Rental Housing Committee - Regular Meeting

Hi, Naz.

Hello.

Good evening. Welcome to the 07/24/2025 rental housing committee special meeting. This meeting will be called to order at 06:02PM. Now I will proceed with roll call. All committee members present except for member Hislop.

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 will occur after discussion. We advise 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? Seeing none, I now invite public comment. In person public comments will be 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 none, I will now bring the item for committee action. A motion to approve the consent calendar should include reading the title of the agenda item. Vice Chair Cox?

Yes, I make a motion to approve the the items on the consent calendar including the minutes for the 06/12/2025 RHC meeting.

By member Balch. Okay. Vote. Motion passes five zero. We will now open the meeting for oral communication 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 allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non agenda items. Would any member of the public like to provide comments on non agenda items?

Michael Meredith.

Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Mike Meredith. I've been complaining to the city for nearly eighteen months. Yeah, oh, not on it? Better Good. Yeah, I've been complaining about registered STRs being allowed in my condo association where they're clearly prohibited by the CC and Rs.

The affected units have been cited by the city for building code violations, and there's no liability insurance. I'm tired of complaining about this, and I am grateful that the, city building department is taking an interest in the problem. A city council member was kind enough to put me in touch with other individuals who had expressed concern about STRs. I connected with them and learned that there are people who live in rent controlled housing who feel offended and threatened by the presence of STRs, but would rather not speak out given fear of retaliation from landlords. And there is a concern that tenants are pressured or induced to pose as STR hosts so as to allow short term rentals for more than sixty days a year.

Now, looking at the city business license spreadsheet and the rent stabilization portal, it appears there are 144 registered STRs, and 30 of them are at addresses covered by rent stabilization program. Now, is it that great a burden on multi tenant residents to have virtual hotel operations going on around them? Well, my honest experience is that with STRs, rather than normal long term resident neighbors, I'm much more often facing the question of whether or not to call the police, which I don't want to do. My housemate's not quite as tolerant. But, at this point, I'm concerned that when STRs are registered, no one is checking to see if they're permitted under the lease, if the operator's actually the owner, if the HOA accepts it, if there are citations on the property, or is it rent stabilized building, or in my case, is there a property proper liability insurance in place.

So, I hope that I've encouraged some discussion of these issues. I'm concerned that the lack of meaningful regulation of STRs is causing needless tension and disorder. I believe there is a willingness among city council members to improve the process, and I hope I can reach to other people who will help do this. So thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you. Any other speakers on line or in person? Seeing none moving on to item 5.1 appeal of hearing officers decision regarding petitions number 242522 and twenty four twenty five twenty three. The Reno 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 request required to disclose any communication that 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 considered in the hearing. Do any RHC members have an ex parte communications that need to be disclosed? Seeing none we will now proceed with public comment for agenda item 5.1.

Are there any members of the public who are not parties to the petition who would like to speak in person public comments we call to speak first. Any member of the public wishing to provide virtual comment on the item please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press 9 on your phone. You'll be given three minutes. Again this is for people who are not parties to the case. Seeing none we will now move on to agenda item 5.1 appeal of hearing officers decision regarding petitions number 242522242523. We will now proceed with the hearing.

Thank you Okay, thank you. All right, so the purpose of this item is to consider the tentative appeal decision that was issued and either accept the tentative appeal decision or modify the tentative appeal decision with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence in the record. So as the chair indicated, I will first review the rental housing committee's decision process, including your role, the scope of the decision that you're to make, and then discuss the schedule for this appeal hearing, and then finally conclude with a summary of the petition and the appeal and the tentative appeal decision. So the Rental Housing Committee has some options when hearing and deciding an appeal. You can do so on a closed record, which would require deciding based only on the facts in this decision written by the hearing officer.

You could also do a de novo hearing, where you would follow the formal hearing process to accept new facts before deciding on the appeal. And finally, you could remand, in which case you would follow the closed record procedures, but then identify issues for the hearing officer to reexamine, including potentially accepting new facts upon remand hearing. The rental housing committee must exercise its independent judgment for questions of law such as statutory interpretation. For questions of fact, the rental housing committee must determine whether or not each appealed element of the hearing officer's decision is supported by substantial evidence. This doesn't mean reweighing the evidence or relitigating the issues.

Rather, the appeal is based on the records submitted to the hearing officer with no new evidence. This does not mean that you have to come to the same conclusions as the hearing officer did. So tonight, staff is not recommending a de novo hearing, which would, as I mentioned, require a new formal hearing. This would require significant time to prepare. And upon staff's review, we've determined that existing evidence is sufficient and except for the item that we the tentative appeal decision recommends remanding, which we will discuss shortly.

So the decision on appeal should be based on the hearing record and the committee should not hear or find facts in addition to those presented to the hearing officer. So as far as the scope of the decision, so the petition that's filed defines the scope of the hearing officer's decision. And then appeals of the hearing officer's decision basically limit the scope of the rental housing committee's review on appeal. That means that you should not be looking or examining any issues that were not raised by the appeal that was filed in this case by the landlord respondent. So schedule for the appeal hearing, we've already taken public comment And then currently, a number one, staff presentation.

This will be followed by presentations by the appellant and respondent in turn of ten minutes, followed by any rebuttal, by the appellant and respondent. They'll each have five minutes for that. And then, followed by questions for staff from the committee and then questions for the appellant and respondent, and finally concluding with the Rental Housing Committee's deliberations and decision.

So

summary of the petition. There are actually two petitions here, which is why you numbers listed. The first petition was a petition for downward adjustment of rent based on a failure to maintain the property, inhabitable condition, and decrease in housing services. There were a number of issues, infestation of cockroaches and spiders, flooding and water encroachment from the bathtub to the in the master bedroom, repeated clogging of both toilets in the unit, damage from a flooded bathroom above the affected unit, sewer overflows on the walkways directly outside of the unit, damaged baseboards throughout the unit, large gaps around the front door, a leaking dining room window, broken shelving and doors of kitchen cabinets, lack of a secure area to hold residents' packages, and a change in the resident portal. And then the second petition for downward adjustment of rent was based on unlawful demand or retention of rent based on the fact that the respondent was not substantially compliant with the CSFRA in 2021, 2022, and 2023 due to habitability issues.

So any rent increases that were imposed during that time were invalid, as well as overcharges for gas and electricity prior to 07/08/2014. So the hearing decision determined that the petitioners met their burden of proof with regard to persistent clogging of toilets. In the unit, the petitioners were entitled to a rent reduction of 4% for this issue from 09/01/2021 through 01/01/2025, as well as a continuing rent reduction of $117.98 per month until the crash, issue is corrected by the respondent. And then the second is a leaky dining room window. They met their burden of proof that that was a reduction in housing services and maintenance, and the hearing officer ordered a 2% rent reduction from 01/01/2017 through 01/31/2025, as well as an ongoing rent reduction of $58.99 per month until the condition is corrected.

The petitioner the hearing petitioner concluded petitioners did not meet their burden of proof with regard to any of the other habitability or reduction in housing services maintenance issues. They also did not meet their burden of proof that the respondent was out of substantial compliance with the CSFRA between twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two, and 2023, and therefore, did not invalidate any of the rent increases imposed during that time, that the hearing officer is not authorized to make decisions regarding housing discrimination under state and federal law. And finally, that the hearing officer was not authorized to make decisions regarding claims prior to the date that the CR set priority took effect on 12/23/2016. So the appeal raises three issues. The first is that the hearing officer aired or abused her discretion in awarding a rent refund and ongoing rent reduction based on the clogging of toilets.

Second, that the hearing officer erred or abused her discretion in awarding an ongoing rent reduction sorry, a rent refund and an ongoing rent reduction based on the leaky dining room window. And finally, that the indefinite nature of the awarded rent reductions was excessive. So the tentative appeal decision recommends affirming part of the hearing officer's decision. So, the following parts are fully affirmed. First, that the hearing officer did not or abused her discretion by granting petitioners a rent reduction for the repeatedly clogged toilets.

There was substantial evidence in the record, including work orders submitted by petitioner over the period of four years and testimony from respondents on witness to support the conclusion that the toilet clogging was a recurring issue in the unit. The CSFA does not require a landlord's failed attempts to correct does not require a hearing officer to consider a landlord's failed attempts to correct a condition and does not require a tenant to continue to notify their landlord of a recurring condition each and every time that the condition recurs. And finally, the 4% rent reduction over the course of forty one months was not unreasonable because the evidence in the record showed that the petitioner and her co tenant had to plunge the toilets one to two times per day in order for them to work during that time period. So as far as the leaky dining room window, the tentative appeal decision recommends affirming part of this decision, namely that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's conclusion that the respondent's failure to correct the leaky dining room window constitute a decrease in housing services. There is substantial evidence in the record, including testimony from the petitioner, a letter from the petitioner's counsel to respondent, as well as testimony from the respondent's maintenance lead that supports the conclusion that there was a recurring window leak that was not timely or adequately prepared by the respondent.

However, the tentative appeal decision recommends remanding part of the hearing officer's decision with regard to the award for the leaky dining room window because the rent reduction awarded is not supported by the hearing, record. The decision to award a ninety seven month rent reduction was not supported where demonstrates that the leaking window was only an issue during the rainy months of the year, and therefore, this issue should be remanded to the hearing officer to revise the award accordingly. And then finally, as to the ongoing nature of the rent reductions, the tentative appeal decision recommends affirming these. The hearing officer's rent reductions were not arbitrary or excessive, because she applied a consistent methodology throughout her decision. There's nothing in the CSFRA or the regulations that limit a hearing officer's authority to order an ongoing rent reduction where the record shows that the issue remains unresolved at the time of the hearing.

And in fact, the rent reductions that were awarded were not indefinite because the hearing officer provided that they would end when the conditions were corrected by the respondent. So the tenant or petitioner did submit a reply to the tentative decision on Monday, the twenty first. The petitioner's reply requests that the rental housing committee adopt the tentative appeal decision as it relates to the toilet clogging and the consistency of the hearing officer's methodology for calculating the awards in the decision. And as to B, that means the ongoing rent reductions. However, it requests that the hearing that the committee reconsider the tentative appeal decision regarding the period for which the rent reduction for the leaky dining room window was awarded.

The arguments that are made in support of this are that the breach of the warranty habitability exists from the time of notice and the CFRA does not require a tenant to continue notifying and continue providing a landlord with an opportunity to correct. That the petitioner first notified the respondent about the leaking window in 2004, and therefore the respondent had knowledge of this issue predating the CFRA, so the beginning date

of 01/01/2017 for the rent reduction is appropriate given the knowledge that the hearing that the respondent had of the issue before the

CSFRA. CSFR went into effect. And that the monthly, reduction awarded by the hearing officer is reasonable considering the condition of the window remain the same year round regardless of the weather, and that the tenant does not need to be aware of the exact type of defect in order to determine that there has been a breach of the warranty of habitability. So just responding and turn to the petitioner's reply. So while the hearing record does establish that the petitioner first notified the respondent of the leaky window in 2004, the record does not establish that the respondent had knowledge of the recurring nature of the issue in the thirteen year period between 02/2017.

So basically, the record establishes that the petitioner first notified respondent of the leaky window in 2004, but it's unclear what happened between 2004 and 2017 when the CSFRA went into effect. However, we do know that the respondent was, after the CSFRA went into effect, notified of the issue again, and therefore that is why the tentative appeal decision recommends starting the award from the date after the CSFRA went into effect when petitioner first notified the respondent of the recurring nature of the leaky window. Second, while hearing officers do have broad discretion to determine the methodology for rent reductions, the CSFRA states that any adjustment to the rent must be based on a loss in the rental value attributable to the decrease in housing services or maintenance or deterioration of the rental unit. So no rent reduction is authorized if there's no impact on the rental value, meaning the tenant's use and occupancy of the rental value of the rental unit is not impacted in any way by the condition. So on remand, the hearing officer may choose to award a monthly reduction if further explanation is provided for the basis of that monthly reduction.

Otherwise, decision should be, revised accordingly to only, provide a rent reduction for those months when the leaking window was an an issue because of the rainy weather. Fiscal impact. Any decision by the rental housing committee on appeal including adoption or modification of the tentative appeal decision could potentially 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. So the appeal process to the rental reduces overall risk of legal liability and legal expenses.

The recommendation again is to consider the tentative appeal decision, either accept the tentative appeal decision or modify the tentative appeal decision with instructions to staff citing appropriate evidence and the record for any modifications that are to be made. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We will now move on to addresses from the appellant. Representative for the appellant landlord, please raise your hand in Zoom if you like to be promoted to a panelist. You will be given ten minutes with a timer on screen.

Thank you. Okay. So these two awards, largely the issues can be boiled down to to the same the same factor here, which is that both the leaking window first then to do we're going present. The problem with the leaky window, to start with that one, is that the petitioner or the tenant, addresses the fact that management would come to the property or come to the apartment and attempt to fix the window, potentially would fix the window, and then later it would start leaking again. So it's not that it was leaking continuously the entire period of time.

It would leak or really the testimony, I think, is not entirely clear, so I actually support the remand on this issue. But it would leak for a period of time, it would be resolved, management staff would come out, they would attempt to do a repair, potentially would complete a repair, and then at some unknown point in the future, it would start leaking again. So really on two components of this. First, the entire reduction shouldn't apply for this whole period of time. It should, as the city's attorney mentioned, only apply when the leak is actually present.

But also second, there were periods of time where management believed that it had been repaired and so then would not have any further duty to complete these repairs. Similarly, with the toilet clogs, the we, urge the council to also remain that for more information as the it's unclear from the record, at least from progress

the progress we've in

with And And testimony was that they there were clogs. They were having to fix them every day, but these weren't always reported to management. In many cases, they were not reported to management, and so they had no duty to create to do these repairs. Repairs. Specifically, management believed that these issues were fixed.

And then when they didn't hear about it, they just thought they were continuously fixed. I understand that if a tenant reports an issue and then management does nothing, they aren't required to keep reporting the issue every day in order to keep it present. But here, the tenant would report an issue, management would come out, they would attempt to repair. Potentially, that repair was effective do so we're And that. We're we're we're nature of the award for for years is that there should have been periods of time when the issue was not present and management would have had no notice to fix it.

I understand that it would it would take more testimony on the specific issue to determine exactly when these trailer fogs started or stopped. Our our position would be that there was periods of times where they were not present. It hasn't been necessary for plunging to take place every single day for that whole period of time. But I understand that the, the petitioners may have a a different opinion on that. But either way, I think that more more information is necessary.

And then, generally, we also appealed on the issue that it these types of awards create an uncertain nature where it's unclear if the conditions existed as of the date of the award. It's unclear if they're existing now. In many situations and in this situation, the the award or the the hearing happens, and then months later, we have this award. It's unclear if either of these conditions existed at the time of the hearing or at time the the award came out. So management is never and this is more broadly an issue, not just for this specific petition, but just generally, where it's unclear for management if these conditions still exist.

They're not necessarily being reported by the tenants to management. So they'd like to go in and make these fixes, but, again, they don't know what's going on in the inside of a unit. And the rent decrease is tied explicitly to whether or not these are present or not. But management's unable to really tell if those conditions have remained. And that's once they get the award, they or the the decision by the hearing officer, they could always serve a twenty four hour notice and go in.

Hopefully, they will be provided access, and then they can determine whether or not it is still present. But it places them in a more difficult situation where they don't necessarily know what to do or when the rent can necessarily be decreased or when the decrease stops and it can now be increased. So that is really the underlying issue with the indefinite nature of the award. For the specifically the toilet clogs, we request that the rent board reverse the tentative decision and remand that back as well with the leaky window issue. So more testimony can be provided on both of those.

And we can show that these were not continuous issues, but rather they were starting and stopping, over time. And that, covers it for me. I have nothing further on this.

Thank you. Alright. Representatives for the respondent tenant please come to the podium if you're speaking in person or raise hand on zoom if you like to speak online. The speech timer will be on screen you will have ten minutes.

Thank you. Members of the committee my name is Alison Martinez counsel for the tenant petitioner Mary Anne Washington. This appeal today is merely an attempt to diminish the well considered findings of the hearing officer. As such, Washington respectfully requests that the committee deny the appeal in its entirety and inform the hearing officer's decision in its entirety for three reasons. First, regarding the clogging toilet, the hearing officer's decision appropriately considered the reoccurring clog as an ongoing issue that remains unaddressed to date.

Second, regarding the leaky dining room window, the hearing officer's decision accurately calculated the award based on the landlord's notice of the issue well before the CFRA was enacted and because the award adequately contemplates the condition of the window balanced against the frequency of the leaks and the inconvenience imposed on the petitioner. Third, the hearing officers continuing awards were appropriately determined for both outstanding issues. Holding in Ms. Washington's favor will preserve the administration of the CSFRA and the hearing officer's role as the final decision maker on the merits of these petitions. Turning to the issue of the clogged toilets, the hearing officer's decision should be affirmed as she properly considered the reoccurring clogs as an ongoing issue that remains unaddressed.

The toilets clocking every day cannot be considered merely an intermittent and temporary condition rather than appreciating this as a larger issue that remains unaddressed. It cannot reasonably be understood that having to unclog toilets every day, sometimes multiple times a day as the testimony was provided, that this is not a large concern but rather the landlord posits that each unclogging has been adequately fixing the problem. The CSFRA does not require a tenant to repeatedly notify a landlord about a reoccurring issue each and every time it resurfaces. On page 27 of the decision, the hearing officer explained that the landlord has that a duty to cure the problem, so it does not recur frequently. The petitioner repeatedly requested that management come out to address the issue and unclog the toilet.

She and her sister also testified to having to plunge that toilet constantly at least once a day and sometimes twice. These were certainly not isolated incidents but rather indicative of a bigger plumbing problem. Given that this is a daily ongoing issue, a 4% reduction was not excessive. None of the efforts that the landlord has undertaken thus far have resolved the plumbing issue and miss Washington and her family have continued to experience this problem. Accordingly, the hearing officers decision as related to the clogging toilet should be adopted.

Turning next to the issue of the leaking window. The hearing officers decision should be affirmed in its entirety for two reasons. First, because the hearing officers award accurately calculated the time period the landlord was on notice of the issue with the appropriate award considering the CSFRA's enactment and second, because the hearing officers decision adequately contemplated the unresolved condition of the window balanced against the frequency of the leaks and the inconvenience imposed upon the petitioner. First, the hearing officer's decision did reasonably calculate the applicable time period for the award. The CSFRA provides that a petition for downward adjustment for failure to maintain a habitable premise premises must quote demonstrate that the landlord was provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to correct.

I do acknowledge that before at the beginning of this presentation that this was briefly addressed. The CSFRA has no provision stating that notice to a landlord of a habitability concern will only be considered after the CSFRA has taken to effect. Further, it is well established that when the landlord has notice of the defect, the breach of the warranty of habitability exists from the time of the original notice. It is certainly reasonable that an award for an outstanding issue under the CSFRA can only date back to the time period when the CSFRA was in effect but this is separate apart separate and apart from the consideration of what a landlord's notice period ought to be for a particular issue. The hearing officers decision to consider the landlord's notice of the leaking window over the entire time span the issue existed while limiting the award to the time period when the CSFRA went into effect adequately calculates a reasonable award to the petitioner within the confines of the CSFRA.

The petitioner has experienced a leaking dining room window for over a decade, nearly two. She has reported the issue to the landlord repeatedly and efforts were made at different points to address the leak to no avail. It was reasonable for the hearing officer to consider the landlord's notice of the issue over the entire period that this has been an ongoing habitability issue while also limiting the award to only the time period after the enactment of the CSFRA. Second, the hearing officer's decision adequately contemplated the condition of the window balanced against the frequency of the leaks and the inconvenience imposed on the petitioner. While the window leaks during the periods of rain, it's not clear exactly why it does this.

The entry point for the water is not readily visible to this petitioner and she does not otherwise have the skill or expertise to determine what the exact condition is that causes the water to swell around the window. It is therefore clear that there is a larger issue here with the construction of the window that remains unaddressed given that the window has continued to leak even after it was replaced. While this larger habitability issue may not be readily apparent to the tenant, it is reasonable to determine that a habitability breach exists even when water is now actively leaking from the window. The California Supreme Court has stated that the fact that the tenant was or was not aware of the specific defect is not determinative of the duty of a landlord to maintain the premises which are habitable. Here the landlord has been on notice of this reoccurring leak for years but has not adequately investigated the issue to determine its cause.

The hearing officer on page 29 of the decision contemplated the uncertainty about why the issue has persisted writing quote, the respondent was initially responsive to the problem and replaced the entire window. However, the caulking or something about the installation did not remedy the problem. Additionally, the hearing officer took into account the frequency of the leaks appearing and the imposition on the petitioner writing on page twenty nine and thirty of the decision that quote the dining room is not always leaking and the severity depends greatly on the amount of rain in any given winter. Petitioner was frustrated but was not very inconvenienced by the leak as she testified that it had not rained often even during some winters and therefore the leak was not a frequent problem. Therefore the hearing officer did adequately consider all limiting factors in calculating the ultimate award.

Therefore, the hearing officer's decision as related to the leaking window should be adopted. Lastly, as related to the hearing officer's continuing awards, her methodologies are consistent and appropriate in determining the awards in this decision. It is within the hearing officers discretion to render a final decision on the merits of the petition subject to the CSFRA and nothing in the decision is out of line with her authority. The landlord's argument that there is an indefinite opening for reimbursement anytime there is a clogged toilet or water intrusion through a window fails to acknowledge that these conditions remain outstanding. The hearing officer's decision is clear on pages twenty seven and thirty that the rewards remain open ended because these issues remain unaddressed.

It is clear from the record and from the hearing officers decision that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate both the clogged toilet and the leaky dining room window are continuing issues warranting continued reimbursement. As such, the hearing officers methodology applied in calculating the wards is well supported by the principles of the CFRA. In conclusion, Ms. Washington respectfully requests that this committee deny the appeal in its entirety and infirm the hearing officers decision in its entirety. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative for the appellant landlord, have five minutes to rebut any statements made by the respondent's representative. Please limit your comments to rebuttal.

Thank you. The point I have

Let me just set the timer. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I apologize. The only point I had on on rebuttal is that with the leaking dining room window, it was mentioned that it began in 2006, but then it was limited through the enactment of the CSFRA. The decision itself limited the award to January 2017 just because the damages may only commence, once the CSFRA was in effect. It wasn't in an effort to reduce the damages partially for that period of time.

It's just that they were limited by the the law itself. So the hearing officer actually took the first date that the damages could be awarded and then awarded them entirely through the date of the decision. And that was my only point. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative for the respondent tenant, do you have fine minutes for about any statements made by the representative of the appellant? Please limit your comments to rebuttal rather than repeating information for the presenter.

Sure. I'll just respond briefly to that point. So, there's no disagreement that the reason that the award began in January 2017 was because that was after the CFRA went into effect and there's no argument against that. The only point was simply that the notice period started before then so it was reasonable to begin at the January 2017. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, Bringing it back to RRC members. Does any member of the RRC have a question for staff? So please okay. Member Balch?

Yeah. Thank you. I have three questions for staff. The first one, just to confirm my understanding, the recommendation to partially remand means that when if it were to go back to the hearing officer, the hearing officer would not be able to reopen other elements of decision. They would only be able to focus on the element that is being remanded. Is that a true understanding?

Yes. That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Second question is there seems to be a discussion about the intermittent leaking of the window rainy season versus dry season. Oh, so sorry. Not during the dry season because there's no rain in the dry season is the substance of the recommendation from staff.

But is there anything did the hearing officer or could the hearing officer take into account anything around intermittent leakage? Because I also heard some some comments just now around whether it was a wet or a dry winter. The leaking might be more or less severe. I'm just trying to understand is that to what extent is that able to be considered by the hearing officer?

That is that can be considered by the hearing officer and is, in fact, the reason or the recommendation to remand because it did not appear, at least from what is written, it might have been taken into account in the actual amount of reduction that was awarded, but that is not explained in the hearing decision. So it needs to be remanded to the hearing officer either to take it into account or if it was taken into account, explain how it was taken into account.

Thank you. And then my last question. Arguments or appeals about the frequency of notification. This has something this has been a topic which comes up periodically in front of this committee. And just for again, for my understanding, if there was a claim, a concern that somehow frequency was being improperly judged by the hearing officer.

Is that something that that a party to this appeal would would conceivably take to court to to argue that this was a a matter of fact that was discounted? Or is that even an argument that they would make?

I mean they certainly could try to make the same sort of argument that is being made here, which is that it was some sort of abuse of discretion or an error to take into account or not take into account the frequency of the notification. I will say here what the hearing officer decided, for instance, in the issue with the clogging toilet, and the reason why the recommendation is that it was supported by substantial evidence, is that the recurring nature of this issue should have prompted the landlord to do something other than just unclog the toilet. It should have indicated to them that there was some larger issue that needed to be taken into account and addressed in that way. So they were just kind of like putting a Band Aid on the issue by unclogging when there might have there it seemed that there might be something else bigger that was going on with plumbing or whatever it was and that is explained in the decision.

Thank you very much. It. Member Brown.

Thank you chair. Regarding the uncertain nature of the ongoing compensation, after a compliance hearing, if there is a finding that the issue has been resolved, that would clear the initial petitions and require a new set of petitions, right?

That's correct.

So the uncertainty would be ended at the point that a compliance hearing is held and the issue is found to be corrected? There That's is a definite and potential definite endpoint that can be triggered by the landlord? Okay.

Yes. They can request a compliance hearing. And I will add to that that there's nothing that limits the hearing officer from retroactively. So saying this issue actually ended in the during the pendency of when the decision is issued to say it was corrected in that interim time and therefore the rent reduction should have stopped at X point during that.

You.

Vice Chair Cox.

Yes, this question back for staff. On the issue of remanding back, the issue with the leaky window, what I'm trying to get my head around is are you wanting to remand it because you don't believe that the hearing officer considered carefully enough whether or not the intermittent nature of the problem due to rainy and non rainy seasons was taken into account? Or because you're just not sure whether that hearing officer took it into account and you just want to hear it explicitly on the record?

It is not clear from the decision whether that was taken into account. It is it's very or how it was taken into account. So, you know, how what it was taken into account and make in reaching their decision. I question. That's intermittent issue, that the award is not supported by what the evidence establishes and that what the decision itself acknowledges, which is that it was an intermittent issue.

Or not an intermittent issue, but rather that intermittently affected the tenants use of the unit.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions from committee members? Don't be shy. I have a one question for staff. This is just more for procedural questions. How soon can a compliance hearing be scheduled if someone requests it?

Pretty quick one to two weeks depending on the availability of the parties and the hearing officer.

Okay just checking. Alright moving on to questions for either the representative of the landlord or representative of the tenant. Does anyone have any questions for either party? Member Keating?

To the tenant I'm just curious if we know the situation with the toilet now.

The toilet is continuing to be an issue so the tenants are continuing to plunge it at the same frequency daily or very close to daily.

Thank you.

A clarification from legal staff. Is that considered as on the record or cannot be considered part of it?

It cannot be considered as part of your record. Yeah, you should. That is new information after the hearing.

I understand. Thank you for that clarification.

Anyone else have any questions? Seeing none, the IRHC will now deliberate. It would be appropriate at this time to entertain a motion to adopt the tentative decision after which such a motion can be discussed by the IRC. Does anyone want to make the motion? I see well, we're a little bit of actually, Andrea, since member has has arrived, does that mean member Balch cannot be a member of the motion? Or

I would suggest that member Balch continue through this hearing since member Hislop arrived in the middle.

Okay.

And so didn't hear all of the testimony and argument.

Deliberations? Yes but you cannot vote. Yes I figured that. Okay. Alright we have a motion made by Member Balch seconded by Member Brown. Is there any discussion? Actually Balch, can you you say the motion?

Yeah, I move to approve the tentative appeal decision including the remand as indicated back to the hearing officer.

Thank you. Any discussion? Member vice chair Cox.

Yeah. So, I'll go through my normal reasoning on this. You know, I also support the motion for the following reasons. First of all, the toilet problem. To me, it's clearly a recurrent problem.

I think that while I don't believe that the landlord is disregarding the need to fix the problems. I think there's a real problem in the landlord's process in that this issue was brought up seven times and yet effectively the same fix was put into place all of those times. There was a lack of recognition that this is an overriding problem and that some other approach is needed and so I'm completely on board for that. On the excessiveness of the charges, I don't think they're excessive. I mean, I would put these things in the low single digit ranges and I would put the toilet as a much more serious problem than the leaky window and so I think that lines up.

I mean actually, I think the one for the toilet could have been higher if there had been brought substantial proof to indicate that the tenant was at some point not able to use any toilet in the unit and had no workaround to unclog it. But I think the persistence of this problem over a long period of time warrants the amounts that were given. So that's my comment on that. On the remand, I mean I really struggled with it a lot, but I think that what we heard since I came in here today helped clarify my support for it. And the reason is that I think that this is an important enough issue to remand it back to get the reasoning at least.

Because it's not clear to me either whether or not the intermittent nature of the problem, particularly doing whether it was factored into the decision or not. So I think it's important to have that clear and on the record, but it may even come back that the 2% amount was reasonable given that, but I think we need a clear explanation for this because even though we don't have any legal requirement to make precedent from one decision to another, I personally hold it in high regard to be consistent and I try to be consistent from hearing to hearing and I just really want that on the record. That's why I'm supporting the motion.

Thank you. Member Balch?

Yeah those are good points, committee member Cox, vice chair Cox, excuse me. I think it comes down as it often does to the reasonableness of the hearing officer. And our direction thank you our direction as the committee is to affirm based on whether we believe the hearing officer came to a reasonable conclusion. We're not here gathering new facts. We're not kind of saying, well, what else could they have been doing?

In my view, the hearing officer came to reasonable conclusions. If there are some dramatic concerns and miscarriage of justice, that would have to be addressed through the the other appeal process. But I think we are seeing a lot of consistency here in what we've seen in other in other matters brought before us. I I also agree with the remand, again, specifically because the hearing officer has the discretion to maintain the award, to change it based on reasoning within the confines of the remand. So we're not actually telling the hearing officer to raise or lower.

We're telling the hearing officer to make sure to consider and then document what their reasoning is within these boundaries. Final point I'll make is that I am often sympathetic to concerns about how the CFRA operates. And in these cases, I have to go back to the CFRA and to the nature the charter amendment that was approved by the voters of the city of Mountain View. This body and in fact the city council lacks the ability to make any substantive changes in terms of the broad outline of how works. That was the will of the voters.

That's where we are. If there is a really strong view that that something is manifestly unfair and isn't appropriate, it has to go back to the voters. That is simply a fact. And the committee isn't in a position to start kind of changing the manner of the CFRA and neither is the city council. So these are the reasons why I am in favor of the motion that I

made. Thank you. Member Hizlip.

Thank you. I wanna concur that I agree with remanding the rent reduction with respect to the leaky window. In the hearing officer's own decision in section eight, she even notes that the damage of frequency appears to be low, so there's kind of a disconnect between awarding it continually over all the months of the year when it seemed to only be an issue when there was rain. So hopefully that's sufficient enough just using our own reasoning and judgment about what those months are. Otherwise it does kind of strike me as a little bit punitive because it's not causing any other issues like dust coming in or some other problem during the rest of the year.

And I also agree to affirm the decision regarding the leaky toilet like everybody else has said. This is clearly a so you know gives the impression of a larger problem And I especially agree with it because this is a very large complex with a owner that owns many or it's a corporation. So I would think that their resources are a little deeper than say an individual owner who owns like a four plex or an eight plex and you know there might be an inclination to sort of sympathize a little bit with a problem like that but it went on for so long that I think it's appropriate to hold the owner accountable because it's clearly an ongoing issue. And that's it.

Member Brown. Thank you chair.

I also agree and I seconded so I would hope I agree with the tentative appeal decision. I think that giving the hearing officer the opportunity to clarify a reasoning and is good. I don't think we can speculate about things that might not have been gotten made their way into the final decision but I do think the information is there, the rationale is there and that if there is any more investigation needs to be done I trust asking nicely will get a set of information. Regarding the toilet, I think that if you see an issue repeatedly and assume every time that you fix it that it's fixed that you have an issue with object permanence. I think that at some point you do need to recognize when there is an underlying issue that needs to be fixed.

Just saying it's good because I turned around and I don't see the problem anymore, the seventh time strikes me as bad faith. And I do think that that having a functioning toilet that you don't have to plunge every day, I expect that to be a part of most habitable residences including this one. So yeah I would agree with upholding like the hearing officer's decision there. Thanks.

And that returns to me. I agree with the thoughts of my fellow committee members regarding the need for the remand to just clarify between what it means to be intermittent versus how the decision is done by basically a constant amount per period of time. So I think that's fine. As related to the question I asked to staff that regarding the when the awards were finished it was based on the compliance hearing and given that the compliance hearing seems to be timely and it should be done from our side in good faith, think that is a acceptable termination for such a petition. Any other okay.

Seeing none, we'll go on to the vote. Vote is five yeas and one recusal. Thank you. We will now move on to agenda item 6.1, agreement amendment with project Sentinel for fiscal year 2425. Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions.

We invite you to submit a speaker card now if you'd like to speak on this item during public comment. We will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you. Alright. We'll begin with agenda item 6.1. And the purpose of this item is to review and amend an agreement with project Sentinel for fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five to provide administrative and hearing process services for fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty twenty five and add $18,000 for a total amount not to exceed $198,000 instead of what was previously approved of 18,180 thousand dollars related to higher than expected volume of petitions. And for background, the rental housing committee authorized fiscal year twenty twenty four-twenty five agreement with project sentinel for a total amount not to exceed $180,000 and that was broken up into three buckets.

The first one being administrative support services of up to $10,000 the next being facilitators up to $10,000 and the final and largest bucket of hearing officers up to $160,000 And for the analysis the division experienced a significant increase in petition filings for fiscal year twenty twenty three twenty four which many of those petitions were actually completed and the hearing officers billed in fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five. And that is why towards the end of twenty twenty four twenty five, there was a higher level of hearing officer invoices that were submitted than originally accounted for and that's why we require an additional amount of $18,000. And to that regard, the fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five agreement with project Sentinel needs to be amended to add funding. And just as reminder any contract over $50,000 requires rental housing committee approval for the rent stabilization division manager or designee to execute the agreement. The fiscal in impact would be that if the rental housing committee approves this amendment, the additional $18,000 will come out of the current fiscal year twenty twenty five twenty six budget because the previous fiscal year twenty twenty four-twenty five financials are closed.

However, the remaining budget for fiscal year twenty twenty five-twenty six which would be $162,000 is expected to sufficiently cover the expenses for our petition and hearing officers due to the tapering off of submitted petitions that we received in twenty twenty three, twenty four. The recommendation here is to authorize the rent stabilization division manager or designee to amend the agreement with Project Sentinel for fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five to provide administrative and hearing process services for fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five and to add $18,000 for a total amount not to exceed a $198,000 to pay for services related to the higher than expected volume of petitions. And that concludes the presentation. Is there any questions?

Any questions? Member Keating. So

I'm curious another way of looking at this is that we have adequate reserves to, you know, as well as potential reduction in other expenses we expect, but that also our reserves are part of what makes this not a problem. Is that a correct way to look

ultimately correct. But as a first, we're paying this year's and this portion of last year's from the line item for hearing officers. And we hope that we don't have to go to the reserves for that.

Thank you.

Anticipate higher costs associated with hearing officers in the coming year?

That is a good question. Overall, in comparable there is a shortage of hearing officers. And we also see certain organizations popping up that provide hearing officers on demand. They are larger organizations that set an slide. Next we have to to go So if needed, we need to go go find to new hearing officers, and they might come with a different payment request.

But we'll bring that back to you once if that needs to happen.

Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none. I now invite public comment. In person public comments will be called to speak first. Any member of the public wishing to provide virtual comment on this item, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press 9 on your phone. Seeing none, we will move into committee deliberation and feedback. If I would a motion to approve should include reading the text of the recommendation. Vice chair Cox? Yes.

Okay. I make a motion to authorize the rent stabilization manager or designate to amend the agreement with Project Sentinel to provide administrative and hearing process services for fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five and add $18,000 for an amount not to exceed 198,000 instead of $180,000 to pay for services related to a higher than expected volume of petitions, and I just wanna thank the staff for indulging me by giving, you know, the more information about how the curve is going so that I can determine by a preponderance of the evidence that I agree with you.

And that was seconded by member Keating. Any other further discussion on the motion on the floor? Seeing none. Okay. That that was approved. Five yates.

We

will now move on to agenda item 6.2 agreement amendment with the Goldfarb and LLP for fiscal year twenty four twenty five public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. We invite you to submit a speaker card now if you'd to speak on this item or public comment in person. We will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you again. All right so we'll begin with the purpose. Again, to review and amend agreement, this time with Goldfarb and Littmann for fiscal year twenty twenty four-twenty five to provide legal services and add $8,600 for a total amount not to exceed $208,600 instead of the originally approved $200,000 to pay for the cost of legal services performed in fiscal year twenty twenty four and twenty five related to rent adjustment petition appeals. In the background for this is the rental housing committee authorized fiscal year twenty twenty four and twenty five agreement with Gold Farm and Littmann for a total amount not to exceed $200,000 and this includes reviewing submitted petitions and drafting tentative appeal decisions when the submitter of a petition appeals the decision of the hearing officer to the housing committee. The analysis here in twenty twenty four twenty five, Goldfarb and Littmann provided services totaling $208,600 exceeding the budgeted amount by $8,600 and this was caused by higher than expected levels of petition appeals filed in previous years resulting in an increased number of appeals.

And again in that regard, the fiscal year twenty twenty four and twenty five agreement with Goldfarb and Littmann also needs to be amended to add funding and any contract that is over $50,000 requires the rental housing committee approval. And the fiscal impact here, if the rental housing committee approves this amendment to add the $8,600, it will come out of the budget for the current fiscal year twenty twenty five, twenty six budget because the fiscal year twenty twenty four and twenty five financials are closed. And again the remaining budget for the current fiscal year is expected to be sufficient to cover the expenses due to petitions tapering off. So the recommendation here is to authorize the rent stabilization division manager or designee to amend the agreement with Goldfarb and Littmann Littmann for fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five to provide legal services and add the $8,600 for a total amount not to exceed $208,600 to pay for legal services related to the higher than expect did volume of petition appeals. Any questions there?

Alright. We'll bring it back to the committee for questions. Member Balch?

Yeah. Thank you very much. So observing that the the added cost for project Sentinel is about 10% of the previous year's number, but the the added cost for Goldfarb and Littmann is about 4%. So that is a those are not the same proportions obviously. I'm just curious, is it a valid interpretation looking at the numbers here that the reason that there's a, let's say, lower percentage for our legal fees is that we're seeing many fewer appeals.

And so the legal team gets involved more so when there are appeals than not. Is that a fair way to look at it?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, we'll move on to public comment. If any member of the public would like to comment on this item, please raise your hand on Zoom or press 9 on your phone. Seeing none, we will move back to committee deliberations and feedback. Would any member of the committee like to propose a motion? If you do, please read the recommendation. Member Keating.

Thank you. I move that we authorize the rent stabilization manager or designee to amend the fiscal year twenty twenty four twenty five agreement with Goldfarb and Littmann LLP and add 8,600 for a total amount not to exceed 208,600 instead of 200,000 to pay for the cost of legal services performed in fiscal year twenty four twenty five related to rent adjustment petition appeals.

Motion made by member Keating, seconded by member Hislop. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? Seeing none. Vote. Vote is unanimously yes. Now we will move on to committee staff announcements and updates.

Alright. So we'll look now at upcoming workshops and help center dates. And we continue to do our once a week virtual office hours. Those are every Tuesday from ten a. To noon and they are well attended.

And for August we have a couple workshops coming up. So the first one is well the first two are both August 12 however the first one is at two p. M. Which is landlord focused and virtual only and we're looking at filing capital improvement petitions and then in that same evening we'll have a hybrid tenant focused workshop online and at the community center again looking at filing petitions so tenants can know their rights and how to get lawful rent. And then we have a workshop on August 21 at two p.

M. This is also a landlord focused virtual only workshop and we're looking at submitting the utility adjustment petitions. And we are continuing to have our landlord focused housing help center every Thursday and we're sort of planning to have that continue through the future during the time of this one time utility adjustment petition just so that our staff is available for landlords with questions regarding that. And we are having our TenantFocus Housing Help Center every first and third Thursday at our office on Escuela or online and that's from six to eight p. M.

Have rent stabilization staff there. We also have staff from CLUSMA and staff from CSA to provide community resources. Any questions about upcoming events? Thank you.

Alright. Moving on to item 7.2, expected future agenda items for RHC meetings. The next meeting on August 28 will have a potential CSFRA MHRSO regulation amendments as well as an update about the utilities transition petition process. Any comments from the committee or any questions? Seeing none. This meeting is adjourned at 07:19PM. The next rental housing committee meeting is scheduled to be held on August 28 at 6PM.