Rental Housing Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the 06/12/2025 okay. I think we're muted on the Zoom still. Same thing from last time. Alright. We should be good. Okay. Good evening. Welcome to the 06/12/2025 rental housing committee regular meeting. This meeting is called to order at 07:01 p. M. Now we will proceed with roll call.

Chair Ma? Aye. Vice chair Brown is absent?

No.

Gosh. It's Oh my gosh.

Vice chair Cox. I'm so sorry. Vice chair Cox?

I'm here.

Committee member Brown is absent. Committee member Hyslov is absent. Committee member Keating? Here. And alternate committee member Balch?

Present.

Alright. Moving on to item three, consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the committee wishes to remove an item for discussion. The purpose of the consent calendar is for the committee to efficiently and quickly consider routine or administrative business items with one motion. Public comment worker, after the discussion, we invite you to submit a speaker card now if you would like to speak on this item during public comment. Would any member of the committee like to pull an item? Pull or comment?

Either one, I just wanna make a request for correction. So what do you call that, poll or comment?

That already happened.

No, but there's, there were two errors and only one was caught.

We would do that, there's only one item, we'll do that after public comment.

Okay.

Seeing no others. I now invite public comments. In person public comments, we're called to speak first. Any member of the public wishing to provide a virtual comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Seeing no hands, I will now bring the item for committee action.

A motion to approve the consent calendar should include reading the title of the item. Vice Chair Cox.

Yes. There was an issue with the minutes identifying the chair and vice chair. The first, the list of the members was corrected, but at the bottom it still says Chair Brown adjourned the meeting. It should be Chair Ma adjourned the meeting. So I make a motion that we accept all the items in the consent calendar, including the minutes for 05/22/2025 with that amendment.

Second.

We

will now proceed with a roll call vote.

Hang on first. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none,

roll call.

We'll now proceed with a roll call call vote. Alternate Balch?

Yes.

Committee member Keating? Yes. Vice chair Cox?

Yes.

Chair Ma? Aye. The motion passes four to zero.

I may second. Alright. Yes. That motion was made by vice chair Cox, seconded by chair Ma. Now we move on to item four, oral communications. We will now open the meeting for oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during the section. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non agenda items. Would any member of the public like to provide comment on non agenda items?

If you would like to do so on Zoom, please raise your hand or press 9 on your phone. Seeing none, seeing no one in the audience, we move on to item five, appeal hearing. The rental housing committee in hearing the appeal is acting in a quasi judicial fashion and will conduct the hearing in accordance with those standards. Staff will detail the appeal hearing process in their presentation. Before we get started, RHC members are required to disclose any communications that they have had with any of the parties to the petition or the party's representatives and the substance of those communications since the date that the petition was filed.

The decision of the RHC is to be based on the record presented to the hearing officer. Information disclosed to an RHC member that is not part of the record is not to be considered in the hearing. Do any RHC members have ex parte communications that need to be disclosed? Seeing none, we will now proceed with public comment for agenda item 5.1. Are there members of the public who are not parties to the petition who would like to speak?

In person public comments, call to speak first. Any member of the public wishing to provide a virtual comment on this item, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. This is for people not party to the appeal. Seeing none, we will now move on to agenda item 5.1, appeal of hearing officer's decision regarding petitions number 242533. We will now proceed with the hearing.

Evening, committee members. Alright. Give me one moment. I'm trying to make sure that the volume is

complete.

All right. So the purpose of this item is to consider the tentative appeal decision and either accept the tentative appeal decision or modify the tentative appeal decision with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence in the record to support any of the modifications. This is a summary of this presentation. We'll go over the rental housing committee's decision process, including the role your role and the scope of the decision. We'll talk about the schedule for the hearing, and then I will provide a summary of the petition, the hearing officer's decision, the appeal, and the tenant appeal decision.

Okay. So on appeal, options for the rental housing committee to hear and decide the appeal include a closed record hearing, which would have the committee deciding based only on facts in the decision written by the hearing officer, An open record, which is a de novo hearing, which would have you follow a formal hearing process to potentially accept new facts before making your decision. And finally, a remand. In this case, you would follow the closed record procedures, but the rental housing committee may either identify issues for the hearing officer to reexamine, including potentially accepting new facts and evidence. So as far as the role for the rental housing committee, the rental housing committee must exercise its independent judgment for any questions of law, such as statutory interpretation.

This is confusingly also called de novo review, not to say as a de novo hearing. For questions of fact, the Rental Housing Committee must determine whether or not each appealed element of the hearing officer decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. This does not mean reweighing the evidence or relitigating the issues. And in this case, the appeal is based on the records submitted to the hearing officer. The Rental Housing Committee is not to accept or consider any new evidence that is submitted or presented by either of the parties.

This does not mean that the rental housing committee has to come to the same conclusions as the hearing officer. So at this time, staff does not recommend a de novo hearing. This would require a new formal hearing, which would take a significant time to prepare for the rental housing committee. The existing evidence in the record is sufficient on which to make a decision on the appeal and the existing record demonstrates adequate review and ample opportunities for the parties to present their relevant evidence. The decision on the appeal should be based on the hearing effort record, and the committee shall neither hear nor find facts in addition to those presented to the hearing officer.

So the petition defines the scope of the hearing officer's decision. While appeals of the hearing hearing officer decision limit the scope of the rental housing committee review on appeal, this means that you should only be considering the issues and questions that are raised by the appeal about the hearing officer's decision, should not be considering other elements of the hearing officer's decision that are not being challenged or appealed by the appellant landlord in this case. Just to go over the schedule for the appeal hearing, public comment has already been taken by the chair. We're currently at number one, which is the staff presentation. That will be followed by ten minutes each for the appellant and then the respondent to present their arguments, followed by five minutes for rebuttal for each party, then followed by rental housing committee questions for staff, and then the appellant and respondent, and finally, conclude with rental housing committee deliberations and a decision.

So a summary of the petition. This was a petition for downward adjustment of rent based on a number of habitability issues and decrease in housing services, including mold and moisture in the bedrooms of petitioners' units, mold and or mildew and defective caulking in the bathroom of the unit, windows that were improperly replaced and sealed, various plumbing issues, including sewer pipe that was backed up, a bathtub that was clogged, toilet that was clogged and leaking, insufficient and unsafe electrical circuitry in the unit, excessive noise from a water heater, as well as a broken wall furnace. So the hearing officer's decision concluded that petitioners met their burden of proof that the moisture and mold condition of their unit violated the warranty of habitability and that the respondent landlord failed to correct the conditions in a time of insufficient manner after receiving notice of the conditions. So in considering this issue related to the molded moisture in the bedrooms, the hearing officer combined this with the ineffective weatherproofing of the so, basically, the the windows not being sealed and replaced properly. That was considered contributing factor to the moisture and mold conditions, and so those two items were considered together.

The reduction for the periods from 12/27/2023 through 05/21/2024, and 11/01/2024 through 01/04/2025, which is actually the date on which they vacated the unit. And these periods were determined based on the rainy seasons as the hearing at the testimony at the hearing was that the mold the moisture issues in the unit tended to coincide with the winter rainy months of the year. So the hearing decision also concluded that the petitioners met their burden of proof that there was mold growth and defective caulking in the bathroom of the affected unit and that respondent failed to address the mold and caulking in a manner that would have prevented mold and mildew from growing back after it was cleaned. And based on this, petitioners were entitled to a 2.5% rent reduction for the period from late August twenty twenty three through 01/04/2025. The hearing decision helped that the petitioner submit their burden to approve that the plumbing and the affected unit was not maintained by respondent as required by California law.

So this is another instance where there were a number of issues that were combined and considered together by the hearing officer, and the hearing officer reached the conclusion that these issues were related to a general issue with the sewer pipe that serviced the property being backed up or clogged, resulting in bathtub not draining properly and the toilet having low water pressure and not draining properly. So based on this, petitioners were entitled to a 7% rent reduction for the period from 05/13/2023 through 11/05/2023. As it relate to the electrical circuitry, the hearing officer concluded that the petitioners have met their brute pertinent proof that it was insufficient, creating a potential safety hazard, and that respondent has failed to remedy the condition in a reasonable time after being notified by petitioners. Hearing officer awarded an 8.5% rent reduction for the period from 08/03/2023 through 01/04/2025. As it relates to excessive noise from the water heater, the hearing officer decided that the petitioners had met their burden of proof that the respondent delayed in addressing the excessive noise caused by the water heater and provided inadequate repairs resulting in a decrease in housing services.

For this, they she awarded a 17% rent reduction for the less than only three week period from 04/26/2023 through 05/16/2023. And then finally, the hearing decision concluded that the petitioners had not met their burden of proof to demonstrate that there's was provided with notice and an opportunity to correct the broken wall here on the unit. And as a result, no rent reduction was ordered based on this condition. So the petitioners had also raised claims that they were evicted in retaliation for their complaints based on these various issues. And the hearing officer's decision makes clear that these claims regarding retaliation were outside the scope of the hearing officer's jurisdiction and therefore were not considered by the hearing decision and no conclusions were reached as to the claims regarding retaliation and unlawful eviction.

So the appeal raises the following issues. First, that the hearing officer improperly awarded rent reductions for issues, namely the excessive noise from the water heater and the bathtub clogging that were not pled in the petition. But the hearing officer aired or abused her discretion in awarding rent reductions based on the mold and moisture issues, the sewer and drainage conditions, and the electrical circuit failures in the unit. And finally, that the hearing reductions were arbitrary and exit. Okay.

So the tentative appeal decision recommends affirming the hearing officer's decision in its entirety as it relates to the first issue raised by the appeal regarding issues that were not pled in the petition, the hearing officer's consideration and rent reduction award based on the excessive noise from the water heater, and that's if clogging did not violate respondent's due process rights. Respondent was afforded a reasonable opportune a reasonable notice of the petition and the hearing and opportunity to present its evidence and objections to both of these issues. And contrary to the assertions made by the appellant in this case, neither the CSFRA nor the regulations require the issues to be pled only on the petition forms themselves. So in this case, the petitioners submitted video evidence of, for instance, the water heater noise along with their petition packet. And so even though it's not specifically listed as an issue in the workbook, it was raised by the petition itself and in the petition submissions.

Next slide. As it relates to the second issue, the hearing officer did not or abuse her discretion in awarding a rent reduction based on the mold and moisture conditions in the affected unit. While it's true that the petitioners did not report the mold and moisture until December 2023, which is about eight months into their tenancy. This was supported by their testimony, which was that these issues related to mold and moisture coincided with the winter months and the rainy season, and so they reported it when it first arose or shortly thereafter, which their testimony at the hearing was that they first noticed this issue in November 2023 and reported it in December 2023 to the landlord. Moreover, the petitioner's testimony was supported by photographic and documentary evidence.

So petitioner submitted documents photos showing that you know, moisture built up on the walls and windows of the unit, mold on their personal belongings, and additional photographic evidence. In addition, the city's inspection report did indicate that there were issues with mold in the unit that needed to be remedied. And finally, the respondent's testimony from their various representatives was inconsistent on this issue at best. And then as far as it relates to the argument that the hearing officer failed to consider the mitigation efforts by the respondent, the CSFRA requires correction of uninhabitable conditions, not merely mitigation. So there's nothing in the CSFRA or the regulations that prevents a a hearing officer from rewarding a rent reduction where a landlord has taken steps to remedy the issue but has been unsuccessful and has been notified that, you know, their efforts have not been successful.

Third issue, the hearing officer did not or abuse her discretion in awarding rent reduction based on the sewer and plumbing issues in the affected unit. Respondent itself, they submitted evidence of longstanding issues predating the petitioner's tenants with the sewer pipe servicing the affected unit. There were multiple invoices from their plumbing contractor indicating that the sewer main sewer pipe servicing this unit backed up multiple times in the years prior to petitioners moving in. And past history, she's saying that repeated a constant amount of odor coming from the bathroom, the respondent did take action to actually check the sewer and take corrective permanent corrective action until there was an active backup in November 2023, which was six months after the petitioners had first raised issues regarding the. I seem to be having some audio issues, so I'm going to go off camera just to see if that will help at all with the unstable connection.

Got it.

So on to the fourth issue, the hearing officer did not error our views or discretion in awarding reduction based on the insufficient and hazardous electrical circuitry in the affected unit. The evidence in the record shows that the respondent failed to make corrective repairs and to respond the last two times that the nurse notified about the electrical issues. The CSFRA does not require a tenant to continue to notify a landlord of a condition after the landlord has been unresponsive to their prior notices. And neither the CFRA nor the regulations allow hearing officers to consider equitable defenses such as delays in filing a petition, and there is no stat applicable statute of limitations to these types of claims that are raised under the CFRA. So finally, the hearing officer's rent reductions were not arbitrary or excessive because she did apply consistent methodology throughout.

Her methodology was based on the idea that there were a certain number of rooms in each in the unit and that each of them was worth an equal percentage of the rental value and that the various conditions that affected those unit those different rooms reduced the rental value of that room. So for instance, for the three weeks during which the petitioner's daughter was unable to sleep in her room because of the excessive noise from the water heater, the petition the the hearing officer granted a 17% rent reduction because she was completely unable to use the room. That's just

an

example. But this methodology was used consistently throughout, and the CFRA and the regulations grant hearing officers broad discretion to calculate the appropriate rent reduction for each condition that is found to violate the warranty capability or that is found to be a reduction in housing services. The hearing officer complied with the requirements and the regulations to explain the basis for her rent reductions, namely the methodology that I just described, and consistently applied the same methodology throughout the decision. And then finally, the hearing officer appropriately limited rent reductions to time periods during which conditions were present in the effector unit. So as an example of this, as I mentioned, the testimony at the hearing was that the mold and moisture conditions tended to affect the unit mostly during the rainy season winter months.

And accordingly, the hearing officer limited the rent reductions to the rainy season or winter months of the year rather than granting an ongoing rent reduction throughout the entire year. So on June 9, the respondent or repellent submitted a reply to the definitive decision that raises the following additional issues. The first is that the hearing record does not support the conclusion and the tentative appeal decision that respondent received adequate notice of the hearing and issues raised in the petition. Second, the committee's affirmation of the hearing officers' award for the mold and moisture issues ignores the evidence of limited impact on petitioners and evidence of remediation efforts by respondent. Third, that the tentative appeal decision inaccurately applies the standard in CSFRA Section 1710B2, which requires continued notice of uninhabitable conditions as it relates to the sewer and drainage issues, that the tentative appeal decision incorrectly affirms the hearing officer's decision regarding electrical circuitry because the record demonstrates these issues were stale and respondent was not given the additional notice or an opportunity to correct these issues.

And then finally, that the tentative appeal decision should not have affirmed the rent reductions awarded by the hearing officer because they were excessive, namely that there were overlapping rent reductions for different issues during the same time periods. Next slide. So just to address some of these issues raised by the appellant's reply. While due process requires that the that notice inform the parties of dependency of an action which respondent received. Respondent received notices regarding received the that petitioner submitted to the city with their petition.

They also received notice of the prehearing conference as well as the hearing itself and appeared as such, demonstrating that they did, in fact, actually receive that notice. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the respondent knew about the issues, the bathtub clogging and excessive noise from the water heater before the hearing. Their prehearing submissions address these issues directly. So, you know, the idea that they first learned about this at the hearing is unlikely considering these issues are directly addressed in their prehearing submissions. And finally, respondent has not demonstrated that it was prejudiced by the alleged lack of notice of these issues.

They have not put forth, for instance, what type of evidence what additional evidence they might have been able to submit had they received notice of these issues partly because it appears that they did actually receive notice of these issues before the hearing and were adequately able to address the issues by presenting testimony at the hearing, cross examining petitioners at the hearing and also submitting documents both before, during and after the hearing related to these issues. As it relates to the second issue, the record includes evidence of health hazards to petitioners arising from the mold and moisture conditions. As I mentioned previously, the petitioners submitted photos of mold growth on their personal belongings, and they also testified and submitted evidence that their daughter was hospitalized due to breathing issues and that her cardiologist opined that the reason for the in her breathing and her EKG both can exacerbate these issues in children or individuals who have asthma. And as as previously addressed, the CSFRA requires correction, not just mitigation of the issue. So the hearing officer was not required to lessen the award in any way based on the respondent's unsuccessful efforts to address the mold and moisture conditions in the unit.

So as it relates to the application of the standard in section 17 b seventeen ten b two of the CSFRA, which requires a tenant to provide a landlord with notice of a condition as well as an opportunity to correct the condition, Neither the word ongoing nor any synonym thereof appears prior to the word notice. So respondent does not explain the basis of how they reach the conclusion, but the CFI requires the tenant to continue to notify a landlord after the landlord has received notice and an opportunity to correct and has merely been unresponsive. And reading it in that way would lead to a result where, basically, a tenant would never be able to recover under the CSFRA be once their landlord stopped responding to their notices, which is not the intent of the solicitor. As far as evidence in the record regarding whether the electrical issues persisted even after petitioners stopped reporting for them, there is, in fact, evidence in the record for when there's or testimony from the petitioners that these issues persisted even after they stopped reporting them and that they stopped reporting them because they just chose to work around them once they once the the landlord was unresponsive.

And, additionally, there was actually documentary evidence, namely the city's inspection report from December 2024, which showed that the electrical issues, the inadequate electrical circuitry in the unit was still an issue in December 2424, just weeks before the petitioners moved out. And finally, the fact that the hearing officer awarded rent reductions for two untenable conditions that existed simultaneously in the unit does not make the rent reductions excessive or arbitrary. These rent reductions are not related to each other. They're not even for, like, the same rooms in the unit over the reduction in the rental value due in the same room. And so just because, you know, these issues persisted during the same time period and the hearing officer awarded rent reductions for each of these issues during the same time period does not mean that they were excessive or arbitrary.

So fiscal impact, any decision of the Rentals Housing Committee on appeal, including adoption or modification of the tentative appeal decision, could potentially lead to litigation, which would have fiscal impacts. Notably, one purpose of appealing a hearing decision to the rental housing committee is to ensure that hearing decisions are legally defensible, and so the appeal process to the rental housing committee reduces overall risk of legal liability and legal expenses. So the recommendation from staff is to decision and either accept the tentative material decision or modify the tentative appeal decision with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence in the record.

Thank you for that presentation. Now we will move on to addresses from the appellant and respondent. So for representatives of the appellant landlord, please click the raise hand button on Zoom if you would like to speak, and staff will promote you to a panelist in which you will be given ten minutes.

Good evening. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Okay.

Thank you. Chair and committee members, my name is Rachel and I represent the respondents, Spiker Companies. Thank you for the opportunity to present our appeal. We will respectfully request that the committee reverse or at a minimum substantially reduce the downward rent adjustment. The award here is not supported by substantial evidence, does not comply with procedural requirements and disregards due process.

The CFRA and its regulations make clear that a tenant's petition must specify the conditions forming the basis of the petition. This is not just a formality, it's a fundamental procedural protection for both parties. Process, as the Supreme Court said in Horn versus County of Ventura, means landlords are entitled to notice of the specific issues to be decided, not just a general chance to respond. In this case, the earliest condition alleged in the petition was 05/13/2023. Yet the award for water heater noise starts even earlier on 04/26/2023, before any complaint was ever made.

Similarly, the decision awards rent reductions for bathtub clogging, yet the petition itself does not identify any such claim. A landlord cannot be penalized for unpled unnoticed claims. It's a textbook due process violation. Section 1710B2 of the CFRA is clear. The petition shall specify the conditions forming the basis of the petition.

Allowing new or vaguely described issues at hearing, such as the bathtub clogging and water heater noises, undermines this requirement and force its landlords to defend against shifting undefined claims. The tentative suggests that respondent waived objections because it didn't object when the hearing officer listed new issues. But as held in Horn, constitutional adequacy of notice cannot be circumvented by procedural happenstance or by chance. Respondent expressly confirmed only petitioned issues were to be addressed and never agreed to expand the scope. Further, similarly claiming that respondent was generally aware of water heater noise or bathtub clogs is not enough.

Landlords must have clear notice of which specific conditions are being alleged as habitability violations, not just any minor inconvenient. Not every tenant complaint amounts to a habitability issue. Furthermore, due process requires specificity, not trial by ambush. The tentative cites manufactured home communities versus County of San Luis Obispo for the proposition that due process requires a right to cross examine. That's true, but only where the party has timely notice of the issues to be adjudicated.

Cross examination does not cure surprise expansion of the issues at the hearing or in the decision of the petition. As arsenal development confirms, individualized adjudications require fair specific notice so both sides can prepare. Rent reduction cases like this demand those protections. Arnold Development versus City of Costa Mesa recognizes the distinction between legislative and adjudicatory actions. The Supreme Court in Arnold reaffirmed that when the government acts to adjudicate individual rights, specific procedural protections attach, including notice of the issues.

Our situation is not broad legislative acts but about individualized determinations of rent reductions, and they require real advance notice of each claim. Now moving to the merits of each award. The evidence does not support the scale or duration of the rent reduction awarded. Respondent acted promptly to remediate every complaint. Regarding the mold and moisture, the tenant first complained about mold and moisture more than six months after move again, specifically not until November 2023.

There is not evidence of a prior complaint. And as soon as management was notified, respondent acted with inspection scheduling, roof and gutter repairs were coordinated and all city recommendations were implemented without repair. The decision overlooks these substantial mitigation efforts and the fact that these were isolated seasonal issues, not ongoing hazards. As set forth in our appeal and our response to the tentative, the hearing record shows that tenant delayed reporting these issues and that respondent reasonably responded once notified. Record also shows that further mitigation was hampered when the tenant refused entry in late twenty twenty four, but respondents still did everything possible to remediate.

The imposition of a months long 34% rent reduction despite clear evidence of prompt repairs and only temporary conditions was not justified. Regarding plumbing, when the tenant reported a sewer backup and toilet clog in November 2023, respondent acted the very same day. A plumber was dispatched, hydro jetting was performed and the area was cleaned and sealed. The toilet was then fully replaced the following summer after the next reported clog. It's important to note that between complaints, there were long periods without any reported plumbing issues.

And the tenant admitted that she simply stopped reporting issues and began using Drano on her own, making it impossible for respondent to fix problems that they were never notified about. The CFRA requires notice and an opportunity to cure. Retroactively awarding months of rent reduction for unreported issues is not only unfair, it is contrary to the law. As explained in our filings, petitioners admitted they stopped reporting the bathtub clog after August 2023 and began using Drayno. The record is clear that all timely complaints were addressed promptly and effectively.

Next regarding electrical, the tenant's complaints about electrical issues were addressed in the 2023. A licensed electrician was hired, added dedicated circuits and made every upgraded recommended. After August 2023, the tenant made no further complaints about electrical problems, none to the property manager and none to maintenance, even after new managers took over. The city inspection in November 2024 confirmed that all required electrical repairs were complete or scheduled, yet the committee awarded a significant rent reduction for this condition through the end of the tenancy, even though there is no evidence of notice to the respondent of any unresolved or ongoing problem. Regarding the water heater noise.

The noise from the water heater was addressed as soon as it was reported in May 2023, and the tenant herself confirmed that the fix resolved the problem. There were no further complaints about water heater noise for the rest of the tenancy. The only remaining issue was a city inspector's later recommendation to replace the tape with a permanent latch, a technical code fixed, not a habitability defect. The award for this item is improper because not only was the issue remediated, it was never actually pled in the tenant's petition, and respondent was never put on notice of it. The record shows substantial gaps between complaints and only isolated seasonal incidents, not persistent unhabitability.

Each time the tenant notified management responded quickly and responsibly, and it is not fair or legal to award retroactive rent reductions for months when there were no complaints or when access was denied. In sum, the tentative decision ignores the clear legal requirements for specific notice. The landlord responded promptly and professionally to every reported issue, arranging repairs and inspections without delay. There is no evidence of neglect or unaddressed complaints, only responsible management. It would be unfair and contrary to law to impose rent reductions for these unreported or promptly resolved issues.

We respectfully ask the committee to reverse the decision or at least limit any award to periods and issues that were actually reported and proven. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Now we will move on to the respondent tenant. Please raise hand if you would like to speak, and staff will promote you to a panelist. You will have ten minutes.

Hi. Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi. Okay. So my name is Shandy Brooks Fox. Brian Keith is here with us as well. We are the tenants that lived at 1984 Colony.

Everything that Mrs. Chubay is saying is incorrect. She's going based off of documents that were presented to her, not what was actually there in this all the documents that we have that were presented to the city of Mountain View is accurate and correct. My family and I are deeply disappointed with Colony Apartments claim that the comprehension is excessive. We have previously notified them on the issues in this unit on multiple occasions, and we have emails to document that that was provided.

On numerous occasions, they continue to send maintenance in. She keeps saying that they hired professionals. At no point did they hire professionals until after a petition was signed. After the petition was signed, that's once they started to correctly do things by the book. They never came in and, you know, did things properly to begin with for the mold and the moisture.

Now, once did they call in and someone to come in and inspect it of a professional, what they would do is they would send maintenance in, and maintenance would be the person to determine, oh, it's fine. Just go ahead. Just clean it. Just, you know, whatever advice it was that they had to give us. Their lack of consideration and integrity as a company, furthermore, is apparent that they only hired professionals after the petition.

The fact that Colony Apartments possesses the resource and expertise to challenge our claims while we only sought a safe and healthy living environment raises concerns about their value as a company. Brian and I feel like this is how the rich stay rich while they take from the poor. Our experience has demonstrated that Colony Apartments have prioritized financial gain over providing a safe and healthy home for our family. Evidence shows that the unit was unsafe. The unit was unsafe.

There were numerous issues, again, that were presented. Another illusion of Colony Apartments dishonesty was while they were trying to prove us wrong, there were two people that was absent. These two people were the main people that had all the knowledge of what was going on. This would have been the property manager before the new property manager came. And our question was, why are they not here?

These are the people that we had communications with back and forth, as well as the maintenance that provided all the fixings for whatever issue occurred. Why were these two main people that would be able to seal this case, why were they not present at this time? Exactly what were what were they trying to hide? So it's just been really hard trying to prove our case when they have the knowledge and the lawyers and, you know, all of the expertise that they have behind them to discredit us in everything that we say, while we're just here trying to have them be fair to us. Not once have they taken any accountability on anything that we have presented.

Everything is our fault. As we can see, they're even blaming the city of Mountain View of being, you know, this being excessive. Not once have they said, you know what? Hey, maybe we were wrong. This is what was this is what happened. Let's take some accountability. And again, we have provided every evidence, pictures, doctor's notes, hospitalization notes. My daughter had to take therapy. We have provided everything needed to the city of Mountain View to prove what was going on in our unit. There's no reason for us to exaggerate any of this.

There's no reason. They got upset, and instead of trying to fix these problems that we were constantly complaining for from the time that we had been there, they decided that it would be easier for them to evict us. We paid our rent late one time with notice. We notified them and told them that we were going to pay late, we were going to include the late fee, and on this one occasion, it was their opportunity to kick us out because it was just, let's kick them out rather than invest this money and fix the unit. At no time did they say, hey, okay, well, let's lower the rent.

You know, all these issues are occurring. They continue to take our rent. They continue to take our full rent at that and just kept sending maintenance. Just kept sending maintenance. So like I said, until the petition was filed, that's when they stood up, and that's when they started to get everything on the books, and that's when they started to make an effort to do the correctings the correct way.

It was never done the correct way to begin with. And again, we have emails, we have correspondence, we have pictures, we have notices, we have conversations, we have all of this. So for her to come on and say that, you know, oh, they did everything proper, oh, we notified them late in the game, we notified them on every occasion when the occasion occurred. So whether it was six months after we moved in or whether it was eight months once we moved in, like she said, you know, we sent out our first notice in December, yeah, you're correct, because that's when the rainy season came, and that's when we started to take over my daughter's room. That's when the water started to come down on the walls.

Everything that was sent over to maintenance or sent over to them was when it happened, And we continue to send it over, and they would not do what they needed to do. And if they did, they will send maintenance over. Maintenance is not a professional, a licensed plumber. Maintenance is mainly there just to do basic household things. Maintenance cannot come in and fix the plumbing issues. Maintenance cannot come in and fix the electrical issues. And she keeps stating, Oh, you know, these things were done. They were never done. And again, we have the proof for that. That was all in our petition.

So it's just disheartening to know that they're doing everything in their power other than taking accountability. And these are what companies like Colony Apartments do. People normally don't speak up. People are afraid to speak up because, you know, maybe they're like us, and they don't know the route to take. They don't know how it's gonna go.

They don't know if, you know, people are gonna believe them. But when you have the evidence behind you and you can prove what you're saying, then that's all we can do, and that's all we did do. So that's pretty much where we are, and we just hope that you guys take that into consideration. And again, all evidence proves that they did not provide a safe and healthy environment for me and my family.

Thank you. Now we will return back to the representative for the appellant landlord. You have five minutes to rebut any statements made by the respondent. Please limit your comments to rebuttal rather than repeating information already presented.

Thank you. Just one point. The tenant stated that professionals were never hired, but that's directly contradicted by respondents' supplemental submission. And in that supplemental submission, there's invoices from 05/16/2023, where AAA was hired to install a new water eater. 05/17/2023, the AAA did a tub diverter replacement and replaced the wax seal.

11/05/2023, AAA ran a cable through Mainline to clean it, and they also hydrojetted the line and confirmed that there were no clogs. 04/12/2024, there's a California rain guard invoice for gutter cleaning. And 09/27/2024, M and J Glass Company replaced the windows and glass. Thank you.

Alright. We will move back to the respondent tenant. You have five minutes to rebut any statements made by the representative of the landlord. Please limit your comments to rebuttal rather than repeating information presented already.

So from what I know, the RAIN guard was definitely called in. Everything else prior to that that they stated was presented, that stuff was all presented after the fact. And again, we were surprised by all of these because every time that maintenance came to the unit, maintenance handled all of these situations. So therefore, is that really accurate, or were these changed? So again, there were a time where they did hire professionals after the fact.

Prior to that, maintenance handled 99.9% of every issue presented to them. And that's why we wanted maintenance at the hearing, which maintenance was not there because their lawyer said it was better for him not to be there.

Alright. Now we will bring it back to the committee for discussion. Committee members, do any of you have questions for staff? Vice chair Cox.

Yes. So in the respondent's initial testimony tonight, she claimed that there were awards made for conditions that existed before a complaint was made. And so my question back to staff is, do you agree with this assessment? And if it is true, is it possible that the awards were made because the hearing officer decided that the problem existed during that period based on a preponderance of the evidence or by some other means?

So in all cases, the awards were made for periods after notice had been provided to the landlord of the condition. I'm not really sure to what that refers when respondents' counsel says that it was for periods before they were provided notice. But in all instances, the awards that were provided by the hearing officer are after the landlord received notice of the issue.

Okay. Thank you.

Member Bolch. Thank you.

I have two questions for staff. The first one is just for my understanding of the rental housing committee purview and authority, are matters of law, evidence, due process, or even constitutionality within our authority to determine?

So as it relates to procedural due process that is within your purview as far as constitutional questions about, for instance, like whether or aspects of the CSFRA itself are valid under the, you know, Constitution of The United States or California law, that is not within your purview.

Thank you. I'm trying to just digest that. Then I I have a follow-up, and then I'll ask my second question. You said that procedural due process is within our authority. There was a there was a there was a statement made by the by the appellant that issues were brought up in the moment.

And the landlord was the way I can interpret it was kind of put on the spot, acknowledged that those were said but didn't have a chance to prepare a defense or prepare to respond. Is that a procedural issue? Or is that a matter of greater legal process in a courtroom setting? I don't I'm trying to figure out, can we do something with that, or is that not something we can rule on?

So procedural due process requirements apply to administrative and quasi judicial hearings, such as the ones that you all hear, so these individual rent petitions. And so determining whether or not your procedures comply with the requirements of procedural due process as they relate to administrative hearings is within your purview. You cannot can make a determination of whether or not a hearing officer properly followed the procedures that you have put in place that are intended to afford both landlords and tenants procedural due process.

So then what is staff's opinion on this statement that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to review the charges against them? Because as I understood, the claim was made that they basically showed up to the hearing and they were told things that they hadn't been made aware of before. What is what is the opinion on that?

So as the tentative appeal decision as well as the response to the appellant's reply outlines, for one, the record demonstrates that these facts these issues were in fact led in the petition. They were not specifically words were not used like bathtub clogging, but issues were raised such as plumbing issues were raised as something in the petition. In addition, the petitioners submitted documentary evidence, for instance, of the water heater, photographic and video evidence of this issue with the petition. And so they were put on notice. So as far as the record demonstrates, they were in fact put on notice.

But even assuming that they, you know, were not put on notice, the appellant has not explained how they were prejudiced by the alleged lack of notice because they were able to submit all of the documentary evidence that supported their claims as it relates to those two issues. They were allowed to present their arguments at the hearing on these two issues. They were allowed to cross examine petitioners about their arguments on these two issues, and they were also allowed the opportunity to present or to submit additional documents after the hearing on these issues. Furthermore, at the hearing, the hearing officer specifically listed the issues that were raised by the petition and asked, do all the parties agree that these are the issues that were raised in the petition? Both petitioner and the respondent affirmatively agreed that those were the issues, and it included the two issues that they now take contention with.

And to add to that, they also, you know, their response points to the fact that respondents' counsel at one point asked, are these issues specifically in the petition forms? And the hearing officer said no. But then the respondent proceeded in a manner where it just seemed like a question and not actually an objection to the hearing officer's consideration of these issues. So at no point did they say, hey. These issues are actually not raised.

We object to you considering. They presented all of their evidence on it, testimony, documentary evidence. They took a cross examination. So at no point did they raise it as an objection during the hearing. It was only after the hear you know, on appeal that they're now raising this as an issue.

So as and and I will just say that procedural due the the procedural due process that's required in administrative hearings based on case law is a bit more elusive than what you might what might be required in legal formal proceedings. And due process in general, the case law says, is elusive. It's molded to the specific situations. And so while, yes, in a formal complaint to a court, specific pleadings might be required that are, you know, really detailed, that is not necessarily the case in administrative proceedings like the ones before you. So, you know, it is the opinion of counsel that, you know, you have the hearing officer afforded the respondent sufficient due process as it relates to the procedural safeguards that are in place as it relates to these two issues.

Thank you. That was very helpful and educational. Now I'm going to get to my second question, which is a very different topic. Okay. So I wanted to ask about the nature of the city inspection on the hazardous electrical situation. So the word hazardous is one that I'm curious about about what defines hazardous and did the city inspector designate it as hazardous. And and here's here's where I'm coming from. I'm gonna assume that the structure, structure, whenever whenever it it was was built, built, was was built built legally legally with with permits. Permits. So at the time, it was a legally compliant structure.

The electrical systems were legally compliant at the time it was first occupied. It is quite possible that, you know, decades later, modern electrical standards like, you know, grounding or sufficient size amperage of, you know, conductors and all that might be different. And that is known as conforming, where if you were building new today, it wouldn't be approved, but it was legal at the time. So as long as it's maintained, it's conforming and it's considered legal for habitability. And so there could be a situation where hazardous could either be that that conforming electrical circuits had degraded.

They were damaged. They were somehow defective now. And so they were a danger. They were hazardous. Or they might be overloaded.

And when I was reading through the report, it seemed like there was a microwave, there were various appliances. So it could be a situation where modern electrical conveniences with microwaves and toaster ovens and blenders and things like that, that some people have, that plugging in too many of those and operating them at the same time, that could overload a circuit and create a hazardous situation. Could the staff comment on the city inspection and the definition of hazardous? Is it that the actual wiring had become defective? Or is it that modern expectations of load in the kitchen with all the different appliances when they were used were creating a hazardous situation or something else?

So I'm not sure about the timing. What I can do is read to you what the report says, if that would be helpful. So I'll read the parts that I think are pertinent to whether or not it's hazardous. So in the report, it says identified electrical hazards shall be abated. And underneath that is the comments from the inspector, which says kitchens should have two countertop 20 amp electrical circuits in addition to any built in appliance circuits.

Have a licensed electrical contractor verify that circuits for this kitchen are up to code and can handle power demands of the kitchen appliances. And it says throughout the unit, mounted plug adapters are currently being used throughout this unit. These are located where surge protected power strips are being used, installed GFCI outlet at all surge protected power strip locations and any other location where grounded plug adapter is or will be used. So to me, it seems like it was, you know, based on that reading, it was not up to code, and it needed additional circuits needed to be added in order to bring it up to code, in order to take the amperage from these various appliances without shorting it.

Yeah. I also just want to note that the respondent landlord's own witness testified that overloading the circuits can cause the wires to overheat and cause fire, which is the hazard.

Yes. No. Thank you. Okay. So thank you. I'm gonna then a follow-up question, and and that's an important point. What is the staff's opinion on conforming situations? And again, my understanding of the word conforming in a in a code context is when this when structure was originally built legally and certified for occupancy, it was legal at the time. But then decades later, years later, codes change. And it is no longer it is not compliant to current code, but it's conforming, meaning it is currently legal. Does staff have an opinion on how conforming relates to modern day habitability?

Don't know, Kara, if you want to.

Well, think what we go by is what the codes require and based on the reports it appears that the amperage was not sufficient based on current codes and that's what was cited. So we can only tell you what the code inspector

Okay.

Determined.

Okay. We also don't have, you know, we don't know based on this report or what is in the record whether or not this unit was compliant at the time that it was built. We have, you know, we don't know if this was just an issue from the beginning or if it was, yeah, you know.

Thank you.

Or if

it's just raised at this point.

All

right moving on to Member Keating.

Thank you. So I think my question a bit is repeat of committee member Cox's question, but a little more specific. Regarding the water heater timing, the presentation from the landlord indicated that the begin date of that problem was too early. And so I'm just wondering to hear some reassurance about is that the situation? And then another follow-up around the water heater is is there any question around if there was a new water heater or not?

Because we heard about an existing water heater being taped up and then about, I believe, the inspector not being happy about that. But then that seems to be not in agreement with hearing about a new water heater. So I'm wondering how to reconcile that.

Yes. Sorry, give me a moment. I just want to double you know, give you really specific information about when the water so the water heater issue was first reported on 04/19/2023 and then again on 05/13/2023. And then the award for that issue, I believe, began on the '20 April 26.

I think it began May 13.

Oh, May 13. No. Yeah. Okay. So it it began the award began 04/26/2023, so that's one week after the notice was provided to the landlord and lasted through 05/16/2023, which was when the water heater was replaced. So the water heater issue, the award for that is only three weeks. So as soon as the water heater was replaced, the award does stop for that.

And so then what about the question of taping it to stop the noise versus replacing it?

As the hearing officer's findings was that it was replaced in May 2023.

Thank you.

Vice chair Cox.

Yes, I just wanna check my understanding of when the timeline of this, the inspection from the city of Mountain View happened. My, what I think I understand is that inspection was conducted after the tenant was served with an eviction notice, but before the tenant had actually vacated the apartment. Is that right?

That is correct. I believe the inspection took place sorry. There's a lot of dates in here, so I just want to be really accurate when I give information. Yep. Okay.

So the petition was filed on 11/15/2024, and it is my understanding that the was in. Okay. Yeah. So the inspection actually took place after the petition had been filed, I believe, in response to the petition being filed. So it was about five or six days after the petition was filed.

And then the petitioners vacated about a month and a half later in the January 2024.

I have the inspection date as November 2024.

Yes, that's correct. Yeah. And then the petition was filed November 19.

Okay. So you're saying that what you can confirm for me is that the petition was filed, the inspection happened after that, and then about a month or so later, that's when they left the apartment.

That's correct.

Okay, that's close enough. Thank you.

Member Bulge, you have continuing questions? No? Okay, Member Keating, you have any questions? Okay, moving on to questions for either the landlord's representative or the tenant. Any questions?

Seeing no questions, we will now move to deliberation. Vice chair Cox.

Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to accept the what's it called again? The tentative appeal decision in its entirety. And let me give you my reasons why. I'm supposed to move here, right? How do I do that?

We're not doing

that. Oh we're not doing that, okay. So then, okay. So how would

you like to

Oh you're right, we're not doing that because we're

Do it after he

says Okay. So anyway, yeah because we're calling all this stuff from roll call tonight, that's the reason. Okay, so I just wanna make a couple points, not on everything because I think that staff did a very good job of laying out all of the issues, but I want to comment on the ones that I think are useful for anybody listening to this to decide how, at least I and I think if others agree with me, how we would be deciding these similar kinds of things into the future, what principles are involved here. I mean the first one is that I agree with the statement in the tentative appeal decision that nothing in the CSFRA prohibits a hearing officer mourning rent reduction where the landlord has taken steps to correct the condition but has been unsuccessful. So, I mean, we've heard this several times before.

That's been upheld in several appeal decisions by us already. The one nuance that came up here question of whether or not there had been mitigation. And the thing to underline with this is that again, the only standard for actually saying that the problem has been resolved is that the problem has to be actually corrected. You don't get partial credit for mitigation. So anyway, I think that's an important thing to state.

Second thing is, I agree with the statement of the tentative appeal decision that CSFRA does not require a tenant to continually notify and provide opportunities to correct particularly when the landlord has indicated that they do not intend to take further action. So this one, I mean here's the thing where you know, I feel it's kind of an unfortunate circumstance of what's going on here. And that's that, you know, mean it feels like there's an assumption that when the tenant is silent, then that implies his consent with what's been done up to this point. And I wanna underline that that should not be taken that way. And I'm used over myself having read this thing about whether or not there ought to have been something in the CFRA to state this more clearly.

But, and I did send in a question about this and we got a good response saying that it isn't explicitly there. And yet on the other hand, I really do believe that it's kind of on the landlord, I mean to ensure that whatever attempts that he's made have been accepted by the tenant and it's in his interest to do that. And so the fact like just to use the examples like with the Drano, okay, the fact that the tenant was driven to the point of using Drano to do the best that she could do to mitigate the situation in her apartment when that landlord was unresponsive. I mean, it's just not a defense against not taking action. And I feel that what would have been better for the landlord is that if he had issued a clear and consistent dialogue with the tenant, you know, and gotten a cent from the tenant that the fixes had actually happened.

So, that's my comment on that. On the idea of whether the rent reductions were arbitrary or excessive, I mean, previous hearings that we've had and, you know, a session where we discussed this in the rental housing committee, to me, showed that they were not arbitrary because the only thing that's required of the hearing officer is to establish her methodology and to explain it and then to apply it consistently without making excessive awards. And she did make her methodology clear. Her awards are consistent with that. The RHC has determined that the hearing officer does have the right to set forth her own methodology and as long as it's a reasonable one and her decisions were made reasonably in terms of the amounts, then that's okay.

And so she did that and I support her on that. And in particular, the RHC did determine that one hearing officer's methodology does not need to be the same as any previous one, and also that, I would say also that the awards that were given are, even though they don't need to be, they are consistent in their amounts with previous awards that we've seen and since they're restricted to specific issues at specific times and the amounts look reasonable to me, I support that as well. I wanted to make another comment about the testimony and our role and that's the idea that when we listen to the testimony we're here to determine whether or not the hearing officer has decided by the preponderance of the evidence to back up whatever her decision was And we need to determine whether or not her decision is supported by substantial evidence. So I want to call out two things that happened in the hearing, which I listened to all four hours of it in detail, and some points more than once. And that's that I think it's very compelling.

First of all the photographs that the tenant showed photographs and they showed evidence of mold very consistently and all through the unit bathroom area. And so that was strong evidence. There was a photograph shown by the respondent but it was just one photograph that just had just a little bit of mold on it. And so preponderance of the evidence is that the tenant's testimony is the one that is more compelling. So, that's another thing.

I think really one of the things that is just very strong in this statement was that the property manager and the maintenance person who was there during most of the tenant's tenancy did not testify. And so that could have, if there was testimony there, that could have pushed the profunders of the evidence but it just wasn't absent and I think the absence of that person's testimony speaks volumes as to where the preponderance goes. You know, another thing that really bothered me in listening to the testimony was the statement from the landlord's employee that, oh, this is an old unit and therefore you should install a humidifier. And when the tenant went out and bought a humidifier, that person ended up having to empty it every several hours. That just goes to me to show that the idea of promptly and consistently and actually fixing problems wasn't happening here.

So those are, as far as, I'll say also about the idea of whether there was due process and notice and stuff like that. I mean the idea that the problem was called out as a plumbing issue but only that in the testimony it was specifically identified as bathtub clogging even though there was evidence of the exact issue presented ahead of time. I think that convinces me that there isn't a due process issue here. There's no requirement of to what extent and detail you discuss something in the petition. And the fact that the respondent did not make an aggressive objection to what was happening in the hearing with regards to this, I I think that just medicates it.

So anyway, I've said enough about this one, I'll let somebody else talk.

But to be clear, you did make a motion, correct?

Oh yes, I did make a motion to accept the tenant appeal decision in its entirety.

Does anyone second that motion?

I second.

Alright, Moving on to member Bulge.

Thank you. On points a, b, c, and e, I I perceive these as on the on the category of the rental housing committee's purpose here is to determine if the hearing officer had a, you know, had a had a reasonable basis for her decision, would it be reasonable for her to reach that decision? Matters of law and due process, notwithstanding the points that that that staff made, seem reasonable. I personally don't feel like I or we have enough basis to determine what is legal or or or not in terms of of process. And my understanding is that there is the option to appeal in a court if there truly is a kind of miscarriage of justice in terms of process, there is a there is recourse to go to court.

And then I think the the right authorities who could who have the basis to to rule on that would be able to do so. So, a, b, c, and e make sense to me. D, however, I have a problem. I'm not a professional code inspector or electrician, but I do know quite a bit about electrical. And I think I do not believe that it is likely in any way that this building was built illegally or did not have a permit for original occupancy.

It is a it is an extensive it is a large unit. I'm looking at a picture of it right now. It's got a swimming pool. I I would have to see substantial evidence to believe that it was not legally constructed. So I'm gonna I think we have to stipulate that it is a conforming structure, meaning that when it was built, it was legal, but today, it doesn't conform to modern codes.

And my understanding of code enforcement in general is that conforming is considered legal. It is not considered to be uninhabitable. I also know about electrical that in terms of circuits being overloaded, I know that the standards for fifteen and twenty amp circuits in residential construction have had the same gauge wire, twelve and fourteen gauge, the same basic circuit breaker topologies for decades and decades. I don't believe this is going back to the 1920s and 30s where there was knob and tube wiring. I believe this is probably like a 1950s to 1960s type of structure.

So I'm having trouble that I understand that that the city inspector said it should have based on modern code, but that's not the standard. The standard is, is it is it conforming? And without strong evidence to the contrary, I think we have to stipulate that it is conforming. So the solution to keeping to to not overloading a circuit is is not to plug in so many things. Anyone's house has this.

Most residential wiring to an outlet is 15 amps. There are 20 amps, but most are 15. If you plug in a hair dryer and a microwave and a blender and many other things and run them at the same time, you're going to trip a breaker. And, it's also true that if you plug in just the right combination of things that just keeps it at like 90% load, the wires could heat up under certain circumstances without the breaker tripping. There's all sorts of things there.

But, nonetheless, it is conforming. So I'm I'm really struggling with this idea that legal conforming structures can be deemed to be uninhabitable by the way that they're used. So I actually can't support this decision in its entirety. What I would like to see is I would like to see us remand it where d has to be reexamined to understand what is really going on. Is this truly conforming and therefore legal?

And therefore, was there a responsibility on the part of the tenant to not overload the circuits, knowing what capacity of the circuits were? So would, like I said, I would like to modify the motion to approve a, b, c, and e, but but remand d.

Thank you. Alright. We have a secondary motion on the floor. Is there a second to that secondary motion? Seeing no second that the secondary motion has died. Back to the primary motion. Is there any other discussion on the primary motion? Member Keating?

So I'm gonna speak to the electrical and the, you know, is it reasonable to expect to run multiple appliances at once? And when I was hearing, listening to the original hearing and the person who had added the additional circuit or, you know, outlet, whatever, was there and said, well, how did you know it was working? He said, did some tests on it. And I was disappointed to hear that because the real test would have been to run more to plug in some appliances, and there was no indication that that had happened. And so I think that was a opportunity lost.

And and I think if that had happened, then there could have been negotiation about what's reasonable and maybe, you you know, it's not reasonable to ask to run three things at once in the kitchen. But with an added circuit, it should be reasonable to run two things at once in the kitchen. And also that the electrical, you know, was reported by the tenant that I cannot run everything I want to in the kitchen after that and there was not a response from the landlord. So I feel satisfied that the calculation of the loss of the kitchen usage is acceptable and I'd like to avoid the delay of remanding this. I appreciated the documentation and the photos moving on to other issues now.

And one of the things that was never that was only brought up by the tenant was odors. And mold has a distinctive odor, and also there is was, you know, brought up multiple times, the odor from the sewer being very significant with inside the building, inside the apart or the the unit. And that was not rebutted. So, you know, that was just a but as far as the mold and, you know, seeing those photos of the water dripping down the walls, you have to imagine there is a significant mold odor. As far as was this a reasonable calculation, I certainly understand the the number of rooms aspect of it.

And I thought briefly about is the only, you know, function of the bedroom that you sleep in it. And wasn't there also some function there that you store things in it? And so maybe the full loss of use of the room was a little too much. And then I thought of the pictures of the backpack and then I thought of the testimony of the mattress and storage that didn't smell good because of mold. And so it's at least full loss of that room when I think about the damage that the mold caused to some possessions.

So overall, I'm very comfortable supporting the tentative appeal decision. Thank you.

Member Balch.

Yeah. Thank you. I'm I'm just gonna add a little bit of information. I'm not trying to debate or anything like that. So, again, I'm a layperson, not a licensed electrician, not a code inspector.

My understanding of how electrical outlet circuits work is basically you have a circuit breaker and you have a wire. And so there is no load testing that is done. Basically, you verify that you have continuity, is via a tester. You can plug something in, but they are equivalent effectively. And, the breakers are all UL rated.

In other words, they are they are warrantied and guaranteed to trip to prevent a hazard, an overcurrent hazard. So the the testing that was described, in my understanding, would be would be valid. I wanted to make a broader comment about the implications for rental housing in the city of Mountain View. If we're gonna go down a path that conforming properties are uninhabitable, that is going to break the market of affordable housing in Mountain View. Most of Mountain View's housing stock, as I've said before on this dais, was built in the fifties and sixties.

It is all conforming. None of it is to code, modern code, but it was to code back then. It is legal. It is conforming. If we're gonna say that every time someone wants to, quote, test that a nineteen fifties or nineteen sixties apartment can be used in the same way a a 2020 built or 2024 built apartment would be used, they're always going to find a deficiency. Electrical, certainly. It just simply wasn't common. Back then, air conditioners were much rarer. We didn't use as much power fifty years ago that we use now. Plumbing systems as well had a lot of differences.

So, obviously, we all have to use our best judgment, but we are opening a massive can of worms because guaranteed, any conforming structure in the city of Mountain View is one one reduction in housing services petition away from being ruled against. And then if we're talking about then, okay, we're gonna bring them up to modern code. We're gonna start requiring landlords opening up walls and starting to run new circuits, getting new panels, which requires PG and E to bring new service to the building. It it it's something's gonna break. I I can't predict how it's gonna break and the shape of that curve, what it's gonna look like.

It's gonna break the we we need safe, affordable housing. I agree completely. Things like water leakage and and mold absolutely needs to be addressed, but we really have to respect the legal concept of conforming structures because that is what the city of Mountain View is in a in its great majority.

Vice Chair Cox.

Okay. It looks like Ms. Keating is ahead of me.

That's old.

Oh, okay. Fair enough. Okay. Yeah, I want to respond to committee member Balch's comments. I mean, understand what he's saying and I think that, you know, I mean, that's, it's an important issue that he's bringing up and I even think it's an important enough issue that I would like us to schedule a study session on it so that we can understand things better with respect to that situation.

However, my opinion, I mean about this right now in terms of like whether we should void out the award for electrical system because it was conforming. I mean we have to work on the evidence that we have in the record. And you know, the most, the strongest evidence we have in the record is the electrical person who came in near the end of the tenancy of the person, that's why I asked that question and stated that things weren't up to code. He didn't state well this is a conforming structure so that's okay. I mean he just stated that the things were not up to code.

And if I look at the CSFRA and its definition of what it means, something that is habitable, my take on it is just this, that I mean if a reasonable person who's going and renting an apartment, I mean, looks at what's being provided there and comes to the conclusion that, you know, they ought to be able to use what's there in a normal and reasonable way without any fear of, you know, hazardous things happening to them, okay, then, you know, I think that's kind of my take on habitability. And I'm I'm deeply concerned about the idea that, you know, that a standard that might have been set when the building was created in, like, half a century ago or more, know, mean, you know, never needs any updating and reinterpretation in terms of habitability. So yeah, I would like a study session on this so that we can determine and discuss this in detail. But you know the other thing that's important about this is that that issue about this is a conforming system didn't come up in the hearing. And if it had, we might have had evidence to talk about it or whatever, but that would have been something I think that the respondents, landlord's attorney should have raised.

It's not evidence in the record and so again we're stuck with not having additional evidence on this particular point in the record to consider and we just gotta consider what's in the record. So that's the reason why I'm not interested in changing what's there now, Okay? But I do agree that some greater clarity on this would be very useful in the future.

Member Keating?

I have similar comments and I just like to point out that the landlord agreed that the standard should be at least running two appliances at the same time. Hence, they're adding the additional outlet. And I would also think it would be time well spent to learn more about this issue of, you know, aging electrical. And I think there's a continuum of how far behind some of our units are versus others. Thank you.

Now my turn. This is a question for counsel. So for the electrical item in particular, are you treating this as a habitability issue or a reduction in services issue?

I would like to note that Nas is raising her hand even though we cannot see it on the screen.

All right. Go ahead.

I was actually the chair ma that is on point with the information that I wanted to just share a little bit about what so this was treated as a habitability issue. And just so you all have the language, the code, health and safety code section one seven nine two zero point three d, subsection d of that, provides that any building that has a condition that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents or the public shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a substandard building. And as it relates specifically to electrical, it says all wiring except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. And so I instance, the code inspector determined that even though it was might have been conforming with the applicable laws, you know, it was no longer in good and safe condition, in part also, you know, as Karen mentioned, the petition I mean, the respondent's own witness noted that the repeated overloads could lead to fires. So, you know, whether or not that meets a preponderance of the evidence of whether the electrical that conformed that's conforming is in good and safe condition, I think, is the question for the hearing officer and also for you all to determine based on substantial evidence in the record, if that if substantial evidence in the record existed as to that.

I'll also note part of what is happening here, at least in response to committee member Balch's comments about not plugging certain things in, based on the language in the city's inspection report, it seems that part of the problem was that these were act some of these appliances were actually built in. So, like, the microwave was built in and did not have substantial amperage when you plugged something in along with that. So I don't know if that helps provide additional information or clarity about whether it was in good and safe condition and working properly based on the fact that these were not necessarily just things that the petitioner themselves, like their own appliances, but they were things that actually came with the unit and that were built into the unit.

And then Paul, do you have a question for that or you're good?

Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you for that mention a moment ago. In terms of the built in.

I didn't catch that at first. Are you saying that the record indicates that the landlord hardwired or built in their own appliances and that the landlord's, like, the creation of that configuration was inherently, like, tripping the circuit breakers on its own without the tenant plugging in their own appliances? Yeah. Sorry.

Go ahead. Yeah.

I'm I'm not I don't think that that was the testimony at the hearing. It was certainly that, like, they were also plugging in their own things. But it I think it's more so maybe a question of the landlord having known that they had a built apply that outlet and then still getting an outlet for the for someone to plug in additional things into that same circuit, whether that means it was, you know, in good and safe condition or sufficient to meet the demands. So if you know that you are going to have this microwave that is going to be working off of the circuitry and you're providing additional outlets on the same circuit, are you providing enough to cover both the microwave and the additional outlets that you're anticipating someone is going to plug in something to? I don't know if that makes sense.

Yeah. I understand what you're saying. It's really a shame that that this really wasn't explored because I think it I think it's really salient to to the issue for housing in general as to how the how the how conforming utilities are configured, whether they are as they were when they were originally installed at the beginning for occupancy, or whether they were subsequently updated by landlord. And therefore, the landlord might then be you know, could be viewed as having liability for the the upgrades and quotes that they that they did. I don't know.

I I that's why I I'm I'm just I feel that this is just a a really difficult situation based on the information presented. There's a lot of questions that I'm I'm really concerned about the the precedent that this sets for the city.

Yeah, the staff will follow-up with discussions with the inspection department and will report back to the rental housing committee.

Yeah and and so then all I would just say is that I I think look we we often talk about fairness and and process, and I don't think I don't think justice should be rushed. I think that that if there is a concern that my understanding of how our our system works in general is we give people an opportunity to go through the process if we if we believe that something isn't isn't right. So, I mean, I would I would really need to see a remand for for Dee.

Alright. That returns back to me. I I will re reiterate for this item on electrical that the landlord side of things stopped responding to some of that, and that is part of the reason we gave the award is one of the duties. Obviously, you know, mitigation is not enough, but, like, to be able to continue to work on a solution is a good faith effort on both sides. And with that, I think we are ready for a roll call vote.

Alternate Balch? Nay. Committee member Keating? Yes. Vice chair Cox. Yes. Chair Ma.

Aye.

The motion passes. Three to one.

Alright then. Moving on to item 6.1, contract renewal with Goldfarb and Lippmann LLP for fiscal year twenty twenty five twenty six. Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. We will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you, chair and rental housing committee members. This flows out of the approval of the budget that the rental housing committee reviewed in May in April and May of this year. And the purpose is to authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to execute an agreement for this coming fiscal year for Goldfarb and Littmann for legal and litigation services For the CSFRA, not to exceed $250,000 and for the MHRSO, not to exceed $35,000 As background information, Goldfarb provides the following legal services. They assist the rental housing committee in administering the CSFRA and MHRSO. They provide subject matter expertise.

Electricity and code enforcement not included, attending rental housing committee meetings, drafting regulations and staff reports, tentative decisions in case of appeals and assessed with issues and questions and represent the rental housing committee in litigation. So this is in accordance with the budget for the coming twenty twenty five-twenty six budget, both for the CSFRE and the MHRs. The recommendation is to authorize the rent stabilization manager to sign the agreement with Goldfarb and Libman for CSFRE services not to exceed $250,000 and the MHRSO not to exceed $35,000 End of presentation.

Thank you. Now we move on to questions from committee members. Are there any questions on this item? Seeing none, I will now invite public comments. If you are in person, please submit a speaker card now to staff. Otherwise, if you're online, please raise your hand. Seeing neither, we will go back now to the committee. Does anyone want to talk about this item? Does anyone like to make the motion? If I have to I can do that.

Repeating. So to make the motion, I'm reading what's on the screen now.

Yes.

I move we authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to execute an agreement for fiscal year twenty twenty five twenty six with Goldfarb Lipman for a total amount for CSFRA services not to exceed 250,000 for legal and litigation services, and authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to execute an agreement for fiscal year twenty twenty five twenty six with Goldfarb Blippman for a total amount for MHRSO services not to exceed 35,000 for legal and litigation services.

Is there a second on the motion? Member Cox sec vice chair Cox seconds the motion. We would now take roll call.

Committee member Balch?

Aye.

Committee member Keating? Yes. Vice chair Cox? Yes. Chair Ma? Yes. The motion passes four to zero.

Alright. Moving on to agenda item 6.2, contract renewal with project Sentinel for fiscal year twenty twenty five twenty six. A public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. We will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you again. Similar to what we just passed for Goldfarb, we would like to bring to the Rental Housing Committee the request to authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to execute an agreement with Project Sentinel for this coming fiscal year for administrative and hearing process services and the CSFRA not to exceed $180,000 and the MHR result not to exceed $13,000 correcting an error in the staff report. Project Sentinel provides administrative support services to help administer the CSRA and MHRSO. They help in deploying and reimbursing facilitators and hearing officers for the pre hearing and hearing process, and administrative support services. The budget includes the $180,000 for the CCFRA and the $13,000 for the MHROZO as approved by the rental housing committee in have the the very position we company.

Thousand dollars. This concludes the presentation. Position

And Thank you. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item? If so, please submit a speaker card or raise hand. Seeing none, we will move back to the committee for deliberation and feedback. Does anyone want to discuss? No discussion. Does anyone like to make the motion? Motion requires reading the screen. Okay. Vice chair Cox.

I make a motion to authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to execute an agreement for fiscal year twenty twenty five to twenty six with Project Sentinel for a total amount of CSFRA services not to exceed $180,000 as follow administrative support services not to exceed $10,000 deploy and reimburse facilitators not to exceed $10,000 and deploy and reimburse hearing officers not to exceed $160,000 and for a total amount for MHRSO services not to exceed $13,000 as follows administrative support services not to exceed $1,000 Deploy and reimbursement facilitators not to exceed $2,000 and deploy and reimburse hearing officers not to exceed $10,000

Is there a second on the motion? Member Keating?

Second.

Alright. We have a motion made by vice chair Cox, seconded by member Keating. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, move on to roll call.

Committee member Balch? Aye. Committee member Keating. Yes. Vice chair Cox. Yes. Chair Ma. Yes. The motion passes four to zero.

Thank you. We will now move on to agenda of item 6.3 amendments to CSFRA regulations chapter two definitions for the common record after presentation item committee questions? We'll begin with presentation from staff.

Yes. Good evening. So the item before you is to review and adopt amendments to the CSFRA regulations chapter two to add definitions for rent refund and rent rollback. So the CSFRA empowers you to adopt these regulations. So what we are proposing is to add two definitions to chapter two.

These terms are referenced throughout the regulations, but we don't actually have definitions. They also are used pretty regularly by our hearing officers and by landlords and tenants. And so there's been a request that we define them explicitly. So the proposal is to add the following definitions, that rent refund refers to a payment or credit provided to a tenant by a landlord where the landlord charged rent for the fully covered rental unit above what was permitted by the CSFRA. And then rent rollback refers to the act of lowering the effective rent for a fully covered unit to the lawful rent.

And we did specify a rent rollback does not include any temporary decrease in the effective rent for a fully covered rental unit ordered by a hearing officer pursuant to a downward adjustment petition for failure to maintain habitable premises or for a reduction in housing services. So similar to your petition tonight. So once again, this is just a clarification, and hopefully it will make it easier for landlords and tenants to understand. And as was pointed out in some of the materials, chapter two of the regulations for the MHRSO includes these definitions. The MHRSO definition for rent rollback is slightly different, but we will be bringing back to you a clarification on that at a future date to make them consistent.

Alright. We will take questions from the committee. Any questions from the committee? You have a question? Go ahead. Member Balch?

Yeah. Thanks. A question on the rent refund refers to a payment or credit. Does that mean that a landlord could choose whether they issue a check to a tenant or as a result of an RHC decision or credit for future towards future rent? Is that their choice or is there any other management?

So it sometimes depends on the decision. What most of the decisions we've we've tried to bring the decisions into some conformity, say that the landlord shall issue a credit, but if they they shall issue a refund in the form of a payment. But if they don't do it within thirty days, then the tenant can start to take it as a credit on their rent. So that is the standard that we've been moving towards. But the decision really determines whether it is a payment or if it's a credit. So for instance, tonight's decision, are former tenants so it can't be a credit.

Yeah. You.

Alright. Any other questions from members? Seeing none. We will now go on to public comment. Public comments, if you are online and would like to speak on this item, please raise hand. Seeing none, we will move back to the committee. There's motion is in order. Anyone want to make the motion? Yes. Okay.

I'm I move that we adopt amendments to the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act regulations chapter two, definitions to add the terms rent refund and rent rollback.

Alright. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by vice chair Cox. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, move on to roll call.

Committee member Balch. Aye. Committee member Keating. Yes. Vice chair Cox. Yes. Fairmont? Yes. The motion passes. Four to zero.

Alright. We will now move on to agenda item six four four, amendment CSFR regulations chapter 13, utility charges, public comment will occur after presentation and committee questions. We'll begin with the presentation.

Yes. Once again, good evening. So this is what's before you is to adopt amendments to chapter 13 of the CSFRI regulations, extending the time frame for compliance with the one time utility adjustment petitions. So you adopted regulations in December 2023. You adopted chapter 13, which clarifies that utility charges are part of rent, and then implemented a onetime utility adjustment petition process that allowed landlords that were currently using the ratio utility billing system or other similar systems to transition to, a separately charged utility system.

You also established a process for submission of those petitions and review of those petitions and a timeline for that process. So implementation started in September 2024. There were staggered deadlines depending on the size of the property. So the larger buildings had an earlier deadline. You adopted extensions to those deadlines in February 2025 due to the length of time associated with submitting a petition.

The first amendment to the extended deadlines for all property sizes were for two months with an overall submission completion date of 04/31/2025. But based on the updated workload that it's taken to process the petitions, are suggesting an additional extension. So for staff to review and complete the current submissions, it has taken more time. And I just want to note that staff report does provide you with information that we do have 100% compliance with all the larger buildings. But that has taken a significant amount of staff time.

So, there is not a request to extend this deadline for the larger buildings, because as I said, we have 100% compliance. But for those properties with six to 20 units, there is a request to extend that deadline through 09/30/2025. And then for smaller buildings, one to five units, the deadline would be extended to 12/31/2025. So it's a two month extension for each of those.

Alright. We'll move back to committee deliberation and questions. Does any member of the committee would like to make a question? Vice chair Cox? You first. Okay.

I had submitted a question about what the extensions were to be for the six to 20 units and in the answer to the question there was an acknowledgement that the, I'll read, staff report contains an error regarding the timeline for a six to 20 unitranche, second revision of submittal dates should indeed be 10/31/2025 as in the defining tables not 09/30/2025 as stated in table one in the staff report. So I think I see the same thing in the presentation that was in the staff report. So my comment is I'm hoping that we're gonna get corrected as was stated in the questions. Is that right?

There's actually an error in the answer to the questions.

Oh, really? Yeah.

September 30 is the correct deadline. A two month extension from July 31 would No.

But I, you know, honestly, I'll go back and look at it again, but I think both of those dates are in error. Okay? That it should have been August 31 and then October 30.

No. If we look at the original submittal periods, for six to 20 units, the original submittal period was May 31 and we had a two month extension which takes it to July 31. And then two months after that would be September 30.

Okay. I'll take your word for it.

Is that all your questions? Yep. Alright. Member Balch?

I just have a question in terms of trying to trying to simplify communication and and and and and life in general. So since this is the second extension, is it worth having the granularity of multiple categories? Why not just have one date simplify for everyone? There's a new date. Here it is. It's December 31 or whatever it is. And just wouldn't that be easier? I'm just curious why we have the granularity if we're already starting to move out twice now.

I'm gonna let Patricia take that.

It is far easier for us to be able to contact categories of property owners than have a broad contact point for every single rental property that is still left. It's mentioned in the staff report that while we have 100% compliance with the larger properties which represents the majority of our units, we now have the majority of our properties that we need to focus on. We were able to achieve 100% compliance because we did extensive outreach, calling, emailing, mass mailing letters to ensure that we were able to contact all of the properties in a timely fashion And to now do that for the next group of properties, we would really struggle if we had to do that for everyone all at one time.

Got it. Thank you.

Member Keating?

So it takes staff time to do the outreach. I think you just answered what my question was. So we're extending the deadlines for the properties to submit, but that means that we're in a sense giving rental housing staff extension of having more time to contact them to get them to submit within the extended deadlines.

That is correct because we have to continue processing the petitions that we've received for the 9,000 units and then also start the out well not start but continue the outreach and then escalate the outreach the closer that we get to the deadlines because we really want to ensure that properties are in compliance. The consequences are pretty extreme if you don't comply and we would like to avoid that at all costs.

Any other questions from the members? Seeing none, we, seeing none, we move on to, public comment. If any members of the public would like to make a comment, please raise hand. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Motion is in order. Vice Chair Cox.

I make a motion to review and adopt amendments to the Community Stabilization Fair Rent Act, CSFRA regulations chapter 13. Utility charges extending the time frames for compliance in section b point three table two. Is there

a second? Second. Seconded by member Keating. Roll call.

Committee member Balch. Aye. Committee member Keating. Yes. Vice chair Cox. Yes. Chair Ma. Yes. The motion passes four to zero.

Thank you all. We will now move on to committee and staff announcements and updates. We'll bring it back to staff.

So to reiterate and give our latest dates for the office hours and workshops hereby every Tuesday from ten to twelve in the morning. We have virtual office hours online. And the workshops for this coming month are June 26, rent stabilization 101 for landlord focused. July 8, how to roughly increase rent also for landlord focused. And July as well, for tenant focused, I got an rent increase, what's next?

To prepare for the upcoming allowance for landlords to increase the rent with the AGA for this coming year. Housing Help Center for Landlords continues to be held every Thursday from one to 3PM. And the housing help center for tenants are on the first and third Thursdays, from six to 8PM. Thank you.

Alright. We will move on to seven point two, future agenda items. Future agenda items for next month on July 24 is an appeal hearing. Are there any other comments or questions or announcements from any other member? Seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 09:12PM. The next rental housing committee meeting is scheduled to be held on July 24, 6PM. Good night.