellite language, but at least to maybe look at that and see what that says. I agree. I don't, you know, I never support any kind of discriminatory practices, so, um, I would be very open to, uh, trying to find language that would satisfy that, um, on the flip side, and it's a bit of a tangent, but it ties to this, is, um, the boat services comments, and, you know, it was very intrigued by that, you know, I've mentioned it in the past, and, and this isn't gonna be a part of CSFI. I don't intend it to be, but something I just don't want to put out there is, um, in the past, I had, you know, suggested that we have that short term rental housing assistance program through CSA, but, um, it's very limited in a couple of months, I believe, 2 or 3 months, and I think that's what a boat is using too, but, um, and this would tie into actually like to increase the cap at 5%. Um, you know, folks are gonna afford CPI, but maybe they're short on that extra percent or a half a percent and they need financial assistance. I think we should be able to provide that and so you know my original thought this was 5 years ago but was to actually um expand that program. We have you know substantial affordable housing funds, and I mean, it's, to me, it's about buying time. Um, you know, folks just need that extra time to figure out, you know, how the, how the, saving increase, or if they have to change their situation. It's just giving them that time. So, you know, we talked about the trail, and I feel the same with that and if we have to change some language in the CSFRA to do that. I'd like to do that, but, you know, I was looking at the trail as, you know, what are the, what are the red smokes are paying now, and then what is the rent that they would have to pay, and we could just make that that difference through relocation assistance. But frankly, at this point I would say, let's open it up to, you know, folks who need financial assistance. Um, can we help them out by helping giving them that extra difference. So, if that would soften it or make it easier to put the cap at 5%, um, you know, I don't want to do it as part of CSFRA, but that's something that I would like to bring it up as a council, an item. Exactly, yes. So, um, all right. Are we, do we answer all the questions?

[03:00:04] Tim Wong: So if I could just please summarize. Okay. I think that comes as part of the flexibility. Okay. So 1st and foremost, we're talking about the relationship, and it seems like it's the subcommittee's desired to have uh some council oversight over RHC decisions, but the parameters for council oversight would include, um, units, persons, financial slash funds if, if, um. They needed some general fund money. um, also, anything that's significant, quote, unquote. Um, in addition, look in, in anything with pass sprews and sunset, removals of language from the CSFA would require council oversight, uh, which kind of talks to, um, and I also have a note of vacancies, but the, the sunset, the removal of language, um, pertains specifically to the vacancy. Um, it was, council members, Clark's, uh, consistent comment, don't want the RHC to, if they are, if the RHC has the ability to sunset, the CSFRA, that should require. Yeah, under whatever conditions right now, it's...

[03:01:33] Member Chris Clark: When I said significant, it was tied to the example, um, I didn't mean to leave it that broad. It was, um, uh, changing the past through framework would be, um, was my, uh, was sort of the thing that I had tied to that. I thought that, I thought that pastors were, um, whatever framework is, um, comes out of, assuming all this goes through, whatever framework gets set, um, initially, if, if we're going to change what is considered, for example, mandatory. Um, and what qualifies as mandatory versus, you know, preserving the useful life, those sorts of things, any significant changes to those sorts of definitions and things that may greatly expand or contract the number of, um, um, rent increases that are, that are going out, I think, should, should fall under that category. So, just, so,

[03:02:28] Tim Wong: for example, there was the discussion, by the RHC saying maybe half 50% of the, the annual fee pass through should be, um, borne by the tenant. So, that type of decision would be ruled by the RHC with council approval, potentially with that.

[03:02:50] Member Chris Clark: I care less about what the amortization schedules look like and those sorts of things than I do about, seismic falls in this category versus not, um, sustainability measures fall under this, uh, fall under like mandatory versus preserving useful like the building. Those probably have different pass through percentages and maybe different amortizations because I don't know, but I think the details, the art, I'm less concerned about, what the amortization timeline is and whether or not they sunset than I am about, what falls into, to what category. So I don't want the. I don't want them to just add this whole new group of things that may impact a whole lot of people with um that's currently defined in the charter, right? So it's really the things that are, uh, explicit in the charter, um, that might be changed in the future that I, um, think should come to us, in terms of expanding who isn't, isn't covered or, or what they might have to pay. Okay,

[03:03:49] Tim Wong: uh, thank you very much for that additional clarification. We'll, we'll start working on that language for uh, the 3rd meeting. Um, in terms of mobile homes, it's through an ordinance, I think, we'll, we'll pursue that concurrent with this amendment process, and um, so we'll do that, in terms of the streamline, uh, council member Clark was talking, uh, and the subcommittee mentioned, flexibility for the RHC, but certain things, as just mentioned, maybe a percent of the pass through, whatever that may be, for different, Buckets if you will, would require council oversight. And, in terms of streamlining or pass through. I, the parameters I heard were sustainability, the potentially EV stations of environmental, sustainable, health and safety items, and of course, mandatory requirements such as seismic. So those are the 3 parameters that I've heard from the subcommittee to be included or those those expenses are eligible for the streamlined petition process or pass throughs. And then, lastly, in terms of flexibility, it goes back to, um, giving RHC the ability to tweak certain things, but, as mentioned in the 1st one, if, if it deals with units, persons, those type of things, it would, that would need to come back for, um, council oversight. And then, lastly, there are some things that staff will, um, look into in regards to, can counsel, amend a, charter, i- if there's a certain folks, if it's very explicit, and the city attorney, if it's explicitly listed, then that's something the city attorney will, review. Um, in addition, does the subcommittee want us to look at those, uh, just as mentioned, CPI, and also, um, you know, a, a standard rate versus CPI. Is that something the, the, uh, subcommittee is interested in, in staff pursuing or at least evaluating? Yes,

[03:06:27] Unknown Speaker: I don't think it was con- um unanimous, but we would like to look at a, a set. increase. Okay, any other, um, the

[03:06:41] Member Chris Clark: only thing, this is probably in your list, but the only other thing that, um, we had under sort of council RHC relationship was, uh, access to, um, city funds or resources beyond sort of what they're funding themselves through the, through the fee recovery. So, um, certainly possible, but it would just be something that would come to council for for approval, our typical 5 vote appropriations threshold, probably, if I would guess. Oh,

[03:07:13] Unknown Speaker: and yes, if you can look at the, uh, anti-discriminatory,

[03:07:21] Tim Wong: you want that as part of the, uh, uh, potential amendment, or as an ordinance, or we don't, do we want to pursue that discussion? We will look into anti-discrimination language and then the... decide how what path to take. Okay. All right, anything else? From

[03:07:41] Unknown Speaker: the committee? I think we covered quite a bit tonight. So if not, we'll move on to item 5.2 discussion, discussing our meeting schedule. Yeah,

[03:07:52] Tim Wong: just, just real quick, just to announce again September 4th uh is our 3rd meeting and staff will be polling the subcommittee for meetings in mid October sometime and then early November in anticipation for the November 19th council meeting so just watch out for an email. So

[03:08:16] Member Chris Clark: we, we did set Wednesday, September 4th.

[03:08:23] Unknown Speaker: So the reason being the APC meets at 7. Got it. That should be fine.

[03:08:31] Member Chris Clark: Uh, I have, I will need to leave here by 9. So if it goes more than 4 hours, then you, you have to,

[03:08:41] Tim Wong: there is a hard tap of 645 because the EPC needs to fill out. Oh, yes. That must have been why it said that was fine. Okay, no.

[03:08:49] Unknown Speaker: And I know you'll be a little late, so I'll do my best. I'm just trying to find it. It's hard to compromise.

[03:08:57] Unknown Speaker: I just have a question though, not totally related to this, sort of on a parallel path. Are we planning to do polling for the measure, or, you know, to test different, um, parameters, or is that, is that a different conversation for another time?

[03:09:10] Tim Wong: I think that would be a different conversation, polling for, um, whatever proposed amendment had not, has not been in the fashion.

[03:09:20] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: We could bring that up at the September 17th council meeting. Um, that would, uh, that would necessitate appropriation, so we have to get council approval for that. Great. All right. uh any public comment on our timeline? No, if not, we'll move on to item 6 uh any staff, subcommittee member comments, questions or reports? Any, no? All right. So we stand adjourned. Thank you very much.

• ← Previous