[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6620600,"mediaKeyId","2805790-1593f6c6811ee658a698e4c8b0eb0d90","parentId",2805790,"title","Mountain View staff to draft anti-harassment, anti-retaliation tenant protections after RHC study-session","audioSeconds",2111,"startMs",3619000,"endMs",5730000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805790-1593f6c6811ee658a698e4c8b0eb0d90&start=3619&end=5730","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805790-1593f6c6811ee658a698e4c8b0eb0d90/thumbnail_3619000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620600/Mountain-View/Santa-Clara-County/California/Mountain-View-staff-to-draft-anti-harassment-anti-retaliation-tenant-protections-after-RHC-study-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620600-f974891f1e423185ef921bcf068fa152/orig.mp4?Expires=1771100943&Signature=CFYJkOV8paNvrXeDc2o0rKQyZewsyn9zfz0g1ph88uzfUKckiRRsPWR-Jn8bNDHgRqWXnWe0FSoJbTe8g26fzyQUwFLx~hIfal6EPFPwCItGpp-69tyR82zpn0I3BpNw9O3SCwzqqzJ1wBFRbzIrVa-gX1xfj~AMHNmwHFTFZtgiQNWHxX3c2SnkCyeZZtdGRXRY7~WHwXkTjOgn8bmNDILWV8HFoOaOFAs3jgRgV2BR2v8Ef7eEWynAN0Gl4K2HwbEOLQv559XQfUrSPJnH41YuaNgB98TsL~XeoG8RMNY7scmkCPLNDTM9gvGwjSOJK3Q~v9dME3EppkaZzDIePg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Coty of Mountain View","date","2025-03-28T04:17:04.633Z","article","The Mountain View Rental Housing Committee voted informally Thursday to proceed with staff analysis and drafting of potential tenant anti-harassment and anti-retaliation protections for units covered by local rent-stabilization rules.

Staff framed the study session as a chance for the committee to provide direction to staff on “potential local residential tenant protections against harassment and retaliation” and to determine next steps. The committee gave general agreement to the proposed scope of work: further analysis, review of comparable jurisdictions, a follow-up study session, and eventual consideration by the committee for regulatory action.

Why it matters: staff said federal and state protections against harassment and retaliation are limited — federal protections generally cover discrimination based on protected classes and state retaliation law provides narrower remedies — and that local regulations can provide broader definitions, clearer enforcement paths and remedies for tenants who are not covered by discrimination statutes.

Staff presentation: a staff member described examples of landlord behaviors that could constitute harassment or retaliation, including turning off utilities to force a tenant to move, threats or coercion, misrepresenting reasons for eviction and preventing tenants from organizing. Staff told the committee that many California jurisdictions adopt local ordinances by municipal ordinance covering all residential tenants and that such ordinances often set definitions, notice requirements and damage schedules to guide courts.

Committee discussion: members asked how local regulations would interact with existing hearing processes and court remedies. Staff said some harassment claims that amount to a reduction in housing services could be handled through the rent-stabilization hearing process (hearing officers), while other harassment or retaliation claims might require court action and could serve as an affirmative defense in eviction cases. Member comments emphasized tenant safety, clarity of rules to protect both tenants and landlords, and the need to ensure regulations are actionable and enforceable.

Public comment: three speakers addressed the committee. Perna, a resident, described personal experiences she characterized as harassment and poor maintenance at her rental community. Anil Babar, representing the California Apartment Association, urged education about existing state protections before pursuing local legislation and noted low caseload numbers for Project Sentinel in Mountain View. Gladys, a long-time Mountain View resident, said her building experienced prolonged lack of hot water and other conditions; she described vendor misconduct, intimidation and property removal during repair work and urged the committee to act.

Direction to staff: the committee broadly supported staff’s proposed scope: further analysis of other jurisdictions’ ordinances, drafting regulatory language (definitions, prohibited conduct, notice and remedies), and returning with a study session and regulatory draft for committee consideration. Several members stated they preferred the RHC to complete initial drafting and analysis before any possible referral to city council so the committee could use its regulatory authority over units covered by the CSFRA and MHR(O) provisions.

Next steps: staff will review comparable ordinances, draft options for definitions and remedies (including damage schedules and enforcement approaches), and return to the RHC for a follow-up study session. Committee members asked staff to include in the follow-up analysis how regulations might be applied in court and how the city’s existing resources (Housing Help Center, Project Sentinel referrals and community outreach) would be coordinated with any new regulations.

Ending note: committee members expressed unanimous support for moving the item forward as a work plan item; no formal ordinance or regulation was adopted at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 27, 2025 City of Mountain View Rental Housing Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Rental Housing Committee directed staff to analyze and draft potential anti-harassment and anti-retaliation regulations for tenants covered by local rent-stabilization rules, including reviewing other California ordinances and proposing damage schedules and enforcement mechanisms.","taxTitle","Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California","taxId",2861,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620604,"Mountain View committee affirms rent-reduction awards in tenant habitability appeal with small correction to cockroach start date",3425,205000,3630000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805790-1593f6c6811ee658a698e4c8b0eb0d90&start=205&end=3630","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805790-1593f6c6811ee658a698e4c8b0eb0d90/thumbnail_205000.jpg","/articles/6620604/Mountain-View/Santa-Clara-County/California/Mountain-View-committee-affirms-rent-reduction-awards-in-tenant-habitability-appeal-with-small-correction-to-cockroach-start-date","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620604-4b88cfb83cd991934300d12cfd03a1ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1771100943&Signature=Jy5cpXrNIW5aUzkKpdMPg0jDL~13VMcbEWjAyZEeWrKP-HsqbUh3190Tvajpg0xnWFTyAGWWqIvewsa3wKE-dIgI-r8FkkqDK4mGPe~AohtR3DKs7sfJCynEWZGB2wRd8ZFN91pC3wqAha3fhRy2KrNgRakaqGEpr4o0C7wdJa7w8k5wNL8MNqSHPmkyR8a0-d7ccKI-oMMzZ1ENjXDJvJcP~IiToA3Uz3P0YhyPLVWsAdreIOeq1~9ELGO5qnlr-SikYRlNTffsHpUqEo~~8FLTC5--6UWp24h9vRRJpW-iafCH9dY1tXnxkOPZGYl3bBfKuro5QaUqAHTWaEkb1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Mountain View Rental Housing Committee on Thursday affirmed most of a hearing officer’s findings in an appeal by a landlord of a tenant petition alleging multiple habitability violations, and adopted a corrected tentative decision that narrows one date in the award.

The committee’s action adopted the tentative appeal decision recommending modification of the hearing officer’s original award only to change the start date for the cockroach-related rent reduction from June 1, 2022, to Aug. 1, 2022. Member Cox moved to adopt the tentative decision; Member Keating seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

The hearing officer’s original decision — which the committee largely sustained — had awarded rent reductions for a series of conditions documented in the record. Those awards, as summarized for the committee, included: a 7.5% reduction for mold and moisture in a bedroom closet and carpet for the period April 1, 2023, through May 16, 2024; a 33.3% reduction for a severe cockroach infestation originally dated from June 1, 2022, through May 16, 2024 (the committee shortened that period to begin Aug. 1, 2022); a 5% reduction for water damage and noxious odors in kitchen cabinets for June 1, 2022, through May 16, 2024; another 5% reduction for various bathroom defects in the same June 1, 2022–May 16, 2024 period; and a 2% reduction for defective caulking for May 1, 2023, through May 16, 2024.

Why it matters: the committee’s review was limited to the hearing record compiled before the hearing officer and to the scope of the landlord’s appeal. Staff told the committee that the Rental Housing Committee (RHC) must exercise independent judgment on legal questions but base factual findings on whether the hearing officer’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

What the committee considered: staff presentation and the tentative appeal decision explained four issues raised by the appellant landlord: that the hearing officer lacked evidentiary support for the cockroach finding; that awarding reductions for both water-damage odors and separate mold/moisture findings double-counted essentially the same condition; that the hearing officer relied on evidence outside the post-hearing order; and that delay in issuing the hearing decision prejudiced the landlord by increasing costs. Staff recommended against a de novo hearing and advised the committee to rely on the record before the hearing officer.

Appellant’s remarks: the landlord’s representative, identified in the record as Andrew (appellant, landlord), told the committee he believed some tenant evidence had been “excessively described” and that the landlord’s evidence received insufficient weight. He said the delay before the hearing officer’s decision “has caused significant issues” for determining what needed repair and for the landlord’s rental income certainty.

Respondent’s remarks: the tenant, identified as Daria (respondent, tenant), said the city inspection and the record documented an ongoing cockroach problem. “We found cockroaches at all hours of the day,” she told the committee, and described instances of live cockroaches in beds and food areas. Daria said the tenants provided time-stamped photos and medical documentation of a cockroach allergy that they submitted to the city and the hearing officer.

Evidence and procedural context: staff recounted that the petition had been accepted in January 2024, the hearing occurred in February 2024, and the hearing record remained open until April 25, 2024, to allow parties to submit post-hearing materials. The hearing officer issued the decision Feb. 7 (year stated in the record). Staff noted there were reschedulings and a post-hearing extension granted for the hearing officer due to a family medical emergency, resulting in a substantial delay between hearing and decision. The tentative appeal decision found the delay did not prejudice the landlord’s rights because the tenant had vacated May 16, 2024, and the award was keyed to that move-out date.

On cockroaches specifically, staff and the tentative decision cited testimony, videos and photographs in the record and pest-control contractor reports (including the respondent’s contractor) showing infestation beyond the single unit. The tentative decision concluded the hearing officer reasonably found the landlord failed to correct the infestation and that the code enforcement officer’s determination met training qualifications referenced in the record (identified as health and safety code section 17920.3(a)(12) in the hearing record).

Committee conclusion and next steps: Member Cox said the committee should recognize that attempts to cure a problem are not equivalent to curing it and supported the tentative decision’s two-month modification for the cockroach start date to allow the landlord a reasonable cure period. The committee also acknowledged a corrected version of the tentative decision — staff said an updated version with fixes (including an award-calculation placeholder) was distributed to parties and the committee before the vote.

What the decision does not do: the committee did not reopen the record or admit new evidence beyond what the hearing officer considered; the RHC’s review was limited to assessing whether the hearing officer’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence. Staff cautioned any final decision could prompt litigation and that part of the appeal process is to ensure decisions are legally defensible.

Ending note: the committee adopted the corrected tentative appeal decision and returned the docket to the regular agenda.

","The Mountain View Rental Housing Committee upheld most of a hearing officer’s rent-reduction findings in an appeal over multiple habitability claims, but approved a tentative modification that shifts the start date for the cockroach-related reduction to Aug. 1, 2022. The committee voted to adopt the corrected tentative decision unanimously.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Mountain View staff to draft anti-harassment, anti-retaliation tenant protections after RHC study-session

Mountain View committee affirms rent-reduction awards in tenant habitability appeal with small correction to cockroach start date