Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's call to order this meeting. We we um mics we'll try to use the mics. That's sounds weird, but okay. I can hear you. So, let's have a roll call. Alyssa, is the camera recording? Yes. Thank you. Let's have a roll call, please.

Uh, Commissioner Shankman here. Vice Chair Samson, present. Chair Shankman present. Uh for the record, um Commissioner Casanti and Commissioner Blum are not present. Okay. So, next is the Pledge of Allegiance. Uh does anyone want to volunteer or I'm going to pick out Gary or Vanessa Springer? I do it all the time

to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stand indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Commissioner Blum will not be available. Um he noted that when he took his oath of office that he'd be missing this meeting and the previous meeting. Um Commissioner Croanti called me earlier today. He's going to be about 20 to 30 minutes late. So he should be here by two. Oh, let's do this quickly.

Okay. So, uh report on posting of the agenda. The agenda The agenda was posted at 1:30 p.m. in accordance with government code 5494 2A1. Staff reports were published that same day at 5:30 p.m. but the agenda was posted properly on time. Thank you. Um so next is the approval of agenda and um I I have one suggestion. It appears that 3A and 3B are duplicative. Is there any particular reason that we shouldn't just combine those into one? It was just it was a type of error.

Okay. Um so I I will move to approve the agenda combining 3A and 3B into a single item. Second. Um all in favor I I not opposed. Motion carries. The agenda is approved. Uh, next on the agenda is um a status update on rent adjustment applications. Um, I presume that is you, Francis. Yes, thank you. Uh, the status update is the uh off the city manager's office has received one uh application. It is in the process of being reviewed and that is the update.

Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this item? Not seeing none. Okay. Um, next on the agenda is 3 and B. Um, mobile home park annual registration records. Uh, once again, deputy city manager, I think this is a report from you.

Yes. Thank. Is this on? Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Uh, mobile home park annual registration records. Uh, the city maintains records of mobile home park annual registration forms filed from 2011 to the present. The records are available for the commissioners to review upon request to the city manager's office. Records from years prior to 2011 were disposed of in accordance with the records retention schedule adopted by the city council at that time. Uh the recommended action is to receive and file the report on the mobile home park annual registration records and attached uh is uh there are uh two attachments resolution 1142 uh as well as a staff report from September 26, 2011 pertaining to the city's record retention policy.

Okay. Um before we get into this uh more on this item, do we have any speakers for work?

I'm sorry, Commissioner uh Chair JM, can you repeat the question? Do we have any speaker slips on um this item? Yes. And I do I do request if they could come here and speak and hold the microphone so that the audience can hear them. Great. So first it was uh Katarina Vinegar.

Hi. Um I live in the PTC and um yeah I wanted to talk about the the record keeping because it seems to be a bit of a problem how the city's keeping the records. I understand that, you know, you decided at some point that you were going to destroy records after a period of time, but now if we want to go back in and look and see if there has been any um you know, additional fees put on that shouldn't have been on in there, uh rent increases that shouldn't have been on there. Now, we have no way of looking at anything. There is no proof anywhere of anything and that's a really big problem for um our case.

Thank you, Katarina. Um next up is Jeff Ortiz.

Thank you, Jeff Ortiz. I live in the Point Doom Club. My understanding is that um what's being proposed is a change in records keeping and records that can be destroyed. And I wanted to urge the commission to um have staff keep any and all records that are currently on hand because as you know and as has been stated, there currently is um one item under review for potential looking at and changing um rents, past rents based on CPI CPI figures. Um, it's kind of well known that the CPI that was used in the old rent stabilization commission documents was a a figure that's no longer in effect. And um, the CPI that's been used by the owners has been to their advantage. they've used a higher, more localized CPI rather than a more broad-based one that was in effect prior to them deciding to make the change because of the change in the CPI districts that were done. I believe it was 2008 or 2012. But in any event, um because of of that and because of the fact that we now have a reconvene commission that hasn't been in place for over a dozen years, um I think it warrants keeping any and all records that the city has until these matters have have been decided. So, I urge you to not move or table the the proposal to eliminate records until these issues have been clarified and decided. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff. Um, so, uh, no further speaker slips. Um, even if you haven't done a speaker slip throughout the meeting, if you if you want to come up and speak on an item, um, you know, we invite you to do so. Um, Commissioner Shankman. Oh, we have someone else. Yes, Miss Beckus. Hi. How are you? So, I know I've already um

Oh, I'm sorry. RB Pis and I live in the Point Club. Um, so I just uh I'm hoping that um we've had some time and Kevin, I know you have um been in receipt of my letters. I I I'm very concerned about some of the changes that are being proposed with the rent control ordinance for the city of Malibu. So I I I think that's a later item on the agenda. Um, do you have anything with respect to um the mobile home park annual registration records?

Well, will we be able to speak on that? And then if not, you're not going to close it for confidence. Okay, then I will I will wait. Okay. Thank you. Um, commissioner comments or inquiries? Um, commissioner Shankman. No comments or inquiries for me. Samson.

Okay. First, uh, Miss Wiggrad. Um, personally, I'm with you. Um, in about 3 hours, I will have been practicing law for precisely 50 years. I'm sad to say I've still got records of my own. Um, my house isn't happy, my wife isn't happy, my dog isn't happy. However, um, yeah, I I'm with you and I think decisions were made and of course you're talking to us. I had never heard of this commission when I think some of the records went away. I don't believe there was any um, bad feelings for doing it, but um, I personally am going to urge people keep the records because we may have to look at stuff in in this instance. uh going back to 91. Um Mr. Ortiz, I tell you the same thing. Um it's my choice. We keep the records in some format. Uh we can now scan them and make them digital. I how I don't know necessarily how the staff can do that. Um there's not been any bad faith that I'm aware of on anybody's part. It's just what they did. And this the problem presented by the rent stabilization commission does mean some people may want to go back. Um we've run into the same problem as at the ad hoc or the whole commission. I don't remember uh Kevin and I talked about it as part of the ad hoc. We'd like to see some stuff and it just doesn't exist. So going forth and we will certainly recommend that the staff keep everything we possibly can on this.

Okay. So um I have a little bit uh some questions actually and I reiterate the the the um the comments from Vice Chair Samson. I wholeheartedly agree um with respect to the annual registration records. Um, could we could we get a description of what they are? I mean, I I have one of them from 2014. Um, but I I think that's important for the public to know as well. So, the annual registration lists are required to be sent to uh the city manager's office. They are uh a list of uh each space uh and the amount of the space rent for that year. It is about as you were holding up about a three-page uh list. Uh and that is uh during the years uh that we we have those lists from 2011 forward.

Okay. And with respect to the retention of um the annual registration records in particular um there is a a a quite extensive table a records retention schedule um as part of the agenda packet and um I started looking at it and then it's a bit overwhelming um and so uh I I thought I would just punt the question to you. Uh, is there a particular row that corresponds to the annual registration records? I may give it to one second. I will

I don't expect you to have that information at your fingertips. If you go and it's a little hard to pull in the way the packet is combined but um page CC 9 you'll see um the retention at the bottom the classification is CC48.1 through 3 um those are to be maintained for 2 years according to this retention schedule and then um it was previously permanent um but with this update done in 2011 they changed it to 2 um for I I couldn't tell you why that was the decision done at that time. There's no um this is presented to council. Changes are done based off recommendations um from a consultant. So uh two years um currently that still stands. Um that has not been changed since 2011. I will say we are not actively destroying any records. The retention schedule was last updated in 2019. Um, and there will be a records retention schedule update in the near future, but um, as of right now, we're not destroying any of the records. Um, we are keeping them beyond the two years. Um, but this is when that was

changed from permanent to two years.

Um, so next question. Um the staff report says that the mobile home park annual registration forms from 2011 present are available for commissioners to review upon request to the city management's office. Um and we had some discussion not um in a public meeting uh but as a subcommittee um concerning redactions. Um, and please correct me if I'm misstating uh the position that was stated at that time. Um, I I believe actually by Miss Castillo was that the that that these summaries would be provided to the commissioners but that they would be redacted such that no names would be available to the commissioners. Is this is the staff report reflecting a change from that position at all?

So the request that we had received was to provide copies to the commissioners of the the records and so there were the reply back was that we can uh provide those in a redacted form. So those were the copies that were requested to be sent directly to the commissioners.

Okay. Um, so I I I think I've expressed my view that redactions would be inappropriate. Um, because it one frustrates the purpose uh of the commission that set forth in the ordinance to investigate. Um, not having the names would would make it much more difficult for us to do that. Um, and even if we were talking about a public records act request, um, in my view, having researched the issue significantly, um, I don't believe redactions would be appropriate. Um, so I'm going to make a motion first uh to that the commission request unredacted mobile home park annual registration records uh to to be provided to all members of the commission. Um, and I'll ask for a second and then uh perhaps discussion.

Second. Okay. any commissioner discussion on this? Uh, I have a question. Um, what information would we gain from this like now redacted information that we currently don't have because it's redacted? Like like what what what purpose does it fulfill for it to be unredacted?

Sure. So, um, what was provided to me by a resident is, um, you know, and I have it here. It's, uh, one of those annual park registration summaries. Um, and it it provides uh, you know, in one spreadsheet um, the current monthly rent for each space, but all of the resident names are redacted. So, um, that's helpful to some degree, right? If we have all of if we if we know the rent for each space for each year going back to 2011, that can provide us with some information. But redacting the names makes it essentially impossible for us to determine whether any vacancy premium increases were appropriate. Right? Because if if if we don't know who owned the mobile home in year one versus year two and there's a 15% increase in the rent, well, why? Right? Um if we know who owned it year one is different than year two, well that would tell us, yeah, it's it's due to a vacancy increase. The other the other uh reason that uh it's important that we get the the names of the owners from uh in in each year is there were a number of complaints um made to this commission. Nobody here was on that commission at the time, but it was in 2008 was the the the previous the last commission meeting before it sort of went went vacant. Um, and there were a number of residents, particularly from Paradise Cove, um, who said, "My rent went from A to B

to C to D." And in some in some instances, we're talking about triple or quadruple over the course of just a couple years. and and if you look at the the ordinance, there doesn't appear to be any reason why that would be allowed, you know, consistent with the ordinance. Um, but they did not, at least in the minutes of the meeting, uh, we don't know what space number those particular residents were in at Paradise Scope. So, in order to match up those residents names from the 2008 minutes uh to the the rent summary, we need the names in the rent summary. So, that that's I think two examples or two reasons why um I believe the commission needs the names as well.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? I I I risk um uh encountering counter examples from the world of social media, but uh to me there's no such thing as too much information,

man of few words. Thank you. Um so, so with that, uh we have a motion and a second. Um a call for a roll call vote, please. Chair Shankman I. Commissioner Shankman I. Vice Chair Samson I. Motion carries. And chair if I may. So we'll take that under advisement. I don't think from the legal perspective anything has changed. Um but like any motion that that carries, we'll take it back and discuss it and um review and let me know. Thank you.

Sure. Um I I I think even when we disagree, we try to have a a good dialogue. Um and I and I think we've we've done that over the past couple months. Um in the same respect, um I have crafted a uh a letter um to the city clerk, Kelsey Pettigan. Um, and I'm going to pass it to my fellow commissioners and I'll also pass a copy to the clerk to make it part of the um the public record. And I'd ask that um my fellow commissioners uh review it perhaps during a break um and sign it. Uh and if so, I plan to um make a copy of it and send it on to Miss Pedigan. This is a public records request. Am I right?

Yes. chair if you wouldn't mind just reading into the record like the title so that the video can know what

Sure. Um it is does not have a title but let me just read the first sentence or so. Um and I I think that's that's a good summary and then it it it includes a legal discussion as well. um which I won't bore anyone with, but the the request starts with pursuant to the California Public Records Act and the Malibu Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the members of the Malibu Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Commission identified below are writing to request a copy of the records described below. One, all annual mobile home park registrations relating to the mobile home parks known as Paradise Cove and Point Doom Club. Then the rest of it is legal discussion.

Um, anyone have anything further on this item or should we move on? Yes. So, let's uh let's have everyone sign one copy and we'll use we'll use bills. Okay. I'm having staff make a copy and a copy be available for public inspection as it was presented during the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Um so next item is uh 4A mobile home park rent stabilization administrative and commission regulations chapters 1 through 4. Uh do we have a staff report on this?

Yes. Thank you. The commission has been provided with a copy of the mobile home park rent stabilization administrative regulations and commission regulations chapters 1 through 4. The recommended action is review and discuss mobile home park rent stabilization administration, excuse me, administrative regulations and commission regulations chapters 1 through 4. They are provided and attached.

The uh speaker cards There are no speaker slips for 4 A. Okay. Any uh commissioner comments, questions, inquiries?

Anyone? I I have one and and I have a well I'm gonna point out something and then I I'll make a motion um that I hope will be favorable. Um so there's there's been some concern expressed by the public about um records prior to 2011 being destroyed. And um you know I'll just make the point again that no one here had anything to do with that. Right. So um looking at chapter 3 and specifically section 3002. Um and I'll just read it. It's pretty short. Um, upon request by the city, the park owners shall provide the city with a list of the current rent for each space for which a valid long-term lease was in effect on December 3rd, 1991, where such lease exempts the space from local rent uh control pursuant to state law and for all other spaces in the park, the amount of the rent that was in effect on December 31st, 1984 and March 28th, 1991, and documents supporting the rent information for all spaces in the park. Um, and when I saw this, I thought, well, this is this is perhaps a way that that the commission can find out the information that likely would have been in the documents that were destroyed some 12 odd years ago. Um, and so I will make a motion to request that the park owners provide

a list um of the amount of the rent that was in effect on December 31st, 1984 and March 28th, 1991 for each space in their respective parks and documents supporting the rent information for all spaces for all such spaces in the park and I'll ask for a second before I second it. Are are you asking that we send this or that the uh somebody on staff make the request? I I may have just missed something when you made the motion. So I what I contemplated was that the city manager or designate would make that request um at the direction of the commission.

Second. Any further discussion? Let's have have a roll call vote, please. Chair Shankman, I. Uh Commissioner Shankman, I. Vice Chair Samson, I. Motion carries. Thank you. Um, anything further on this item for from any commissioner? Chair, I do have one question. This is currently under the city manager authority. So, it it is one of the four chapters that are the city manager drafted regulations. Yes.

Okay. And so where would the commission have the authority to make that request? So the the section says upon request by the city, correct? And the city is not defined as the city manager. It's not defined as the commission. Um though it is under the city manager's authority. I personally don't think this commission has that authority. So I will take that back just like the last one and we will discuss. But I at this point don't think that's the commission's authority to make that request.

Okay. I I I vehemently disagree with that. Um it's we we can have these disagreements, right? Um and and I would further emphasize that uh if the city manager were to disregard, we've got a new city manager coming in, right? Um if if that new city manager were to disregard the request of the commission in this respect um I would hope that there would be a public reaction to that. Right? We're trying to get information um and you know to get to the bottom of this

and and this presents in my view a path to that. um it suggests that the park owners should have this information um and to to not make that request. Well, I I can't think of any reason that the that the new city manager would not do that. Um with that being said, any other commissioner wants to make any any remarks? Sorry. Uh with all due respect, council, um I'm a lot of years ahead of you. It's our job to ask for this in my view.

Nothing that I can say with that wasn't already said. So, let's move on to 4B. Um, is there a staff report?

Yes, a staff report has been uh provided. If I may, uh I'll be um brief on the um uh relaying this as you have a copy. The ad hoc committee is proposing changes to the mobile home park rent stabilization administrative regulations and commission regulations chapters 5 through 32 which have been uh provided. The recommended actions we have provided uh three options uh that you see here. review and discuss the ad hoc committee's proposed draft changes to the regulations and adopt the proposed changes and direct staff to return with a resolution memorializing the adoption. Option two, revi uh review and discuss the draft changes to the regulations and provide direction to staff to bring back a resolution to adopt the updated uh chapters 5 through32 or option three receive and file. Do we have any speaker slips on this item?

I'm not sure I follow the difference between options one and two. I I'm probably I am missing something. I presume

not the first not the the first one you would adopt the regulations. The second one you just review them and come back with a resolution but the first option allows you to adopt and staff will still come back with a resolution to memorialize. It's they would be adopted just we're going to bring back the document. It's always a good thing to have somebody in the room who is smarter. Good. Thank you. So, let me add to this. Um, part of the subcommittee uh you know, Bill, you you were um not available. I think this was yesterday, two days ago. Anyway, I wasn't

right. And and totally understandable. Um, I I had a conversation with um the city attorney, uh, Trevor Rousen, um, the deputy city manager, uh, as well as, um, uh, Monica Castillo, uh, the attorney who's been assigned to this, uh, this commission. Um and their request was that we not yet adopt um chapters 1, 2, and four of the subcommittee's recommended regulations. Um I think they had some issues with three as well. Um and asked that we put that off to a subsequent meeting so that we could if we could have further discussions on those. Um so I want to get that out there. I have some mixed feelings about it, but um you know I for the sake of transparency um that's been the request of staff.

May I ask why that that's the request? Sure. Yeah. So the reason was from our perspective staffs and from legal the proposed regulations conflict with um current the current ordinance and some of the state law. So um our position is that conflict needs to be worked through. I think there's also discussion of the city council looking at the ordinance and potentially having kind of a grand resolution at the city council level before regulations are updated at this point. So that was um the reason behind that.

Thank you. You're welcome. just trimmed my nails. Okay. So, one, two, and four. Isn't that 4A? No. What What am I I'm sorry. So, um yeah, chap our draft uh regulations, chapters 1, 2, and four. Oh, okay. I got it. Thank you. Yeah, I got it. one through four were the ones we had concerned with, but you guys already, I believe, just passed those. Well, that's what I was thinking. No, I'm not referring to the agenda item. Um, I'm referring to So, if you look at the agenda packet here,

you know, the the regulations that the subcommittee you and I drafted that is 1 through 4 in 4 A. 4 A is one. No, no. So, we we didn't use the same numbering. Um we we so in in the uh in the in the proposed the chapters are numbered one through uh I think seven and so the the current regulations the city managers uh chapters are one through four but on the proposed there's a a numbering similar

right and to be clear um the subcommittee is not recommending um that the commission seek to change the city manager's regulations. I don't know that we would necessarily have the authority to do that even if we wanted to. Um, so I I I think our numbering just sort of starts a new to make it clear that um that the existing one through four were those adopted by the city manager and then we're starting at one um again for the commission regulations adopted by the commission or perhaps adopted by the commission. So at at the meeting that I regretfully could not attend. Um I would rather have been there just for the record. Um rather than I don't know where I don't know what I was doing. I have more doctors than friends now. But anyway uh did did you make any commitment to staff as to what we were you were going to recommend to the the commission?

I did not. Um I I can I can share my thoughts now. Uh if that would be helpful.

So um I I want to respect staff's wishes and have a full discussion um on these regulations and other items as well. I think on some issues we're simply going to have an intractable disagreement. Um, but I I I think over the past couple months, the discussions have nonetheless been thoughtprovoking and um and have improved the product of the subcommittee in several respects. Um, so my inclination is to put off to the next meeting chapters 1, 2, and four and adopt chapters 3, five, and six. And that also leaves the question of um what do we do with some of the the existing chapters? Um and my suggestion having gone through it is to repeal chapters 56 9 10 30 31 and 32. I'm sorry. 569 10 11 30 31 and 32. Um and I can explain some of the reasons um at least by way of example um to the point that's been discussed not just at this meeting but in um in the subcommittee's discussions as well. The commission does not have the authority to command the city manager to do certain things. Um and yet chapter 11 um of the commission adopted regulations that exist currently are all about telling the city manager what to do on infrastructure improvement applications

that are solely within the province of the city manager. Right? So I I think we we need to get rid of that. We need to to respect the city manager and the city manager needs to respect us. um chapter 32 um that governs um the conduct of commission meetings. Um I think that section 320003II v violates the first amendment. Um it prohibits vulgar or obscene language. Um I I don't know what the state of the law was in the 1990s when this was adopted, but that is pretty clearly uh contrary to the the First Amendment as courts have interpreted it um more recently. Um, another one 320002A provides that um that the commissioners be provided with the agenda report for meetings like this 7 days in advance of the meeting. We haven't been doing that, you know, and and the Brown Act requires 72 hours and and you know, that seems to make sense. Um, so I think there's a there's a fair amount of cleanup. Um, and in some of these other chapters, uh, that I won't bore you with, there are provisions that are inconsistent in my view with the ordinance or inconsistent with the, um, with the regulations that I hope the commission will adopt today in chapters 3, five, and six. Um, and so, uh, I will make a motion, um, I I suppose we could do this all as one motion, uh, to repeal the existing

regulations in in current chapters 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 30, 31, and 32, and adopt the subcommittee's recommended regulations in chapter three, five, and six. And then we'll deal with one, two, and four in a separate motion. And and the direction would be for um I suppose we would have to ask staff to come back with a with a resolution confirming this. So that would also be part of the motion. And chair just for clarity repeal 56910 1130 3132 and adopt the ad hocs recommended 356.

Correct. Great. Thank you. Um do I have a second or do we want discussion? I'll I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Uh why would we need to like repeal all of it? um that that that seems to me like um it would be getting rid of like a whole bunch of um what we're going off of and kind of cause a little bit of like chaos. So like can you say your reasoning for why repeal it instead of like edit it? Um I I I think that chap that the subcommittee's recommended regulations um are designed to replace them. Okay.

And we we like to think simplify them even though we're lawyers. Yeah, we we certainly are making them shorter. We we they are shorter for sure. You notice they went up to 32. We only got to six. I read both. This is a lot easier to understand. Well, we did our job at least for you. Uh, Commissioner. Thank you. Okay. So, uh, if there are no further comments or questions, uh, let's have a roll call vote on the motion, please. Chair Shankman, I. Vice Chair Samson, I.

Commissioner Shankman, I. Motion carries. Um, and I suppose we we should also do a separate motion um to bring back at the next regular meeting, which I believe is January 15th of 2026 um discussion of chapters 1, 2, and four of the ad hocs recommended uh regulations. Sorry. Um, any comments or inquiries? No. Seeing none, let's let's do a roll call vote on this as well, please.

Chair Shankman, I. Vice Chair Samson, I. Commissioner Shankman, I. Motion carries. It's so easy when there's unonymity on everything, isn't it? Um, Paul's not here. Um, so does anyone have anything further on item 4B or should we move on?

Take a break. Um, let's take a five minute break. Thank you. Okay, we're we're back. Um, so I think we're on item 4 C, right? Yes. Okay. Um, do we have a staff report, please?

Or is this is this perhaps this a subcommittee report? Yeah, you go ahead. I'll just I'll just read the recommended action then. Uh so the recommended action is review and discuss draft changes to sections 5.16.0901C and 5.16.2000E3 of the Malu Municipal Code Chapter 5.6 mobile home park rent control regulations and two recommend proposed draft sections 5.16.090.1 090.1C and 5.16.2000E3 to the city council

and the record should reflect that uh Commissioner Croissante um is now with us. Um so since part of this was uh by the subcommittee um I I just want to add very quickly that um the change to 5.16.090.1 090.1 adding subdivision C uh was by the subcommittee in response to um some some resident concerns. Um and the language addition 5.16.210 2110 um was done by the city attorney uh since the last meeting. Um and when we were discussing this the previous meeting, it just had sort of bracket city attorney to craft language to this effect. Um so with that, do we have any public speakers? Thank you.

Um, first up is Jeff Ortiz. Jeff Ortiz, resident of the Point Doom Club. Um, first of all, I want to thank all of the commissioners for taking this task on. I know it's not been easy. Um, and I know you've put a lot of work into it and it is a big change, a change that um, probably needed to happen and hopefully will happen um, since nothing really has been done to update um, the ordinance since it's been instituted 91. Um, what I asked though is that since that point in time, a lot of things have changed as as they do with time and the cost to bring in a mobile home in the park. um it it I think is substantially higher than the number that was presumed and numbers that we're seeing and numbers that I know somebody sent a letter with with information regarding this RP I believe had that that documentation. They range in the neighborhood of $400 to $600,000 to to replace a mobile home park. um and they can even be north of that for people that want to customize their homes. But we can even you know disregarding that cost for insurance um for most of us have tripled just in the last year or two because of the fires and a lot of us have had to take on fair plan and additional insurance. Um, so I I know that um some evidence again by RP has been provided that insurance is in the neighborhood of $5,000 and it used to be south of 2,000. Um, so like a lot

of us in Malibu, cost for everything related to housing has has gone up and insurance has gone up and upkeep has gone up. Um, so what I'm asking is that in considering the formula you're using for anybody who wants to subleasase, and I I want to add to that that most of the I believe at least and it's been my experience that most the residents in the park are people that live in their units and really don't subleasase or subleasase out of emergent necessities. Um, I think there's a very small percentage of the units that are actually subleasased, but um, in speaking with people that I know and neighbors that might have the inclination to go help a a elderly parent out for 6 months or a year and rent their place out in the event that they wanted to do that. There's concern, legitimate concern about covering their cost. Um because with insurance, um showing that our places are valued at at5 to $600,000 to replace um and that being some of the the numbers that have been provided to us and to you by RV to replace a a mobile home. Um getting a loan on on those homes is not a real estate loan. as a personal property loan with interest rates that are usually double or triple what regular homeowners pay. Um so servicing those loans is substantially higher. And what I ask is that you consider those factors when you're looking at what subleasases can be so that people aren't underwater in the event that they need to subleasase for some of these circumstances. So that's the only comment I have on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, next up is Monica.

Thank you. Um, I'm Monica Dvalan. I've lived in Malibu for 13 years and I'm a homeowner in the Point Doom Club for the last nine years and it's been my primary residence the whole time. Um, and I'd like to speak about the same aspect of um, these amendments that Jeff just spoke about, but I from a different angle. Um, the proposed rental limitations and the real impact that they could have on all of us, the residents. Um, the provision that limits what we could charge if we rented out our home is, I think, fundamentally flawed. Um, the cap is based on a formula that seems to have little connection to Malibu's rental market. and doesn't adequately consider the capital investment we made in these homes, often in excess of$1 to $2 million if they were purchased in recent years. So, in practical terms, the formula allows for owners to recover basic carrying costs, the space rent, and a nominal additional amount. I know Jeff was discussing if that even covers costs or not, but my point is that even if they do cover costs, they're not covering anything beyond that. And that is what I have issue with. Um I don't plan to rent my home, but if I ever needed to temporarily live elsewhere, this policy would make it financially impossible or very difficult to do so because since um many of us are our net worth is tied up in this residence. And if the rental income only covers our basic expenses, there's no feasible way for us to continue to own here and then rent somewhere else. And that's not reasonable. and it's not how the housing market generally functions. Um, I'm also very concerned about broader consequences. If the homeowners are pressured to rent below well below market value, then those prices will become known throughout the community. Renters could get lovely Malibu housing

walking distance to the beach at such deeply suppressed rates. um it only makes sense that the retail value the resale values of our homes will decline directly impacting our equity whether or not we ever rent. So for many of us this home it's our largest investment. It's an very important part of our long-term financial security. And sure when we buy a house we accept market risks but we can't accept losing value because an ordinance that's changed is imposed after we purchased our houses at full market prices. So converting us the private homeowners into the these de facto subsidized housing providers really harms the very residents that this policy is supposed to protect. So I urge the commission and I would also urge city council to take a hard look at what this provision actually accomplishes. There are ways to prevent price gouging and to discourage uh investors, speculative investors without placing this burden on us, the existing homeowners. If the city needs to expand affordable housing, that effort should be deliberate through purposeful units of redevelopment, but not retroactively shifting the burden onto us. Um, we simply want to protect our homes in our future. We're not developers seeking windfalls and we ask you to please reconsider this provision that places an unfair burden on the residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Um and next up is RB PKUS.

Hi. Um I'm RB Pis. I uh live in the point doom club and um I first I also would like to thank you for I know you guys are volunteers. I realize this is a complicated uh situation and um I know I have been communicating and sending letters and it's not uh to come from a place of complaint but it's from concern um and hopefully to collaborate um and bring some things uh to everyone's attention

um that might be helpful. So, um, I agree first of all with everything that Jeff and Monica said. I'll try not to kind of reiterate exactly what they had to say, but add a little bit um more um different sort of uh thoughts here. Um the I am deeply concerned as you know I am a realer um but I I live in the point club. Um, so my perspective also is of the city and the city needs the few homes that are for rent in the point. You know what's affordable housing? I mean, I know living in Malibu is not inexpensive in general, but it's to get a home for a family of three to four people. The Point Doom Club offers some of the best opportunities for people to get the most affordable homes in Malibu. And our schools have the lowest enrollment that they've had in years. And um I think it will it will hurt renters to not have houses available to rent in the Point Zoom Club. Um, and I just do not think with the changes that have been um, suggested, people will be able to afford to rent their homes. So, those homes will become sold. They will probably become secondtime home buyers or homeowners, but they will not be um, people that are contributing to our city and our businesses dayto-day. So, this, you know, I know we we everyone here pretty much we have this we're we're pointing club residents. I think most of us, but this is also about our community and um you know this has been where people you know that work in the community can

live. Um so that that I think is a big picture item. Um the rental prices are I just it just doesn't it it doesn't sit well with me because the other thing is if you look at when we just had um and we still are um under anti-pric gouging for rentals and if you look at HUD laws and I I supplied those links I mean there you're looking at for like a three to fourbedroom home you know I think I had provided it's like uh just under 8,000 um or almost 9,000 for three and four bedrooms. That's what that's what anti-pric gouging is. And it is based on the size of your house. It's not just a blanket number, which is what we would be forced to just have our space front plus like 1250. That just it's going to be um just kind of a real trouble. um the values of the homes to bring in. Again, I I provided um current values. I did some research uh just to make sure that my numbers were I mean, the lowest cost that I could find was 423,000 um and uh others. And we're not talking about deluxe, we're talking about other, you know, 1.957, you know. So, um, to value ours at 150,000 is just completely off. I really feel like that needs to be changed. Um, and then I also pointed out that if our homes have insured values of like, you know, 635,000, like again, that just is pointing to the fact that that 150,000 is is off. Um, and a problem. Um,

as far as um the the proposed change to Can you try to wrap it up?

Yes. As as far as the proposed change for um the you know preventing uh retaliation in discussion about the 15% increase. I saw that it was about people that are renting. What my concern is is that if the parks become upset with this 15% uh markup going away on this base rent, they could block a closing of a purchase of a house. And there's no protection that's in there. They can decide to not produce any more land leases. And no one can sell their house without a land lease. We are all tenants. We own our homes, but our homes are on land not owned by us. And so we are tenants. So we can be evicted. We could just have uh you know our next home buyer not approved and no lease written and that is really concerning for me.

Thank you. Thank you. Um so do we have any um commissioner inquiries, comments, questions? Um that is all the public speakers. over there for so you submitted for 5A because you said the sections of the red line ordinance were not the specific ones for this agenda item. So that would come under 5a cuz what was noticed here were these specific sections. Okay, Karine, do you want to speak on this item as well? Yeah, she's speaking on four seats, right?

Sorry. Um, Katerina Vinegrad. I live in the Point Doom Club. Yeah. I just wanted to say that um, as you all know, we have new owners at the Point Doom Club and we don't trust them and um, we really, really, really need to get something on the books to protect us. I'm more concerned about my rent control than I am about going away and renting my house to someone else. I'm really concerned about how much my rent is going to be and stay because it's the difference between whether I can stay in my house or not. And um I I have another question regarding the whole not trusting the owners. Why is there so much secrecy about where they actually are? We We know that hometown I call them hometown homies, hometown America bought us. We all we have is the two people that work in the office. We don't have any other address. The people that own the park, we don't know where they are, who they are, and why is it is it top secret? It seems to be I don't know. We can't find that information out. Thank you. Um, do do we have any other anyone who wants to speak on this item?

I just want to say, sorry, I'm an owner in the Could you come up, please?

Hi. Um, my name is Alexa Sedaris. I'm an owner in the point. Oh, sure. Um, my name is Alexa Sedaris. I'm an owner in the Point Doom Club. Um, I my husband passed away recently, so I haven't been paying close attention to this. Now that I've heard the details, this is it's not going to fly. I personally will file such a lawsuit to put us your microphone.

Okay, sorry. If you pass this, it this is not fly. You can't impact people's value if there's a whole list. Not going to this is not going to fly. You're going to get lawsuits, at least from me. out of those whales. But that's all that's really it. Just it's absurd what you're trying to do. Cap, rent, it'll affect everything. That's all. Sorry. Thanks. Byebye. Thank you, Miss Darus. And and um our condolences as well.

I have since we're on the emotional thing. My name's Lydia Graham Stagler. I'm an owner in the Point Doom Club. Um, I would not have bought the mobile home had I known I could not rent it. That was a big selling point for us. Um, what I feel and it is emotional is I am not responsible for providing low-income housing.

That is the city of Malibu's responsibility. Um I also think that um we have to uh our if we rent our prospective subwoers have to go through an interview and they they always have. So we our community knows uh what we value is we value our space and we take good care of it and we in my opinion pay a lot of money. We put a huge investment into our mobile homes to park them on these spaces and it is now being it feels like a risk and I will have to say it's my first time at this meeting. I too lost my husband. Um, but I, you know, to sit in this room and I don't know any of you, and to hear someone speak with someone in the room and say, "Hey, you know, what's your rent?" Like, "Do you know if this passes if it's going to go down by half?" That just doesn't feel good. Um, I work really hard. I've worked in the school system. I've worked at Pepperdine for 15 years, and I want to be here. I like it here. We've all worked hard to be here. So, you know, it just it I think um we're we're the emotional players. I think there's a lot of common sense that needs to be looked at. There's things that the city of Malibu needs to provide to take the topic of lowincome housing off our table. That is not the point's responsibility in my opinion. And um yeah, I just think it's an it's an interesting topic to come up right now with hometown America. and you know, we just have to keep working towards uh the right uh solution. And it's nice that your committee is back up and running. I guess it's been defunct for many years. So, that's all I have to uh say for now. Thanks for letting me get up without signing up.

Thank you. Um anyone else? Okay. So, seeing none, do we have any commissioner comments, questions, inquiries? want to start out, Mr. Crosanti, you got a mic right there. If it doesn't work, I'll give you mine. Fabulous. Is it working? You got a green light? No, I don't have a green.

Okay. I I think Christina, I'm hoping that you have access to the uh minutes from three the third meeting back. Do you have that available to you? I could I could probably pull them up. Okay. Because what I'm interested in is the actual words by which the the sub the ad hoc committee was appointed and what their duties were. Which date of the meeting was that? Was that the

I think it was three meetings ago and maybe it was four. If we count this meeting as one of the meetings, I think it's three. I don't think we had an ad hoc before that, do we? No.

So the the my recollection is that there has been a subcommittee appointed on two occasions and it happens to be the same people on the subcommittee but first it was to draft recommendations um for the commission to re to potentially recommend to the city council on amendments to the ordinance and then a second subcommittee albeit the same people um to draft um commission regulations and make recommendations to the commission about um what regulations it might adopt.

I'll read the motion. Um, Chair Shankman moved and Vice Chair Samson seconded. A motion to form an ad hoc subcommittee composed of Chair Shankman and Vice Chair Samson that would be tasked with drafting proposed amendments to the Malibu mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. I I don't think we we asked them to draft a whole new uh ordinance and I know that we didn't ask them or even bring up the idea of establishing rent control on their subleas leases. Uh I think that I think that they have exceeded the the boundaries of their appointment and I think that these changes are going to cause nothing but problems and I I really can't begin to understand why that has happened. I think that we've we've potentially harmed our ability to function as uh decision makers by a step by exhibiting uh bias or one party or another in the arrangement you all have with your landlords. And I think that's what concerns me. Commissioner Shankman,

um on um what somebody said about um uh how the we're we're placing the the burden of lowincome or affordable housing on um the Point Doom Club and Paradise Cove where it should where it should not be. I I believe that um the city of Malibu has stated that the mobile home parks are their affordable housing in compliance with the California state legislature and that affordable and that affordability

should be extended to everyone that lives there, not just the people who own their houses. When did the city council say that? The state legislature. Um, so, so Paul, to answer your specific question, it's in the Malibu General Plan, I believe is what Sam is referring to.

Uh, Vice Chair Samson, I'll let the accusation of bias go. It's cockami. Okay, Mr. Ortiz, thank you for speaking. Um and I am interested given a formula on um that I reviewed and that uh I'm not quite sure how how to price what bringing it one is. I'm not your numbers may make sense to me. So did the other ones probably from ignorance on my part but that would change some of the numbers. I'll tell all of you part of what um Kevin's done a lot of work on this at the state legislature. Um the legislator's after after Malibu uh particularly the mobile home parks here

and um that puts all of us in a tough position to some extent because you know you buy there you are buying a leaseold as you know and it's not a property value in a sense a lease pieces property, but it isn't really. It's a piece of paper and the mobile home owners statewide and nationwide think, "Hey, I want some of that cash when there's a spread." There's obviously a spread. I mean, 2 million $2 million for a mobile home. An awful lot of that value or your equity, I'm sorry to say, is in your right to lease from somebody else. and the owners are saying, "Hey, we want some of that." Now, some of our thinking on this, and maybe the numbers could use some adjustment on placing a limit now, was to get ahead of the legislature cuz legislature in California, unfortunately, frequently makes things in Malibu worse, you may have heard. Um, so if the perception is that somebody renting their place out is making a lot of money from sub blessing, excuse me, subleasasing. Uh, and the real value there is because they are getting they're getting a good deal because their own rent is controlled by our city. I mean, the land the land lease would probably be more if there were if this ordinance didn't exist. I mean, I'm not an economist. I'm not even a realtor. But I'm going to guess it' be a

little more. My best experience in real estate is I've already been to heaven. For those of you who are religious men, I live in an oceanfront apartment uh with a volleyball court in front of the third floor for 140 bucks a month and there was a bar at the door. So, I've already been there. So, times have changed. But seriously, you know, the the numbers were an attempt to get the legislature and that's going to help you.

Okay? Because rent control is abolished at the owner level. It's not going to that won't help you. So say that's our effort. It may be imperfect. Anyway, so that's and uh you've educated me a little. I if somebody had asked me I would have guessed that the loan service was higher um but you brought it to my mind Mr. Ortiz see and then um Miss Deulan um I'll refer to the uh the leaseold there's and where'd you go? Okay, that's not really it's not exactly capital you're holding there. you're holding a leaseold interest. And we're we're back to this problem of the mobile home park owners, you know, they claim anyway that they're subsidizing your equity. Well, they don't want to do that. Uh I won't get into whether they're right or wrong, but that that's their claim. And they got they're after their friends in the legislature. Kevin's been up there and he's not, you know, I don't know what he's doing up there. Um, but you know, you're no man's life, liberty, or property are safe when the legislaturator's in session. We all know that. Okay. I'm sorry. I've been sold against Never mind. Okay. And um, Miss Pus, I mean, we have the Oh, can I ask her something? Okay. Was the uh the 8,000 to 9,000 affordable rent for a three or four bedroomedroom. Was that existing or a goal? Was it the mobile home or was it the city? I didn't follow you. I'm sorry.

That's okay. Sorry. I was trying to be quick. So, I provided letters. Oh, yeah. I provided letters of uh with links, too. So, you'll be you would be able to see. We have all of them. Okay. It has basically what I was pointing out is if you know we're renting less than half of well it depends I guess on what your space rent is but less than half of what the emergency you know um it's basically you can go on to HUD and they'll have a list of what yeah you haven't really gotten to my question and we're going to spend too long on this so uh was 8,000 an affordable rent was that

yes yes that's anti-pric gouging so Right. So, so affordable housing has a definition um for LA County. What what Miss Pekkis was referring to is the is the anti-gouging numbers that are from HUD, a federal agency. Correct. Correct. That was from the fire, right?

It's Yeah. And it's for it's for our zip code and you can Yeah. You can access that and I provided the link. We're not supposed to engage in lengthy discussions back and forth at this point. And um Alexa, I didn't get your last name. Um you disagree with our our rent cap. And fortunately uh uh I'm easy to find. Uh if you're going to sue me, I'm going to turn it over to the gentleman on my on my right and I hope he'll defend me. Uh I don't know what the rights are on that one. Um I don't even have an agent for service process and um I think that's it left I think. Yeah. Okay. But anyway, this was our attempt and Kevin may explain it better than I to try to cut the legislature off at the pass. And that would be I if we do, it's probably to the benefit of everyone, even including the park owners, because um they may just I don't know. Um if they can jack the rent to wherever they want, um that would be very harmful to all of you, I would think. I don't know what the market really would be if without this ordinance. Um, but if you're making a lot of money at their expense, um, you know, they're capitalists. They go, "Hey, that's money. I want it. It's fine." And that's what they're at the legislature doing. Go ahead.

Thank you. So, um, I I I appreciate the discussion. Um, and you know, even since our last meeting, I I've met with a number of you and and communicated with with several of the the people that came and spoke today um and others and um and those conversations have been helpful. um we may not always agree on everything. Um but I think that um you know one of the things that actually is on the agenda um a a recommended change to what we did last month um came out with one of those conversations. Um that's the change to 5.16.090.1 adding subdivision C. Um I do want to make a a point here. So, what's on the agenda is really limited to adding that um one paragraph 5.16090.1C and adding a paragraph to 5.16.210. Um the the broader discussion of the other amendments that the commission voted to recommend to the city council that's occurred. The motion has been made. Um it passed I believe 3 to one. Um and you know that's not to say that those discussions shouldn't continue. Um but I I do want to focus a little bit on what is actually on the agenda. Um, but before I do that, I want to I want to address one thing that um, Miss Becca said about school enrollment um, and the city of Malibu. And I I think that that is a huge problem. Um, you know, I I think back me and my wife moved to

Malibu when Sam was two years old. Um, and Sam Sam is here a little older than two now. Um, nobody seems to do that anymore, right? Nobody in their I was in my 20s can afford to unless you're a Nep or something can afford to to move here. And so then our um the age of the residents increases um and we no longer have um people who are of child rearing age. Um that might be like a 1950s term. I'm not sure but uh I hope you all know what I mean.

I don't remember. And and so then we don't have a whole lot of kids going to the schools. And on top of that, the Santa Monica board has destroyed this district in ways that are going to take years, if not decades, to fix when we hopefully finally get our own district. Um, and all of that combined, we have a dwindling enrollment that is disturbing. I mean, we built a new high school and we could probably name each one of the classrooms after one of the, you know, one of the kids and each kid would have their own classroom. Um an exaggeration really

only only by a little bit.

Yeah. So um I I think we we definitely need to do something th this this commission's purview is the mobile homes um and the mobile home parks. So, um, the issue of affordability and housing is one that that needs to be tackled. Well, we can do a little bit here, but it's it's an issue that that really has to be tackled by the city council because they their jurisdiction is much broader than ours. Um, and it's I think oftentimes Malibu residents in particular um don't fully recognize what is going on over the past several years in terms of state law on the issue of housing. Um, to a large extent, Malibu has escaped some of the impacts of what the state has done. Um but in in my estimation that's not likely to last. Um and there has already been movement in the legislature specifically with respect to Malibu's mobile home parks um that demonstrates that we cannot simply um count on the status quo. Um, so that being said, I also want to So, Miss Pekkis raised the point about um retaliation by refusing to allow the transfer of um of a mobile home. And uh, Miss Beckis, you're actually not the first person that's mentioned that to me. certainly the only one who's mentioned at this meeting but um you know I was planning and and will uh suggest a minor revision uh to what is in the staff report for section 5.16090.1

C and that is to add the words transfer or between the words to and lease on the second line which I believe um addresses the issue that you um pointedly presented to us. Um the words was transfer transfer point. Yeah. So, so it it should read a mobile home owner to transfer or lease their mobile homes to a subten. Transfer would be a sale, wouldn't it?

Most likely. Yes. Then it's not a subtenant, right? So the the subtenant modifies lease and not transfer. There might be an Oxford comma missing there, but I think the the point is

So with that, unless anyone else has any other um comments or questions, uh I will move to add to our previous recommendations those in the staff report adding 5.16.090.1 090.1 C and 5.16.210 A3. Um, with that minor change of adding the words transfer or do I have a second?

Seconded. Second. Any uh discussion on the motion? Give me a second to read for myself. See, and I'm I'm trying to accomplish this with as few words as possible. I get it. Yeah. So, just clarifying the the thing we just spent so long talking about isn't even the main thing we're we're um we're passing right now. Great. Civic discourse is important though. Definitely. Definitely.

I I concur. I I concur. Um that's my comment. Any commissioners have any further questions or discussion on the motion?

I'm going to vote against the measure uh for the same reason I voted against the measure as a whole at the last meeting. I think this is a massive overstep. I think it's going to result in a lot of problems for the city of Malibu and for the residents of the park. And I think that the fact that we still do not see in the audience anybody from either of the parks tells me that we are we're being set up for some bad litigation here. So, I I have a question. Uh, Commissioner Vasanti, um, were you on the city council when the general plan was due?

Was done originally? I was on the general plan task force originally. I was not on the city council at that time. Okay. So, you were you were on from 2020 to 2024, correct? Yes, because that that is when the general plan was done, right? Well, the initial general plan task force was all the way back in the '90s. No, I'm talking about for this 10-year cycle. Yes, I was.

Okay. And I and I know about the the arena number, our responsibility of our community to have a certain amount of affordable housing according to the state. And our reena number is something that in the past we have been in a situation where as long as there was property zoned or appropriately for that, that was enough. it didn't have to actually get built. And I think that where Kevin is going with this is the next round of this, they're going to actually start requiring cities to build that that propert to to provide those fulfill those arena numbers.

I am floored. I I cannot believe that you just said that in a recorded public meeting that that it simply requires that we allow it we don't have to facilitate the production of affordable housing. Do do you know what would happen if the the Housing and Community Development Department heard former or current city council members say, "We're not actually going to build the affordable housing." What would happen if HCD descertified our general plan? Do do you know

they didn't descertify our plan because we provided property that was zoned appropriately for for building the appropriate number of things. And as far as it actually making sense to somebody to come in and do that, as a as somebody who actually does addition, subtraction, multiplication, I can tell you that financially it didn't make sense on those properties. So, the city did a I don't even know why I'm engaging in this because the more that that that you speak on it, the more ammo it gives to the state if they want to come in and descertify our general plan and allow builder's remedy projects all over the city of Malibu. And that might be your goal.

That is not my goal. Okay. I mean, it it might be a realtor bonanza. You sure it it's chair? Can I direct us back to the item at hand, please? We have to stay on the agenda. I think we've strayed a bit. Sure. So there there's a motion and a second. Um any further discussion? You left out division Paul. Let's call the question. Chair Shankman I. Commissioner Shankman. I co Commissioner Crosanti. No. Vice Chair Samson. I

motion carries. Okay. So, moving on, unless anyone else has anything on 4C, um 5A, communications from the public on matters that are not on the agenda. Do we have any speaker cards? Here we go.

So, first up is Katarina Vinegrad. Is is this a repeat of your or do you have further comments? Okay,

I have a lot to say. Sorry. Um, yeah, my comment is about the CPI index. Who decides it? Um, where does it come from? Because to my understanding, and I'm very confused, but I do believe at some point in the past, and I don't know if it was in the 1990s or the 2000s, the CPI index uh was LA County and Orange and that totally disappeared. that went away and Malibu decided to use the LA county's CPI index. They could have used anything else, but they used LA County, which is always higher than anywhere else. So my question is why did the city of Malibu basically put more money in the mobile park owners pockets and less money in the park whatever we are renters owners I don't know how to describe us but basically the money went to the owners and we could have got a reduction and I just want to know where are the records for that who made those decisions and why were they made?

Thank you, Mr. M Miss Vinegrad. Um, next up is Candace Bowen Ferguson, please.

Good afternoon. I think everybody can hear me. Commissioners and our city attorneys not here. City manager and city staff. Again, my name is Candace Bowen Ferguson. I serve as vice president on the board of the Point Doom Club Residents Association, but today I'm speaking on my own behalf as a resident of the Point Doom Club for over 33 years. There are many reasons why people choose to live in the Point Doom Club. Affordability, demographics, and a desire to raise their children in a stable community. Our residents are diverse. We have permanent residents, absentee owners, residents who own but live elsewhere, and residents who are real estate professionals. Again, there are many reasons people buy into the Point Doom Club. For some, it is home. For others, it is purely an investment. Today, I respectfully ask the commissioners to focus on stabilizing our rent control so longtime residents and families can remain in their homes. Thank you for your time and I thank you for your service.

Thank you, Candace. Um, anyone else on items not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, let's

come on up. Um, I didn't want to bring this up because it hadn't been in the ordinance, but um, I was wondering if you have plans to figure out if the ordinance does pass and the current renters that are um, or you know, residents that rent their homes, how would that affect their current leases if they have tenants in place? I just don't know if that has been addressed. I didn't see it in there. Thank you. Um seeing no further public uh comments on 5A, let's move on to 5B. Uh Commissioner inquiries. Um Commissioner Shankman, you want to start? Thank you for throwing under the bus there. I don't have any inquiries or comments that haven't been mentioned before.

Okay, that's quick and save us all time. Uh, Commissioner Versanti, I if I may, I'll take a shot at RP's question about what happens to the existing leases. An existing lease is a legal document that has a life of its own and it we can't change the rules and invalidate the lease to the best of my knowledge. So that's I think that existing leases would change and new leases would be new leases.

Uh Vice Chair Samson.

Okay. I'll first try to address Miss Wiggrad. We've done a lot of talking about the CPI in past meetings. You may have heard of that or done it. And you're right. There's there's different ones. The problem was that the ordinance specified one and it ceased to exist and uh someone way before my time picked a different one than maybe you would have liked and we've tried to take care of that. and what we've sent to the count recommended and sent to the council previously. Um along with how to handle that. Um I assure you we understand the problem. Um it it's problem for everybody. We don't know which we didn't know which one to use. I mean I believe when the city said well we had to do something because the index disappeared. Um let's see. And um

I didn't hear you anyway. Uh but we we did our best to try to make that work given what uh the prior ordinance had and it an index that no longer exists. Um, I mean there has to be one. And um, if I if I may, I I believe the question was why did we use um this index without changing the law? Like why are we why did we go against the the law for so long which states this index that no longer exists without like changing it?

Right. and and and I'm just I don't I don't mean to interrupt you, but um there there is a pending application that is on this topic. So, we should be careful in the comments that we make. Um I I don't think any of the commissioners up here want to prejudge that application. You're correct

on that one. Um so that's all I'm going to say say about it. Um and Candace, yes. Um, even though I painfully recommend you calling me old, um, uh, you were right. Um, yeah, we we hope we are pro- resident for all the residents of Malibu. That's why we're here. I wouldn't be here for any other reason. Um, I got other ways I could spend my time. Um, but that's that's what we're doing. Um, and we have attempted at least in what we've sent up already to deal with the people who rent them out. And there are some that, yeah, it's just their business. I I get it. Uh, that doesn't mean there's anything right or wrong with it. That's what it is. And then there's some that just live there. Um, and we've done our best. We've cons we've tried to consider the various um uh goals of that people would have in that regard.

That's all. I don't have anything further other than to thank everyone for for coming out and sitting through our boarding meeting. Um much appreciated. Um, so with that, we're on adjournment and so I would move to adjourn the meeting to our next regular meeting, uh, which should be January 15th at 1:30, um, same time, same place, same channel. Is that correct? That is correct. That is correct. Uh, I'll make that motion. Second by uh, Vice Chair Samson. Um, all in favor? I I I

And any opposed? No. Motion carries. Thank you everyone. Have have a safe holiday.