City Council - Regular Meeting

here. Thank you. The board will now recess to close session.

The meeting of the rent control board is hereby called back to order after its closed session. Please join me in the salute to our flag. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. If anyone wishes to address the board either on a specific item on tonight's agenda or add public comment, please see our secretary to fill in a speaker slip. Does staff have a report on this evening's closed session? Yes, thank you, chair. The board met in close session this evening at 6:05 p.m. No reportable action was taken.

Great. Uh if commissioners have had an opportunity to review the minutes of the April 9th meeting, may I have a motion for their approval? Commissioner Lesley, I move to accept the minutes. I move to accept the minutes. Second. Uh motion by Commissioner Lesley, seconded by Commissioner Gansko. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dudek, yes. Commissioner Gonska, yes. Commissioner Leslie, yes. Vice Chair Ambry, yes. Chair Ivanov, yes. Motion carries. Item number six, special agenda items. Does the executive director have anything to report to the board?

Yes, thank you, chair. Uh first, last week, staff from the AY's public information division partnered with a code enforcement supervisor to offer a seminar on the maintenance of rent controlled properties. The event was held at the main public library and attracted a mix of approximately 35 tenants and landlords, many of whom engaged with staff and uh had many questions. I'd like to express my appre appreciation to Maurice Coscher from code enforcement for helping with the presentation. The seminar was video recorded and is available on the seminars and newsletters page of the board's website along with a copy of the presentation slides. As a reminder, viewers may use the language translation feature on the city's YouTube channel to watch the seminar in the language of their choice. Second, I'm pleased to announce that Kevin Mitchell has been appointed as the board's new general counsel. His appointment will commence on June 15, 2026 at an annual salary of $217,000 $320. Kevin is here with us this evening and I would like to welcome him publicly in advance of his official start date. Welcome Kevin. Uh we look forward to the important role that he will play in advising the board and supporting the agency's legal work. Uh third, I want to note that tonight is public information manager Dan Costello's last meeting before his retirement. Uh Dan has served the agency, the board, and the public with extraordinary dedication over many years. His work has touched nearly every part of the AY's public facing mission. He's helped tenants, property owners, board members, staff, and members of the public understand the rent control law, navigate complicated issues, and receive thoughtful, accurate, and respectful assistance. Dan's contributions go well beyond the technical work of the public information department. He has helped build a culture of public service, professionalism, patience, and care. I and all the staff deeply appreciate his the example that he has set, and the

agency is better because of his service. On behalf of the agency, I want to thank Dan for his long and exceptional service, his leadership, his institutional knowledge, and his commitment to the public. We wish him the very best in his next chapter. And finally, I'm also pleased to announce that Rose Patel, who's also with us this evening, has uh been appointed as Dan successor as public information manager. Rose has served the agency and the city for many years, most recently as an information analyst. She brings deep knowledge of the rent control law, strong operational experience, and a demonstrated commitment to public service. So, congratulations, Rose, on your appointment.

That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you. Public comment. This is the time set aside for members of the public to address the board on matters that are not included on the agenda, but that are within the board's subject matter jurisdiction. Please note that the board cannot take official action at tonight's meeting on any matter not included on the agenda. I will call each person who filled out a speaker slip and you should come to the podium and speak into the microphone when your name is called. If there is anyone who wishes to address the board during public comment who has not filled out a speaker slip, please see our board secretary. Um, and I have just one public comment speaker so far. I have uh Michael Milman. Careful. I'm fine.

And whenever you are ready, you'll have three minutes. I'm ready. Go.

We're going to miss you, Dan. You're not a Tiffany cut diamond like I said about Tracy, but if they talk about goats and they talk about Tom Brady, you're above Tom Brady because this gentleman, if you're an owner of property, always had time to provide his insight and send documents and be available. One of a kind, an amazing guy, and we're going to miss you terribly. I'm here to say that responsible Santa Monica landlords, we celebrate, we promote, we encourage roommates. We don't wait till uh Valentine's to say to our tenants, if you have a romantic component, let them move in. Nobody is excluded. Nobody. wives, husbands, domestic partners, children, siblings, they can all come in. All come in. All come in. They come in as the approved house guest of the tenant. We designate them, Dan, as lawful subtenants. So there's never any confusion as to who they are. Okay. When the original tenant leaves, they leave. If the original tenant transitioned to Hillside, they can stay. They can stay under Costa Hawkins and pay whatever's reasonable rent. I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy the rent board helping me as an owner with property in Santa Monica and LA promote promote and promote roommates. We like roommates. Roommates that follow the law. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Uh before we proceed to jurisdictional items, I'd like to do some agenda management. Uh when we reach the public hearing at administrative items, we will take item 12A, the city attorney's presentation on proposed charter amendments before item 11b, the public hearing on proposed charter amendments for the November 2026 ballot. The purpose is to allow the city attorney's presentation to help inform the board's discussion of the public hearing item. Um, is there any objection from the board? Uh, seeing no objection, we will proceed in that order. Item 10, jurisdictional items. Um, exemptions. Our first item 10A1, um, is regarding units 318 and 318 or excuse me, 318A and 318B at 318 Georgina Avenue. Uh, is there a staff report?

Yes. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, Ethan Goldstein bought this property back in 2019, um, 318 Georgina Avenue. It consisted of a single family home. She withdrew it under the Ellis Act and while it was withdrawn she demolished the existing structure and then she constructed on it two brand new units. Um the property still remains withdrawn under the Ellis Act. It's uh the owner states that she lives on the property. She has applied to exempt those new uh two new units as new construction under the law and under the Santa Monica rent control law. If a unit has been built after the uh after 1979 is not otherwise subject to the law because of the Ellis acts requirements or a removal permit then it qualifies as new construction to be permanently exempted. Um that is the case here and for those reasons staff recommends that the board uh ex approve the exemption application and adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Does uh any commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Is there a representative for the applicant who would like to address the board? Seeing none, does any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or make a motion? Vice Chair Ambre, thank you. Um and thanks for the staff report. I found it thorough and I think that the hearings officer um did not er in their decision. I found it reasonable that all the legal requirements were satisfied and therefore I'd like to make a motion to exempt 318 Georgina Avenue units 318 and 318B.

Commissioner Dudick, I second I second the motion. Uh motion by Vice Chair Ambry, seconded by Commissioner Dudick. Um, any further discussion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dudek, yes. Commissioner Ganska, yes. Commissioner Lesley, yes. Vice Chair Ambry, yes. And Chair Ivanov, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Uh, appeals. Um, our first appeal is decrease case P2025-00620. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, commissioners. Christopher Leierre, tenant of unit 103 at 8344th Street, filed a rent decrease petition for damaged flooring. Uh the hearing officer denied his petition and Mr. Lepier has appealed it. He argues that the record does not support the denial and that the transition strip installed in the flooring violates the California Building Code. The board reviews this matter as an appella body. Therefore, if should affirm the decision if it's supported by substantial evidence since substantial evidence does support the hearing officer's findings and the record reasonably supports the denial. There had been a leak in the kitchen and the owner had to replace the flooring in the kitchen. So, they replaced it with a similar flooring as the adjacent room as depicted in the photos in the staff report. Mr. Lepier argued in his petition that the transition strip that was that is installed between the two floors constitutes a tripping hazard. The hearing investigator, Ms. Wood Nikki, who visited the unit, testified that there is a minor height difference between the two floorings, which necessitated the transition strip that's depicted in the photos. Given this record, the hearing officer found that the new kitchen flooring is similar in color and that the transition strip adequately spans the gap between the minor height difference between the floorings. She therefore did not find that the evidence supported a rent decrease for substantial reduction in a housing service. Mr. Leier argued as in in his appeal that the height difference constitutes a violation of civil code section 1941.1 as untenable. That section requires that flooring be maintained in good repair. But the hearing officer found that the floor has in fact been repaired and that the height difference between the two floors is minor and not substantial. Therefore, it doesn't show that the unit is untenable. Mr. Lupier also argued that the height difference between the two floors is by definition substantial. um and a violation of the building code. The building code, however, only states that where there is a height elevation

of one quarter to 1/2 in, which is what Mr. Lepier alleges is the case here, the transition shall be beveled, which means rounded, which is exactly what the transition strip is. Um, and it therefore it the the flooring is in compliance with the building code and is not evidence of a building code violation. Finally, Mr. Laierre pointed out several court cases and argued that they held that changes in flooring elevate uh in flooring elevation constitutes a trip and fall hazard. As detailed in the staff report, that's not the case. In the first case, the court found San Diego liable for a dangerous and defective condition where the curb had deteriorated and I created what they court called a muckfilled pothole about 8 18 in out from the curb and 2 ft deep. No such condition exists here. In the other case, it was a 1/4 in in protrusion of a steel bar from the concrete walking surface of a parking abutment. The trial court found this to be a minor difference that constituted a mere trivial defect. But the court of appeals remanded the case, holding that notwithstanding the minor difference in elevation, the trial court should also consider that this was a steel bar protruding from a concrete slab and that the lower court should also consider if this condition existed in an area that was not well lit at night. None of these facts exist here and the case is not relevant to this matter. Because the res record reasonably supports the hearing officer's denial, staff recommends that the board affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thank you. Uh does any commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Seeing none, um oh did I sorry, Commissioner Lesley, sorry.

Um I have a quick question. Is the tenant um does the tenant have any disabilities, any mobility issues? No such evidence was presented. Thank you. And I believe we have um I believe the tenant is here. Is is Chris Laapierre here? And whenever you're ready, you'll have up to five minutes to speak. and we just ask that you keep your comments to what's within the evidentiary record.

Sure. Uh well, thank you for the time to hear you and uh the opportunity, I guess, uh to have this humanistic approach to what I feel is something slid out of control. Um I'd like to sort of reframe this from my perspective at least. I've been a tenant of this building uh that is a three-bedroom unit that was renovated months before I moved in. It was a luxury apartment when I moved in. It is still marketed on the market as a luxury apartment. Uh living there for 10 years, I paid over $700,000 in rent. And uh what I was asking for is the floor to be repaired in a way uh that's commensurate with a luxury apartment and does not create a hazard. We can argue about you know whether a quarter inch is a hazard or not, but uh this is an open floor which is my central argument and has been from the beginning. Uh the transition strip wouldn't be put there if they were marketing the apartment. They have none in any of the other units in the building and it wouldn't be acceptable to anybody I think if you were moving into a luxury home or paid a contractor to do it. The open floor has an aesthetic and that aesthetic is disrupted with a strip in the middle of it. Two different heights of flooring and flooring that you can see looks and appears the same but is not right. I didn't cause the damage. This was framed as a leak that sort of may put it on to me. Uh this is actually the third leak that has entered my building, right? Because of the building and the landlord, right? I have been displaced with all of those, right? Leaks. And so, put in perspective of the $700,000 in rent I paid in the eventual millions before I move out. It seemed reasonable to me and to the arbitrator and to others who've heard this case, including the representation of the landlord who went and got bids in arbitration that they would fix this, right? That essentially that my open floor and my design aesthetic and what I pay for as a luxury apartment was ruined by this. And you know, we talked about some of the

cases I cited. Those were cited. You know, they're not perfect matches, but again, a change in elevation is a hazard. I have young children. I have myself and my wife. We don't often require the lights on every time we enter the kitchen. So, it could be dimly lit. And this is an abrupt transition in the middle of somewhere. It should not be to save them what I would argue are fractional, and we could do the math, but incredibly fractional amounts of money, right, in regards to the rent paid and the rent that will be in the future. So I request that you reverse the decision. The most of what was read into evidence and most of the counterarguments and others ignores the aesthetic, right? The luxury apartment, the fact that it was marketed as such. And the fact that the moment I move, if I move out tomorrow, they will replace it, right? Because it is not satisfactory. It is not what they've done throughout the building. It is not consistent in what anyone would think when they walk into an apartment. It would look as if somebody did a cheap, underappreciated repair. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, is there a representative for the owner who would like to address the board? Um, before we get into deliberations, um, I just had a question for staff. Is is a luxury aesthetic um something that is promulgated under the regulations as something that can be taken into account in terms of in amenity or loss of in amenity?

Um would it has to be a substantial reduction in housing service. So it could be a housing code violation. Um that could be an example of thing. It it kind of just depends on the context in and of itself. Uh certainly a a minor um there's been court cases in which there has been a minor reduction in a housing service for another luxury item and in that case the court reversed the board's approval of a decrease in that matter. And it said that where there is a minor reduction that the uh evidence must show that the landlord that the rent has become unreasonable. Um, and that's certainly not evidence that was presented in in the case here that it has to be that kind of a substantial reduction.

But whether it's substantial or not is a luxury aesthetic in and of itself a housing service. No, the the the housing service is the flooring in and of itself. Okay. Thank you. Uh, would any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion? Commissioner Gonsko.

Yeah, I mean I certainly understand what the tenant uh is saying in the appeal and was said here tonight. Um, you know, on a personal level, I agree that the aesthetic is not great. Uh it's I wouldn't enjoy the look of that in my own apartment, but in evaluating this as a commissioner on this board, we have to look at uh what our regulations uh require and allow for. And I don't see um that this would uh would requ well not tonight, but in many other meetings, we've talked a lot about what the purpose of rent decreases is. It's to make sure that you're not paying for uh a basket of goods that you contracted for that you're no longer receiving. And so it's not um our our ability is not to compel landlords to make changes. Uh it's not a penalty to encourage a landlord to do something different. Um so it's it's really to make up for an amenity that you had when you signed the contract when you signed the lease that you no longer have. And I don't see that here in this case. I don't see any errors that uh were made in this evaluation by the hearing officer. So I would um support the uh the finding here. Vice Chair Ambry,

I echo the sentiments of my commissioner uh Gansona um that the intent of the rent decrease is um what was stated the the cases that were cited do not seem analogous. And also I'd like to say that um that the tenant has other forms of relief that are not within our jurisdiction. But here I feel that the the hearing officer did not make an error in their decision and it's not unreasonable and therefore I would also support the decision actually I'll make the motion I'll make a motion. Um give me a second. I'll make a motion to affirm the decision at 834th Street, unit 103.

Is there a second? Second. Motion by Vice Chair Ambry, seconded by Commissioner Ganska. Um, any further discussion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dudik, yes. Commissioner Ganska, yes. Commissioner Lesley, yes. Vice Chair Ambry, yes. Chair Ibanov, yes. Motion carries. Our second appeal is decrease case P2024-04851. May we have the staff report, please?

Commissioners Dor Cavani, who's a tenant of unit N at 326 San Viceni Boulevard, filed a rent decrease petition alleging various maintenance conditions and reductions of housing services. and the hearing officer granted decreases totaling $759. Both the former owner and the current owner have appealed this decision. This property was sold in the time between the close of record and the issuance of the decision. The former owner argues that the record doesn't support the decreases for the various maintenance conditions. Um although they withdrew that portion of their appeal in the written response to the staff report. The former owner also argues that no decrease should have been given for the reduction of permitted occupants because the owner has never tried to evict Mr. Cavani's fiance. The former owner also objects to the basis for compliance for the reduction as a violation of the first amendment as well as a litigation privilege under California law. The current owner argues that they were never never notified of the hearing and that the former owner never disclosed the pending petition when they bought the property. Again, the board reviews this matter as an appella body and it should therefore affirm the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. As detailed in the staff report, substantial evidence supports the decreases granted for maintenance conditions and as the and as for the decrease given for the reduction of permitted occupants, Mr. Cavani moved into this unit with his parents and sibling. Therefore, the lease established the right to three additional permitted occupants under the rent control law. His family members moved out and when Mr. Cavani requested that the owner allow his fiance to move in with him, they denied his request. Given this evidence, the hearing officer found that Mr. Cavani's base amenity of three additional permitted occupants had been reduced and he was entitled to a rent decrease in accordance with board regulations. And substantial evidence

supports that finding. The former owner argues that they never tried to evict Mr. Cavani's fiance when she moved into the unit essentially without their permission. At the hearing, however, Mr. Cavani denied that his fiance lived with him and that she lived elsewhere, but that she sleeps over sometimes. But as a finding as to the nature of the fiance's occupancy is not necessary because the hearing officer found that the decrease was warranted on the former owner's denial of Mr. Cavani's right to an additional permitted occupant. There's also no merit to the former owner's apparent argument that the decrease was based on the former landlord's speech, which the First Amendment protects. The decrease was based on the landlord's conduct, the denial of Mr. Cavani's right to an additional permitted occupant through the denial of his request. The former owner also objected to the basis for compliance for this condition in this in the decision. The hearing officer had in the decision required the landlord to provide a written statement acknowledging Mr. Cavani's right to additional permitted occupants. The former on owner argues that this requirement is a violation of the owner's constitutional right to free speech as well as litigation privilege under California law. However, staff recommended in its staff report that the basis for compliance for this condition be modified to include the act of restoring Mr. Cavani's right as an alternate basis for compliance. Since the decrease was based on the landlord's denial of Mr. Cavani's right to an additional permitted occupant through the denial of his request, the landlord may seek compliance by granting that request. The current owner also appealed the decision and argues that it was never notified of the hearing. The hearing, however, occurred before the current owner had bought the property. Therefore, there was no basis for the owner, that new owner to be notified of the hearing. The current owner also complains that the former owner never

notified it of the pending decision when it bought the property, but the controversy between those parties is not a basis for the board's reversal of the hearing officer's decision. Staff therefore recommends that the board affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law except for the modifications of the basis for compliance for the reduction of permitted occupants as set forth in the staff report. Thank you. Does any commission commissioner have questions about the staff report?

Commissioner Lesley. Uh my question is this. Since we have a new owner, what are our obligations to the former owner? Sorry. Um, can you say any more about what your question is with regard to obligations to the former owner?

In other words, there's a new owner. We have all this commentary from the former owner who is no longer the owner of of said property. Um, the case originated with the former owner. However, since he's relinquished ownership, I'm trying to understand how far into this rabbit hole are we going with the former owner? The the responsibility is to the petition itself. So whether there's a new owner who steps into the shoes of the former owner with respect to what's happening in that unit and what happens with this petition, that's basically mute point. What's that?

It's a mute point at that point. It's like a mute point. In other words, it doesn't matter who owns the property. The it the petition stands. So the petition doesn't become moot just because the ownership has changed. So you look at the petition as a whole regardless of who owns the property. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Um do we have a representative for the owner who would like to address the board? I believe I have a Mark Edgerman.

Yes. And whenever you're ready, you can approach the podium. Um, and you'll have five minutes. Um, and we just ask that you keep your um, comments to what is in the evidentiary record.

Certainly. Uh, Mr. Chairperson, members of the board, my name is Mark Eerman. I am an attorney. I represent 326 San Vicente LLC, who was the former owner of the property, but is not the current owner of the property. I'd like to first make just a couple of quick comments regarding the staff report, the supplemental staff report. And I think it is important because as was told to you by the report given today by staff, the issue before you has nothing to do with a reduction in occupancy service. It has to do with the denial by 326 of consenting to a new tenant, Mr. Cavani's fiance, which was based upon information given to representatives of 326 by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board that a fiance did not qualify. It had to be a married person. That may have been an error. and my client's representatives who repeated that error may have been repeating a legal position that was not in fact sanctioned by law. But that did not result in a reduction in service because what in fact happened is that Mr. Cavani's fiance moved in with him and there is a finding by the hearing officer finding 55 that established that from the time of the request not the denial of the request before the denial request in January of 1994 through the hearing date the fiance

occupied the unit. I am quoting finding 55. Although the respondent, that's 326, has not acted on their belief that Miss Omad Omdi is unlawfully occupying the subject unit and has been since the request was first made in January 2024. It is undisputed the respondent did not allow Missi to submit a rental application. That's true. The respondent 326 believed that they had the legal right to not accept her as a tenant based on information with the Santa Monica rent control board. However, this did not result in a reduction of service because a Miss Obedi moved into the unit, remained in the unit, and was attended at the unit, although my client believed her occupancy was unlawful. This is a finding. This is finding 55. An example I like to use that shows the requirement that there be a reduction in service rather than simply the misstatement of a legal position that could lead to reduction in service is the swimming pool example I gave in my brief. A family, including a teenager, occupies a unit with a swimming pool. The owner tells the family, "You can't use the swimming pool because we're not allowing teenagers anymore to use the pool." That is speech. That speech may be wrong, but that is constitutionally

protected speech. The family continues to use the you the swimming pool as before, in spite of what the landlord said. There has been no reduction in service. The same service existed as in our present case. Mr. Cavani, the hearing officer found, was allowed to have his fiance reside in the unit. And that is factually what happened in spite of the legal position taken by the landlord. She did exactly what she wanted to do. She lived with her fiance. knowing that the landlord's legal position was that she had no right to do so. And the landlord took no action to prevent that or to declare that the occupancy was unlawful. One of the things that concerns me is that there are serious constitutional issues regarding free speech. There are segments of our government at the highest level that does not follow.

I'll let you just complete your thought one more sentence and that's I have cited substantial cases on free speech and why a legal position in statement of that legal position even if wrong is protected speech. Those cases have not been addressed by staff and they have cited no responding to authority. Thank you and I appreciate the courtesy of running over. Thank you. Uh, is there a representative for the tenant who would like to address the board? Yes. Uh, did you did you give a slip to our secretary?

No, I walked in at 720 as were one second. Do we need to make a motion whether we want to hear the testimony without a slip? No. Okay. You can you can approach and whenever you're ready, you'll have um five minutes and we just ask that you keep your comments to the evidentary record.

Sure. Sure. Absolutely. Uh thank you for taking the time to hear me out. Sorry I was late. Uh and thank you for taking the time to review this case. Um I've lived at 326ente apartment N for quite some time. Um, as mentioned, I moved in with my parents and my brother um around 2002. I've always paid my rent on time. I have always been a good neighbor to my neighbors. Always try to do the right thing. Um, ever since the former owner, uh, 326 or Sammy Sente uh, 326ente LLC and Mr. agrement took over the property. They have done everything in their power to make it uncomfortable for myself to live in that unit given the low um rate than rate that I pay in rent. Uh this is not the first time that they brought me to um this position in front of you guys and make this um uh bring us to a hearing. This is not the first time that I have petitioned to reduce rent due to reduced services. Um I'm very happy that they are no longer the uh owners of the property. Um I have um read over the hearing officer's uh decision and I uh support her decision. I also read the staff's recommendation and I support those as well. Um, and I hope that um we um have a um fair resolution here today. Thank you so much.

Uh would any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or make a motion? Commissioner Ganska.

I just wanted to address a couple of the things that the um the first speaker, the owner's representative touched on. Uh he pointed to um evidence uh that number um I believe it was 55 and he claimed that that was showing undisputed record that the fiance resided in the apartment in the unit. That's not what 55 says at all. It says it refers to the respondent's belief that they unlawfully occupied the unit. uh it does not establish that it's undisputed that because the that the fiance lived there uh the tenant throughout this entire process has disputed that. Um the second thing is he referred to I guess a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of the law. Apparently, they thought that our regulations mean that the fiance does not is not eligible to move in when that is not in fact the law. Uh the tenant is entitled to having four uh people living in that unit and made a request for one one person to make it two uh and was denied that request. So regardless of their inaccurate interpretation of the law, where they got that information, uh it's not really relevant. The fact of the matter is what the law is, not what someone's false interpretation of the law is. So um I didn't find that uh testimony here tonight or comments here tonight very compelling.

Do you want to make the motion? Any other comments? Uh, Vice Chair Ambry.

Yeah, I will agree. Um, I think that the issue regarding the replacement is that the tenant moved in with three additional persons and then and that is what the tenant contracted for. um that is um what should have been allowed um when one person moves out, another person should be um allowed to move in within I believe it's 14 days of a of a request. And um that's what we're talking about here is the ability the ability to have um an uh up to four people in the household. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll move that the board affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law except to modify paragraph 9Ee in the decision regarding grounds for compliance with the reduction in permitted occupants as outlined in the staff report and also include the provision that uh if the tenant believes the landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of a legitimate application or applicant that the hearing officer um wave the six-month rule contained in regulation 4005B3.

Commissioner Lesley. I second that motion. Motion by Commissioner Ganska, seconded by Commissioner Lesley. Any further discussion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dudk? Yes. Commissioner Ganska? Yes. Commissioner Lesley? Yes. Vice Chair Ambry, yes. Chair Ivanov, yes. Motion carries. Our third appeal is decrease KSP2025-05649. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Commissioners Monnique Evans, who's a tenant of unit 6 at 1019th Street, filed a rent decrease petition for uh various maintenance conditions and reductions of housing services. The hearing officer granted a decrease of $30 for the kitchen counter, but denied a decrease for the kitchen sink and bathtub. And Miss Evans has appealed those denials and argues that the record does support a decrease. Again, the board reviews this matter as an appellet body. Therefore, it should firm the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. That is, even if the board would have reached a different conclusion had it been finder fact. The hearing officer had previously in an earlier petition granted a decrease for the kitchen sink counter and bath bathtub tiles. The hearing officer had done so because after the previous repairs of those services, they showed a yellow stain that evidenced unprofessional and substandard worksmanship. After that decision, the landlord hired a contractor to redo the repairs and sought compliance. Ms. Evans did not contest the compliance and the rent decreases were discontinued. Ms. Evans, however, filed a new petition in November of last year for the same surfaces, arguing that the repairs had shown themselves to be substandard. The hearing officer agreed as far as the kitchen tiles because the same yellow stains that had been the problem in the earlier petition reappeared after the most recent repairs as depicted in the photos on page two of the staff report. However, the hearing officer denied a decrease for the kitchen sink based on the photos submitted um which I've included on page three of the staff report. The hearing officer found that these stains are different and that they were consistent with food residue and scruffs from the tenants's use of the sink and not from substandard repairs. The hearing officer also denied a decrease for the bathtub service as depicted in the second set of photos on page three of the staff report because the discoloration was again not the

yellow stains from the earlier petition and the kitchen tiles um in in the kitchen tiles in this petition. Instead, they reflected where Miss Evans had left her soap bottle and bathtub met while the rest of the bathtub surface showed no discoloration. Because the record reasonably supports the hearing officer's denial of these conditions, staff recommend that the board affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Does any commissioner have questions about the staff report? Commissioner Gansko.

Yeah. Throughout the staff report and the hearing officer's report and decision, there seems to be a lot of evidence placed on evaluating uh if there was if if the new stains were uh faulty were a result of faulty work, repair work that was done. But is that is it necessary that they would need to be or could it be the case that the repairs uh you know were done with a material that then subsequently was stained? uh you know, somebody's only using using daily items like a bottle of soap in a shower, it seems reasonable that a normal person might leave that there daily. Uh and if over a short period of time there are stains or deterioration of that material just based upon an everyday household item being left there, it seems like that isn't something that the tenant should be responsible for. So my question really is does it is it required that it be the result of faulty work from the original petition or as it relates to the original petition. What I can tell you is that the hearing officer determined that that that these uh stains were consistent with regular use of of the thing and that they then that they were not a result of substandard worksmanship. That is the basis on which the earlier petition was granted and and it's again the the the basis for this petition. Um, that's the hearing officer's evaluation and she and that's why I included the photos because those photos were central to the hearing officer's evaluation. Hearing officer basically thought this is just food residue. It's very different than the discoloration that you can see in the first uh set of photos and that and so the hearing officer was not persuaded by the evidence that was provided that this

is because of the material uh uh that's or the work that was done. It just simply hasn't been properly cleaned. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Dudik. Uh, yes. I'm not clear on one point and that is um when was the work done and how long after the work was done did were these photos taken? I believe it was within a year. Within one year. Yeah. And were the photos at taken was work the work was done on the tiles and the sink and the tub at the same time.

Right. These were these same three areas were the result were the subjects of the earlier petition. And in that petition the kind of I think yellow stains that you must must see on the first set of photos was evident throughout. Um uh and so that though decreases were granted for all three areas in the earlier petition and then they were re-repaired and the tenant didn't object when the landlord came to ask for compliance and so the the decreases went away. The tenant came back however within a year and has refiled it and that's how we're here. Thank you

Commissioner Lesley. Do we have the original photos in to for comparison?

It's not in the record. They It's the same hearing officer. So the hearing officer was familiar with the case. Um the decision is in there, but the photos are not in the electronic file for this. And so, uh, my other question is is that, um, it also states in here that Miss Evans started to have issues after cleaning the, you know, certain areas, the kitchen sink and the tub, and after a while it started to turn yellow. Um, is it reasonable to even ask the question, does that go back to the quality of work that was done or you know, how much yellowing or staining of these items is acceptable after a certain period of time? What I can say since I'm not the hearing officer is um that the hearing officer took at took a look at the evidence and the testimony that was provided and found that there is something that is there's a kind of stain that you see in the one set of photos that is about the work and there is the other kind of stains which is not about the workmanship. It's just about the inadequate cleaning that has been done to those areas and that that is not a basis for rent decrease. That is what the hearing officer evaluated and determined.

Thank you.

Do we have a representative either from the tenant or the owner who wishes to address the board? Seeing none, does any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or make a motion? Vice Chair Ambry. Yeah, I'd just like to make a comment about regular use and um a tenants's um choice to to upkeep their apartment. Um I think that over time it's understandable that there would be some form of deterioration um just by nature of living in a unit. Um we see this with um carpet for example that over time uh what was there before is is not going to remain exactly pristine and that is caused by um just normal uh daily living. Um so I would just like to to point that out. Well, um I I did not see any uh clear error here that would be uh worth overturning the decision. So, I would be inclined to affirm the findings in fact and conclusions of law.

Second. Uh motion by myself, seconded by Vice Chair Ambres. Any further discussion? Uh seeing none, may we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dudek. Yes. Commissioner Ganska, yes. Commissioner Leslie, yes. Vice Chair Ambry, yes. Chair Ivanov, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Our fourth appeal is tenant not in occupancy case P2025-04744. May we have the staff report, please?

Commissioners, uh, Mr. Machevski and Miss Noise, owners of 26336 Street, filed a tenant not in occupancy petition arguing that their tenant, Terresa Henbower, no longer uses the unit as her residence of usual return, which under regulation 3304 allows the board to increase the rent based on recent market rents for comparable units. The hearing officer granted their petition and increase the MAR accordingly. The hearing officer found that Miss Hausenbower, who had not resided in the unit since she moved out in 2019 and that she lived at her brother's place in Los Angeles. Ms. Henbower has appealed the decision. She argues that the record shows that her absence is reasonably justified because of mold and excessive moisture in the apartment and that the hearing officer aired in excluding historical habitability evidence about her unit and those of her neighbor. Again, the board reviews this matter as an appella body. Therefore, it should affirm the decision if it's supported by substantial evidence, even if it would have reached a different conclusion had it been finder of fact. As detailed in the staff report, substantial evidence support the hearing officer's finding that Miss Henbower no longer resides in the unit as her residence of usual return. And under regulation 3304, however, certain extended temporary absences can be excused. There's a list of reasons such as for seasonal employment or taking care of a sick family member. But the regulation also allows excuses for other temporary absences that are reasonable. Therefore, the hearing officer had to determine whether Ms. Howenbower met her evidentiary burden, which she bore, approving that her extended absence from the unit is reasonably justified. Miss Henbau first complained uh to her landlords of mold back in 2018. She then petitioned the board in 2019 for a rent

decrease. That petition was denied for inadequate evidence. Miss Henbau then moved out of the unit in September 2019 after she observed mold in the closet door of her bathroom. She then sued her landlords alleging habitability violations for mold and water intrusion. Her landlords testified that they had the doors at issue dismantled, the area cleaned, and the molded remediation performed by 2021. Miss Henbar's lawsuit went to trial in 2024 in which a unanimous jury verdict was issued denying her claims. She has since appealed that decision, and that appeal is pending in the appellet system. Miss Henbau then filed a new rent decrease petition with the board in November of 2024. The hearing officer denied her petition and this board affirmed the denial. Because she has been absent from her unit since 2019, her landlord filed this tenant not an occupancy petition. At the hearing for this matter, Miss Henbau's expert witnesses from her lawsuit testified that he saw mineral deposit in the crawl space below the unit and that he said was evidence of moisture. Miss Henbau then filed a complaint with code enforcement in February 2025 regarding the moisture in issues. Code enforcement, however, closed that investigation the following month without any citation of the landlord. Ms. Henbau then complained to the county health department. They identified a few areas of concern, spots of white mold in the kitchen cabinet and on the floor underneath the carpet. Miss Noise testified that they responded to the health department's notice by replacing the flooring with laminate flooring. And Mr. Machki added that after removing the carpet, their contractor cleaned the

entire area, applied a mold inhibiting spray, installed a moisture barrier throughout the entire floor, installed a new subfloor with additional moisture barriers, and then the laminate flooring on top of that. The health department then closed its case after reinspection in May of 2025. Her landlords also testified that they hired a contractor to replace the west dining room wall that had been the subject of her most recent rent decrease petition from 2024. Building and safety inspectors had their contractors open up sections of the ceiling to determine if there was a leak from the upstairs deck, but there was no such indication. Yet at the inspections direct inspector's direction, they also hired an outside environmental consultant who took moisture readings from the wall and found it free of microbial growth. The city then final the permit for the work. In her decision, the hearing officer has found that Miss Henbower has failed to show that her extended absence continued extens extended absence has been reasonably justified despite multiple expan inspections from various in uh agencies of the city and county. None had issued any citations and none had found the unit to be uninhabitable. Substantial evidence supports her finding. Miss Henbau also argues that the hearing officer errored by excluding historical habitability evidence, but the hearing officer properly excluded historical evidence about conditions that had been resolved years before in her unit and her upstairs neighbors and that they because they were not relevant to whether Miss Henbau was reasonably justified for her continued absence from the unit in 2025. Because substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's findings, staff recommends that the board affirm the decision and its

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thank you. Uh I just had a quick question. Um is ongoing litigation an enumerated category under regulation 3304. I presume that you mean commissioner for as extended absence? Correct. No. Okay. only things that are reasonably justify an extended absence and certainly that is not one that's listed. That's what that's what I meant by enumerated. Um yes, of course.

Uh does any other commissioner have questions about the staff report? Commissioner Ganska? Uh yeah, my question is about the um the amount of the decreases that were when determining the new not the decreases but the amount uh deducted from the comparable unit to determine the new MAR uh after the decision was made that this is a tenant who's not in occupancy. So what um ability or authority does the board have when it comes to uh evaluating those amounts? If

if it had been raised on appeal, which it had not, um then it would be something that I would be addressing in my staff report and that would be before you as to whether there would be substantial evidence that would be that would support the hearing officer's findings in those cases, but that is not the basis of the uh Miss Henbau's appeal in this matter. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Dudick. Um yes. Um this case seems to have been explored extensively legally uh for over the over these years. I perhap and I'm not sure if it's 6 years but she's been out of the apartment for 6 years. Uh that is she hasn't spent a night there in 6 years. although evidently stops by twice a week to get the mail or whatever using this as her legal address. So, um I concur with the findings of our hearing officer on this matter. I do believe that you have a witness.

Yes. Yes. Before we before we go into before we go into uh general discuss, does anyone else have any further questions um about the staff report? Um, and I believe we have the tenant, uh, Miss Henbower here. Yes. Whenever you're ready, you can approach the podium. Um, and you will have up to five minutes, uh, to speak. And we just ask that you keep your comments to what's within the evidentiary record.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. All righty. Uh, the central premise of my appeal concerns the history of habitability issues. The history of events at my apartment do matter as they apply to this petition. Historical evidence was excluded or deemed speculative or irrelevant, even though it explained my continued absence and whether the residence was safe for me to return. I had no reason not to believe the professionals that I hired to assess the conditions of the apartment. They were all saying the same thing. There's problems. Uh the evidence um was viewed too narrowly in time for this position for this petition only during the interval of 2024 to 2025. Not historical evidence going back to 2019. I maintain this apartment as my residence and I plan to return once the conditions that have been identified by multiple professionals are rectified. In mid July of 2018, I got very ill with flu-l like and flu and allergy- like symptoms. I went to the doctor five times within a few weeks into the emergency room three times. I called 911 in the middle of the night because I felt like I was suffocating and I wasn't going to make it. Um, I had very heavy malaise, incessant coughing, large amounts of mucus production, and I couldn't sleep cuz alls I did was cough. And that went on for weeks. I couldn't stay fed or hydrated, and lost more than 10 lbs in a month.

Excuse me, Miss Hassenber. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but please contain your comments to what is before the board as what was in evidentiary record at the time of the close in the decision. Yeah, in the decision document it does dis refer to my alleged um illness. Correct. Correct, Miss Henbower. But I had listened to your in the extensive hearing which occurred and you did not testify as to the details of what had happened in your in your Yes. Because I couldn't, sir. Wasn't allowed to. That's that's I think the point that's being made. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Um, okay. And I I continue to pursue uh remedies to this habitability uh these habitability issues. Um, and and and you might interrupt me moving forward too, but um I have been in touch um with code enforcement from May of 2025 through December. Okay. and they I have multiple emails going back and forth at least a dozen and they've been to my um apartment four times for inspection since then. Okay. Um one was in May, so this was before this petition. And um there are photos in the um the code enforcement record of these block crawl space vents that um my my um um experts say are causing a moisture a problem in the um apartment. Um the the um photos are there. There's no written report in regard to that inspection. The inspection also included um uh high moisture readings off that um dining room wall um that was uh repaired by the uh landlord in the spring. Um and but there's no um there's no record of this um inspection other than those uh photos of the vents. And then in the summer, and I think this is before the the petition also sometime in July, they uh code enforcement came out and um inspected this storage unit that's attached to the opposite um side of my

leaking wall. And the code enforcement supervisor said at one point that um he to told me and I believe I have this in an email that if there is no permit then he would open the wall again. Okay. So all this code enforcement record was referenced in this petition hearing and the hearing officer could not find these reports and then um so since then um there's been a violation cited that's after the fact of this petition um that's in the hearing in the code enforcement record and um I' I've sent them all sorts of evidence um after um this petition. Okay. And so please keep in mind that all the inspections that occurred at this apartment, they they I was the one that asked for them. Okay. Um so I have nothing to hide um at all. You're welcome to come. Anyone's welcome to come and look. So, and according to the record, and this is in in the petition um and the hearing record, up until May 2nd of 2025, the landlord had an outstanding violation for mold in that apartment. Okay? And within a day, they were filing uh they sent me a letter that they were going to file this this petition. and within a month of finding that more um filed this petition.

Thank you so much. Yes. Is there um a representative for the owner who would like to address the board? Okay. Before we jump into general discussion and deliberation um just um point of clarification it there's no um finding of a violation that's in the record correct

no agency had issued any citation as I mentioned the health department back in I think March or May had come out and found a couple of spots that they had written um that they observed were u mold Um and in those cases they provide the notice of that and the landlord has a time to address it and the landlord did address it. The health department came back verified that and closed those things and it never matured to a citation and also then at no point did they um any of these agencies say that the unit wasn't habitable and that's the basic point of the hearing officer's decision.

Okay. and and and obviously if subsequently to the uh to the hearing if any such citation was made or violation was found that's not anything that we can consider before us tonight. Correct. Because it's not in the record. It hasn't been tested as an evidence. Cherry hearing. Okay. Thank you. Matt, we cannot take any um commentary. Um are you in the queue? Okay. Uh, Vice Chair Ambry,

I have a question and then a couple of comments. My question is about mold. Um, mold exists all around us. Um, there's several different kinds of mold. Mold can grow on expired foods. Um, it could also grow um in wet areas. If I if I take a shower and I don't ventilate the the area well and um and it remains damp for a long period of time. um mold can uh can can grow. My question is what is the threshold in which mold is um unacceptable?

It's of course a very good question. Um and I don't I can't really answer that question as an expert. Um, I can tell you that that the evidence that was provided in this case was is actually not this is not a decrease petition

in which the owner is asking for a decrease because they're alleging mold. This that already happened and the hearing officer denied it and you affirmed the hearing officer's denial. This was last year when that happened. Um what's in the case here is whether the evidence that was presented by uh Miss Henbower um showed by prepundonderance that she was reasonably justified in continuing to be absent from her unit after the landlord had filed her when the landlord filed her petition in uh 2025.

Thanks for that clarification. So my comment is that the tenant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the reduction of services when seeking relief from our agency. Um I found that over several years the tenant had not substantiated that there had been mold which rose to the level of uninhabitability and um because the unit um was habitable or is uh was found to not be uninhabitable um there was not a legal necessity for the tenant to relocate or vacate from the unit as the tenant did in this case. Commissioner Lesley,

I have a question. So, what is acceptable as far as for a mold report and from whom would somebody obtain such evidence?

Um, that would be a question that would have to be assessed in each uh um case by the hearing officer based on the evidence presented. Obviously, for example, if there is a mold report that's submitted, the hearing officer is not an expert in mold. So, whoever is presenting that report would have to also provide an expert witness who would be able to then explain what that is there and provide the the other side the opportunity to cross-examine that expert witness. So, and then based on that pres presentation of evidence, the hearing officer would then make an evaluation of that evidence. Would it also be uh acceptable to submit um doctor's reports as far as what she was alleging in this petition here? Would that be acceptable?

Not in the it wouldn't substantiate mold for in a decreased petition, which this is not. Um, and what is and while the doctor if the doctor had came and testified, which they didn't, it could be in the evidence and the hearing officer would then have to assess it based on all of the other facts that were presented. Particularly in this case, Commissioner, that none of the other agencies that are tasked with determining habitability, which is the health department and the city code enforcement, none of them reach that conclusion. And that is not of course the doctor's um call. The doctor's call has to do with individuals health. I understand this is not a decrease. I was right

talking about in reference to her as far as her habitability issues, as far as her health issues, her substantiating that portion of it to say the reason why she had not been in occupancy. Thank you. Of course,

uh Vice Chair Ambry. So my comments now um turn from mold to the reason for um the tenant not being in the unit. So under section 3304 the tenant can be absent um for extended absences that are permitted. Um and one such that was referenced here was the sort of the other category. Um the other category being the uninhabitability which we've established was um not substantiated or proven by the tenant. Um due to that fact the tenant did leave the the unit and did not reside in um 2633. And because the tenant did not make this um unit their primary residence, the um the landlord was um able to come to our agency and apply for a tenant not an occupancy. I found that um the tenant had over several years time to um present evidence to support their claim for their justification for needing to leave the the unit and not reside there. Um and that the tenant did not um do so as the hearing officer um correctly found. So in um I feel that the the hearing officer's decision was reasonable and therefore I would like to make the motion that uh we affirm the decision in 2633 6 street unit one and accept the conclusions findings of facts and conclusions of law.

Uh I'll second that uh motion by vice chair seconded by myself. Any further discussion? Commissioner, are you in the queue now? Uh, may we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dudek, I affirm the decision. Commissioner Ganska, yes. Commissioner Lesley, yes. Vice Chair Ambry, yes. Chair Abanov, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Uh, public hearings. Item 11A is a public hearing on status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts pursuant to government code section 3502.3. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes. Thank you, chair. This item is the annual public hearing required under government code section 3502.3 regarding the status of vacancies and the agency's recruitment and retention efforts. The statute requires executive staff to present information about current vacancies and recruitment efforts before the board adopts its final budget. It also requires that recognized employee organizations be given an opportunity to address the board regarding vacancies, recruitment, and retention. The agency continues to maintain low overall vacancy levels for the EAC bargaining unit. There are two vacancies out of 13 authorized positions. One of those positions reflects duties that became redundant following system upgrades and is not being recruited. The other is the staff assistant three position which is connected to the classification item on the uh agenda this evening. As soon as the board has made its decision on that classification, recruitment will begin for the hero bargaining unit. The staff report identifies one vacancy out of three authorized positions with technically which technically places that uh bargaining unit above the 20% reporting threshold because such a small bargaining unit. However, I want to update the board that an offer has now been extended and accepted for the hearing officer position. And as a result, the hero vacancy rate is expected to return to zero as of Monday, May 18th, which is essentially the next working day after this meeting. For the sue bargaining unit, there are no vacancies. Staff has not received any requests from a recognized employee organization for the additional information described in the government code section um 3502.3 and all bargaining unit representatives were timely served with notice of this public hearing. Staff does not believe that there are any necessary changes to current recruitment policies, procedures, or activities at this time. The current vacancies reflect position management, classification review, and timing rather than broader recruitment or retention problems. Staff recommends that the board open the public hearing, hear from any members of the public or bargaining unit representatives who wish to speak, close the public hearing, and

receive and file the report. Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions? Okay, the public hearing is now open. Um, do we have any speakers on this item? Uh, seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. Does any commissioner wish to begin discussion or make a motion? Vice Chair Ambry.

Thank you and thank you for that report. Um, I'm happy to participate in this process. Um, pursuant to AB 2561 and government code section 3502.3, um, I'd like to just note that, um, I find it important because, as stated, there's a statewide interest in ensuring that the public agency operations are appropriately staffed and that high vacancy rates do not undermine public employee labor relations. And I think that our executive director has pointed out that we are well with under the threshold of the 20% um after the one uh one of the vacancies is filled um for hero and I would just like to um commend our staff for making this uh very clear staff report. Uh, do we need to make a motion to receive and file the report or anything like that? Okay.

Okay. With that, um, as noted earlier, we will now take item 12A out of order before returning to item 11B. 12A is a presentation on proposed charter amendments from our city attorney's office. I'd like to welcome Chief Deputy City Attorney attorney Romy Gansshaw to the podium. Good evening. Thank you for having me. Um, my name is Romy Gansshaw, chief deputy city attorney for the consumer protection division of the city attorney's office, but I'm also joined by my colleague Jonathan Irwin Frank, who's a deputy city attorney in the division. He's going to be sharing this with me a little bit. So, I'll get started here. Um we uh wanted to come to before you all tonight to discuss some potential proposed amendments to uh article 23 of the city charter which is the uh charter provision that deals with non uh just cause eviction protections for non-runc controlled units. Article uh as you're I'm sure you're familiar article 18 of the city charter is where the rent control law lives. Article 23 is where our housing policies charter amendment lives. Um and that's where uh the voters enacted just cause eviction protections that are in many ways nearly identical or very similar to a lot of the protections in article 18 for the rent controlled units. Uh but these protections apply to all non- rent controlled units in the city that are not single family homes subject to a few exemptions. But generally speaking, multif family buildings in Santa Monica that are not subject to rent control for the most part are subject to article 23. Um, and since article 23 is not something that's really within the jurisdiction of the rent control board, um, that's something we've been looking at, um, proposing some potential

amendments to to strengthen tenant protections at the request of the city council. Um but since the two uh charter provisions really have been uh go kind of go hand inand and are very similar, we wanted to discuss with you some of the things that are being considered for article 23 are being considered to be proposed for article 23 amendments and get your feedback on uh potential incorporation into article 18 as well or how they might affect article 18. So we're at the stage right now where we're sort of again we've got some direction from council to propose some additional tenant protection measures. We're still at the stage of flushing those out a little bit, but wanted to uh share with you where that is. So, as I mentioned, currently article 23 applies to units that are not subject to rent control and are not single family homes. Um, part of the direction from council was to propose some tenant protection measures that are sort of consistent or similar to other similarly situated jurisdictions. In the last number of years, many jurisdictions throughout California have um sort of removed this exemption of single family homes from just cause protections and now extend just cause eviction protections to single family homes. So I've listed some of those jurisdictions here, including many in Los Angeles County. This has been a move over the last few years. Um, so if uh we were to or if the council were interested in putting this up for the vote, um, this could be done to extend just cause eviction protections to single family homes. That can be done by simply amending article 23 of the city charter. There's no need to amend article 18. Um, and so this is not one of those provisions of article 23 that mirrors article 18, but we did just want to let you know that this is uh one of those potential um recommendations that would sort of uh bring the tenant protections in this jurisdiction sort of in line with some of the other jurisdictions in the area. Um, one of the other uh measures that has been adopted both by jurisdictions

in Los Angeles but also other parts of uh the Bay Area as well is a prohibition on evictions for smaller rental debts. This is a move again that some cities have been adopting over the last few years. And the idea is to prevent displacement, people losing their homes over, you know, a short-term job loss or some sort of an emergency expense. um that people shouldn't be, you know, threatened with homelessness or or potentially facing homelessness over something that might be a relatively short-term fix that they can come current on the rent um if they have a little bit of uh if they they shouldn't be losing their homes over over small debts. Um generally, this is done in other jurisdictions as a prohibition on evicting uh a tenant um for owing less than a one month of fair market rent for the metro area. So, not necessarily one month of that tenants rent or one month of sort of the average rent in the city, but one month of fair market rent for the metro area. That's how the city of LA does it and that's how the Bay Area cities do it too. It's just a different metro area. Um because the rents in Santa Monica, uh we know that they are on average higher than the uh fair market rents for the LA metro area. Um if the uh council were to uh propose or want to move forward with this sort of a um restriction, um we would probably recommend that they consider um setting that threshold uh at which tenants cannot be evicted under at 150% of fair market rent to to sort of provide uh a basic um a consistent threshold of rents to ensure that people who are in market rate units that are not necessarily luxury units in Santa Monica, but market units still are not necess are not facing eviction for simply missing one month's worth of rent. Um, and the way that this sort of uh protection could be implemented, this is just sort of some potential proposed language to just to see where that what

this looks like. again in the in the um section 2304 of the city charter which mirrors section uh 1806 which is the rent control provision but section 2304 for the non-renrolled units lists the just cause reasons that a tenant can be evicted from their home. The first reason is that the tenant owes rent under the rental housing agreement. One way to enact this um protection would be to just qualify that uh the rent amount that has to be owed has to exceed a certain threshold. it could be 150% of fair market rent um to sort of account for these higher rents in Santa Monica. Um and again that fair market rent number is a number that's determined by HUD based on a survey of local rents um in the metro area. Um so again while this protection uh protection could be implemented only to section 2304 the language of section 2304 and 1806 are nearly identical. Um, and so to the extent it's going to find its way into 2304, um, it would be helpful for the to understand the board's position on potentially including it in section 1806 as well, um, obviously rent control tenants are more likely to be below market, right? Um, and have the most to lose, frankly, if they were to lose their rental uh, below market rent uh, unit because they fell behind on a relatively um, small amount of rental debt. It would also be helpful to be consistent citywide about the threshold amount of rent that tenants must owe in order to be evicted. Rather to have two different systems of rent controlled versus non-rankc controlled units for purpose of purposes of educating the community, enforcement and just ensuring sort of um fair treatment across the city. Um the next uh protection that is being proposed or uh may be proposed is um to ensure that or

following up on a direction from the council to um propose options to ensure that existing tenencies are not terminated when uh family members or relatives move into a rental unit, move into an existing teny. Um some again many other jurisdictions have adopted something similar including locally here Pasadena recently but this is also uh common in some of the eviction protections in the Bay Area. Um this is discussed sort of in the context of some of the the hearings you you were previously considering or the petitions you were considering. Um, so you're probably familiar there's already a prohibition or already a a regulation within the just cause eviction laws, both of them that provide that um though a landlord has a just cause and is entitled to evict a tenant if the tenant is breaching a material term of the lease. If that term of the lease says the tenant is not entitled to sublet, the landlord actually cannot um evict the tenant as long as all of the following conditions are met. if the tenant is continuing to reside in the unit. If the sub lease um that they're doing is just to replace a departed tenant uh who was under the lease and they're replacing someone on a one for one basis and the landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to subleasase uh upon the request including not responding to a tenants's request within 14 days. So, I mention this here because this is a a version of kind of getting at the protection that was requested except it doesn't necessarily cover all the situations in which a family member might move in, which is what we were directed to come back with some additional um recommendations for. Um so in response to both the protection the direction to come back with protections for family members but also other tenant protection and tenant stability measures um we are we have sort of proposed two expansions of this rule allowing people to replace subtenants. So, um, one expansion would be to prohibit evictions based on a

tenant not just violating a term of their lease that says you can't subleasase, but sometimes leases also say you can't have more than a certain number of people or you can't have more than the number of people that originally moved into the unit um, move in. Sometimes leases also say you can't have anyone move in who's not approved by the landlord without it necessarily being a cap on the number of people. So, um the these protections would prohibit evictions based on violating those kinds of terms of the lease or or a sub lease clause. Um if the person who has moved into the unit, whether as a subletter or just an occupant, if the person has moved in is one of the listed number of family members as long as the following conditions are met. So again, the tenant would continue to reside in the unit. the total number of occupants in a unit would not exceed reasonable limits, which is we described as effectively two per bedroom. Um, and that the additional occupant living in the unit isn't prohibited by the law or if there's an affordable housing deed restriction in place, that the additional occupant is not prohibited from living in the unit based on the terms of the affordable housing agreement. So that's the first expansion would be to basically allow again these additional family members to move into a unit. Not just children, not just spouses, but other family members to move in so long as effectively they're not uh causing there to be an unreasonable number of people in the unit and it's not violating the law. The second expansion would be to also allow non-family members or to not um for yeah to allow non-families members to move into a unit again as long as the continue the tenant continues to reside in the unit the total number of occupants doesn't exceed reasonable limits or the and doesn't violate the law or deed restriction. Um, but it would give the landlord legitimate grounds or would not prohibit the landlord from denying the right for an additional non-family member to move in on legitimate non-discriminatory

reasons. Um, so I I put forward some language here. It's pretty dense. I'm not going to expect you to read this, but part of the reason I tried to summarize it there is because it can look sort of dense, but the idea behind the way this was currently being contemplated at least is that it's sort of tracking the the the provision uh related to subleasasing that the tenant has to meet certain criteria to be able to fall within this protection against eviction. Um, but that there would be these two sort of buckets of protections. family members, it's sort of presumed that they uh would have the right to move in again as long as they don't violate maximum or they don't create an unreasonable number of tenants and it's not prohibited by law. And non-family members would be allowed to move in so long as all those conditions are met. Um but the landlord would have the landlord has a legitimate non-discriminatory reason to not allow that person. for instance, the landlord is living in the unit as well and they don't want that or the landlord lives on the property and they have some legitimate reason for not allowing that person to move in. Um that could be a basis to to prohibit a non-family member from moving in in this limited case. And I know that um the board is also considering a similar um potential amendment to section 1806. It's not quite the exact same language. And so I think we would want to hear from the board about any you know potentially reconciling these two things. I would say just at a high level the ways in which this recommendation sort of differs from the one that was has been before the board is this additional expansion for non-family members um that the one the version that the board has already sort of considered would um ensure that tenants are not displaced because a family member is added to the unit. This would allow additional people who are not family members subject to these limitations to also move in. Um, and this provision also is sort of addresses potent uh lease clauses that are not uh sorry that the version that's

the board has already considered um talks about a landlord not having the right to invoke or enforce a prohibition on the number of occupants in a lease. And this would uh also protect tenants if the landlord were trying to vote not just a maximum occupancy limit but also just a provision of the lease that says I have to approve everybody who comes in. Um so again this is again the language in section 1806 and section 2300 is very similar in this respect. So to the extent the um the board is going to be making recommendations about language to include to do something similar in section 1806, I think we want to hear what that is and try to reconcile those two things. So because there's certainly a preference, I think to have the same language in both charter provisions and then Jonathan's going to talk about a couple more recommendations. All right. Um so again, I'm Jonathan Owen Frank. I am another attorney in the consumer protection division. I work with Romy. Um so here we're talking about uh protecting family members after uh a tenant vacates. Um so essentially this is um expanding and clarifying the current existing protection in 1806 C and 2304. Um so those are you know those are very long-standing protections um for uh limited to spouses and children when the uh tenant leaves due to death or incapacitation where they are protected from eviction after that. Um and those protections have been in place for some time since uh 2002. Um and so the two uh expansions that uh we are proposing um is that or or that are being contemplated here um for immediate family members um and so that um in the

current version is uh spouses um children uh grandchildren parents and grandparents um uh if they have been there for a year similar to the the way that the existing uh protection works, then they would be uh protected from eviction um uh when the tenant moves out for any reason. So that's not just uh death or incapacitation. Um and then the non-med immediate family members, the uh larger list of family members um would be protected from eviction um you know that may be sudden or not contemplated or um you know more similar to the original uh the current version um when it's due to death uh incapacitation although that's been expanded and clarified to include um things like hospice or or involuntarily needing to leave the unit due to health reasons. Um so again this is the kind of uh uh dense red line. I'm not going to go through that whole thing. Um but again it's it's uh that expansion of the existing provision. Um and then it's also um uh adding that uh other provision where it's a a smaller number of family members. Um, but it's not limited to that uh death or incapacitation uh uh reason for the uh tenant of the owner uh leaving. Um and um again uh just as we've been saying throughout um this could be added um to both uh article 18 and 23. The current provision is consistent. It would make sense um for those to uh stay consistent. Um may also be true that the tenants who are more vulnerable, lower income, um uh family members in in controlled units may have a harder time

um finding uh uh new units when the uh tenant of the owner departs. Okay. So, the next one I'm going to talk about is a little bit different. Um, and I know uh folks here certainly were not used to proposing or thinking about um a provision that would actually expand the grounds um on which a tenant could be evicted. So I just I want to emphasize that this is um uh this is a unique set of circumstances and it sort of comes from the experience um uh of enforcing affordable housing deed restrictions. Um and so you see this is titled here preserving affordable housing um for eligible households. Um and so um in case folks are not familiar, the way that an affordable housing deed restriction normally works is that um you know rents are capped at a certain level that's based on income and the tenant has to demonstrate um usually initially before um they go into the unit, but also on an annual basis that they are um a low-inccome tenant that qualifies for those units. There's a wait list. There's a whole program um designed to ensure that that these uh uh rentcraft affordable units that are often subsidized by the city or from other sources are really going to those um uh the tenants that need them. Um but there can be um uh a situation where the landlord um has not um required the tenant to sign basically a lease addendum a part of their lease that makes income qualification and compliance with the deed restriction a material term of their lease and then there may not be um a grounds to evict someone who you know could be way over income. Um, in the worst kind of case,

you know, maybe the the landlord wasn't complying with the deed restriction at all, didn't uh income qualify the person, and the person, you know, could be paying a reduced rent. Um, and kind of taking a unit from somebody who really is lower income and needs that uh deeply affordable unit. Um, and so you can have a situation where a very conscientious landlord has done that lease addendum. Um, and therefore they're able to evict the tenant. Um but someone who hasn't been conscientious um you know has a harder time coming into compliance and can't come into compliance um and can argue that they're not able to come into compliance because there's no just cause to evict a tenant who's you know for example way over income. Um so this is just kind of going over the mechanics of that but um we're adding a definition of what an affordable housing deed restriction is. Um and then adding two different uh just causes. Um and you know these are the common scenarios that come up, but one would be um the tenants not eligible provided the landlord complies with the applicable guidelines. Um and I'm jumping around a little bit here, but one thing to note is that the system is already set up um for units that are subject to the guidelines. um a tenant who initially qualifies but just happens to their household happens to earn more income later on, they can go up to 140% of the income. So it's not like a cliff um where you know you're a dollar over and then um you know the program would be telling landlords that they need to evict them. Um sort of accounting for that type of situation is um is already addressed in the guidelines. Um but so so basically non-qualification is the first one. The second one that does sometimes occur is that these lease provisions should also be requiring um as a material term of the lease that

the tenants have to provide the um income documentation to prove that they're the type of low-inccome tenant that qualifies um uh for or moderate income tenant that qualifies for the unit. Um, and there can be situations where they are refusing to or can't or won't provide the documentation and therefore it's not possible for that landlord to comply with the deed restriction to show the city. Um, and as we'll talk about sometimes the the rent control board that they um uh qualify for the unit. Um, and so this would also say, look, if we if we've done everything possible to try to have a tenant um, uh, show that they qualify and they are not providing the documentation that would be needed to do that, then they could also be evicted in order to ensure that someone who does properly qualify um, and needs that affordable unit um, could uh, be referred to and placed in that unit. Um, and so again, this is the specific language. Um, I'm not going to read all of that out. Um, but this covers everything that we said, including the fact that again, they would have to comply with the guidelines. I think one thing I might have skipped over is that um the administrative guidelines also provide for um longer notice periods. So generally if you're in that situation where the tenant really hasn't done anything wrong but they've gone, you know, their income has just increased above that 140% threshold where they may be able to afford other kinds of units um but they're not allowed to stay there. Generally they would still be entitled to a one-year lease. So it's not it's not that they have to be out um right away. And there's also provisions in there where um you know if they're low income but they you know they'd still be eligible for a moderate income affordable unit then they would get priority for that. Um so it's kind of set up to to ensure that people get the

softest landing possible. Um all right. So uh generally speaking deed restricted units um uh are constructed after uh they may be constructed after 79 and they may not be subject um to uh the rent control charter amendment. Um and they would be subject to uh article 23. But there are um you know a substantial number of units that are uh both rent controlled and deed restricted um or uh have deed restrictions um for which the the contracting party is not the city but but is the rent control board. Um and so in order to ensure consistency across all of those um affordable units, um these uh same provisions could be added to um article uh 18 to the rent control law for consistency. Um and I I also just wanted to emphasize this wouldn't alter the substantive terms of the dedu restriction. Certainly the intent um and the way it's drafted is to say uh you could only be evicted if you don't qualify. So if there is a situation where a unit is both deed restricted and rent controlled and there and by the terms of the deed restriction, they were only required to qualify initially. Um a landlord wouldn't be able to use this to say uh you know evict someone who's at a lower controlled rent in order to go up to the deed restricted rent which could still be higher than than the controlled rent um for units that are both controlled and deed restricted. Um, okay. And this is a sort of more of a procedural state law requirement. Um, but, um, I'll just kind of go over this briefly. So, folks may be familiar with the tenant protection act. We don't deal with it very often because this is, uh, sort of the fallback uh, rent control and just cause that applies to um, units

that are uh, more than 15 years old um, where there aren't stronger local protections. But one of the requirements of that law um is that or one of the things that it says is that for a local ordinance to apply, it has to be more protective and it has to meet these uh several requirements um in order to be more protective and therefore to apply instead of this sort of state law that provides a floor of tenant protections. Um so it has to have like the same just cause for evictions that that is consistent with the tenant protection act. it has to go further um both in terms of uh relocation and um and grounds for eviction. And uh this is the sort of crucial part here. The local government has to make a binding finding um that the law is more protective than the tenant protection act. Um and so just in order to comply with state law, uh we would also propose um adding this provision here. um which which is basically a statement um that addresses all those requirements of the state law. Um and that could also be done of course in a in an amendment to article 18 and should be done. Um that is it.

Thank you both so much um for that very comprehensive presentation. We really appreciate it. Um I just had a few questions and I'm sure my colleagues will have some questions as well. um for for the third proposed amendment in terms of adding house adding household members. Um I saw you noted some other jurisdictions that are already doing this like in Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco. Um I don't think I saw West Hollywood mentioned on there. So I just wanted to use that as suggest as a suggestion. It's not a charter city so I don't think it's a regulation. It would be an ordinance. M

um but I would suggest that would be a good resource to see um use as a model you know for the language. Um and then one question that I had was again for the added household members and then for the fourth one protecting family members after a tenant vacates. I think you both proposed two expansions um under three and four. One for defined defined listed family members and then non-family members. Um, do you envision those as those being hypothetically if they were to make it to the ballot, do you envision them as being separate ballot measures or do you envision the two expansions being contained within the language of one ballot measure?

The expansion to the adding family members and non-family members during a teny and then protecting family members after a tenant after a tenant vacates. Those two were you talking about? So because the protection for after tenant vacates only does apply to family members but it's different classes of family members whereas the protecting additional people moving into a household would apply to both family members and non-family members during the teny. Okay. I I just I thought there were for both of those for three and four that added household members and uh protecting family members after a tenant vacates. I thought there were two like as a subsection of those two I thought there were two expansions. Yes. Um sorry if I like

two each. You're right. Yeah there are two. But um I guess what I'm trying to get at is would would three added household members would those two expansions be two separate ballot measures and then for the fourth one the two expansions also be two separate ballot measures. I don't think that's what No, I don't think we would be envisioning separate ballot measures among those each of those provisions. And it's potentially, we'd have to look at this, but potentially it could be one ballot measure for most of the just cause eviction protections. We'd have to look. I I'm not sure yet. Oh, okay. Okay. Oh, so this wouldn't these aren't necessarily separate initiatives. Each just cause eviction edition isn't necessarily a separate initiative.

Got it. Okay. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Uh, Commissioner Gansko, you have a couple of questions. The first one is on the um the uh extending just cause eviction protections to single family homes. Does I know in 1806 there's a provision that allows the landlord one of the um eviction criteras that's acceptable is if they're moving back in themselves or certain family members. Does that also exist on the city side? Okay. Yes.

So, okay. Um then moving on to questions about the additional family members or additional tenants. Um is this intended to be because there's provisions that list based upon the number of bedrooms or the size of the unit how many people can are allowed to move in assuming that it's within the occupancy limits uh for safety. So is it intended because there's other language in here that refers to it seems to read as a singular person. So to say just a or an per additional person. So how is that language am I reading that wrong or does that need to be potentially cleared up so that you can be specific about if this is intended to be just one additional family member or a any number of

Yeah. The way that it is contemplated is that, you know, the addition of a family member um would not be a grounds to evict a tenant so long as the total number of occupants doesn't exceed this limit. So, if you have a three-bedroom apartment and you only have four people living there and one family member moves in, um that would not exceed the occupancy limit. And then if you had another family member move in, that still would not exceed the occupancy limit. So neither of those two people the addition of either of those two people would not be a grounds because they would both be within the the not cause the total household occupancy to over exceed the limit.

Okay. Uh also c a hypothetical that keeps entering my mind is u and I want to make sure that we don't create unintended loopholes here. So, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong or if I need more if you want to provide more detail, but landlords do have the right to screen applicants when they're uh for a new teny if it's a vacant unit, right? And obviously, there's certain rules. They can't be discriminatory according to certain criteria, but they have the right to evaluate who's applying and to and is it fair for them or legal for them to choose an applicant for a onebedroom that or whatever the size of the unit is to choose an applicant that's just one person instead of an applicant that's multiple people.

As long as I Yeah, I mean there there there could be potentially discriminatory reasons for choosing that. you know, there's if there were not, um I if there were no discriminatory reason, I don't know any reason why they wouldn't be able to choose a different applicant based on their family size as long as it was in compliance with fair housing laws.

Okay. So, because so the hypothetical that I'm thinking of is how do we prevent a tenant applying for a vacant unit just saying it's just me, but then the day after they sign the lease, say I'm moving in four of my family members and the landlord not having that information. I mean the the sort of the thinking behind this provision is if there we shouldn't be letting bedrooms go to waste essentially if that's how tenants want to use it. If a if a tenant is occupying a unit that has two or three bedrooms, the an artificial limit on the number of occupants based on the number of people who initially moved in um or that that limiting the number of occupants based on something like that is sort of arbitr arbitrary as opposed to you know people being able to sort of build the households that uh fit their needs incl especially if it's family members.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and personally, one thing, they do have to provide the notice and then also again, it's two it's two people per bedroom, I believe. So, like if you're in a onebedroom, you couldn't add they they would be allowed to deny or uh I guess can you speak into the microphone? Sorry. you could invoke a provision of the lease um uh you know to uh essentially prohibit that if it exceeded the the those like relatively reasonable um uh numbers of people per bedroom. So three in a onebedroom, four in a twobedroom, etc.

Yeah. So, so just using the example that's in this language of having three in a one-bedroom, um I could understand if a landlord wasn't wouldn't uh offer the lease to somebody who is proposing to have three people in a onebedroom. Uh so I guess what your your response to that question initially was just that we're trying to maximize number of people in a unit or at least not not that have not have that be a basis for evicting a tenant. um not have that be a basis for terminating a teny as long as what the tenant is doing is sort of is within certain reasonable limits. Of course, those limits could also be defined differently.

Yeah. And I I am totally I have no problem with that when it comes to an established tenant that's expanding or bringing additional people in. I'm just trying to avoid a situation where a landlord thinks they're getting one thing and the intent was always to just use a provision like this. I mean, you need a sophisticated tenant who's aware of these rules and everything. So, I'm not saying this is going to become commonplace, but I just I think that you could I could I could imagine landlords um being concerned about that that they really have no way to truly screen how many people are going to be in their unit. And if that's the intention of the law, we should just make that the law instead of providing a different provision that allow sort of backdoor allows for it. So one thing that you could do potentially is that say that to set some sort of time limit so that a tenency needs to be established for 6 months or a year or whatever the time frame is.

Uh I think those are all the questions I have for now. Thanks uh Vice Chair Ambry.

Thank you and thanks for that detailed report. Um turning to section two um prohibiting evictions for small rental debt. Um so we were talking about the 150% of the fair market rate which is determined by HUD for LA metro area but then you um spoke about how um Santa Monica has much higher rent than um than the average of for LA for Los Angeles metro area um demonstrated by um fiscal year 26 uh small area fair market rents. Um I don't know if we can see that. Am I looking at the same chart here? So yeah, for example, a um the average in the LA metro area for an efficiency is $2,79 whereas the average in Santa Monica is $2,78. Um so my question is um whether it would whether first of all whether it's necessary for us um to utilize that formula or whether the 150% or whatever percentage um is determined to be fair uh could be um determined based off of the small area fair market rate fair market rents instead of the um FMR.

So yeah, just a note about how we reach those numbers. So the the loss the HUD publishes a metro area fair market rent number based on I believe it's based on the census. It's generally understood to be not as useful and reliable specifically when you're looking at higher rent areas. um they don't do it as frequently and it's just obviously a broader area. Um they also publish small area fair market rent numbers for each zip code. So we went and did some math here to come up with these average numbers, but this is not the numbers that we came up with for the average of the five zip codes in Santa Monica for the small area fair market rents. That's not a number that's easy to find somewhere. We did that math. And so part of why we were suggesting doing 150% of the LA metro area fair market rent is because it's really easy to find what the LA area fair market rent is. That's a number that's posted on HUD's website. You don't have to do math to find that number. You have to do a little math to get to one and a half times that. But it is at least it's it's kind of a more knowable more generally uh easily more readily attainable number. Um but that is also an option. I mean that it could also be that the this housing division publishes what the average of the fair market rents is and we use that number as well. I think as long as it's very clear to landlords and tenants what that number is um that that's why we were suggesting using fair market rent. So, is that something that the city could be in charge of determining yearbyear on some sort of regular basis? Because um as we can see, those two numbers are vastly different because our city is more expensive than other cities or on average the the aggregate of the LA metro area. So, is that something if we wanted to go based off of not the um fair market rate set by HUD that the city could be determining?

Yeah, I would say this the small area fair market rents are still determined by HUD. Um and it's still a huge statistical undertaking to do that. Um, so I think it's probably either using LA Metro area fair market rent or some version of the small area fair market rents, but since they are only available by zip code to the extent you want to have one number that's consistent throughout the city, which there's a lot to be said for that, the city would have to do some math every year to do that math, but more importantly to make sure that that number is publicized and well known and clear to people since we would be the only people sort of uh making that and publicizing that. Correct. So, can you um maybe let us know about maybe how much work that would be because it our city is unique um and our rents are higher than many other areas in in Los Angeles. I mean um for example we you were discussing other cities who have um who have also incorporated this um in Northern California being Berkeley and Oakland.

And so I I'm not sure what um formula they would use that's published by HUD for their metro area. They it's the I don't know if it's San Francisco metro area or if it's Oakland metro area, but they use the 100% of their HUD metro area as well. Yeah. So yeah, as you can imagine, some cities in that area have rents that are much higher than others, right? Um and just as some cities in uh the state of California are much higher than other cities. So when when we're evaluating which um which statistic to use, I think it is important to use the one that's most specific and um equivalent to the area that we're discussing. Mhm.

Um, so I guess my question was just would that be an overburdensome task to to use or just to use the I am I not understanding that the S AFMR is something that already is published?

It's published by zip code. So all we did here there's only five zip codes. Of course, a zip code doesn't perfectly align with the city's borders, but it's a pretty close approximation. So we just took the numbers for each of the five zip codes and averaged them here. That is that is certainly doable. I the only thing is it's just we we would do that and publish it. It's not so much the work issue on that as it is that number is not something that people are going to know unless we publish it whereas someone can look up the HUD number more easily and so it just in the interest of making sure everybody has the information and it's uh easy to find out the FMR numbers a little better but either way you have to look it up. Yeah, you would have to look up the HUD number as well.

Um so you would just be looking within the city in which reside that's publishing that data. Um, so another question I have about um I guess about the 150%. Um, so is that the So that's one month's rent, one and a half months rent essentially 150%. Um, so is that the formula that is used in all of these cities that um, we've looked at, Berkeley, Oakland, and the other areas of Los Angeles County that have adopted this um, protection for non-payment of rent.

They actually, except for the county of Los Angeles, which recently changed theirs to actually two months of fair market rent based in part on the fact that they had declared an emergency related to um, immigration enforcement. So, it was sort of in part of their uh anti- eviction protections related to that. But apart from the county of Los Angeles, everybody else that I'm aware of defines it as just one month of metro area fair market rent, whatever the applicable metro area is. So, is the is the emergency based on immigration and that um so the amount that is now not 150%, I guess it's 200%. Right.

Yeah, I believe it was one I think it was one month's rent and now it's two months rent as of just a month or two ago. Um, is that set to expire at some point or whenever immigration is no longer an emergency? Not that I'm aware of. I mean, it's it's in their code. It's not a part of an emergency resolution, but it the findings related to it were related to the findings of like the the recent immigration enforcement actions. And is there some sort of um I guess state law that we can point to um that demonstrates that the state of California is in a housing emergency. Various jurisdictions have made sort of similar findings. Um I don't know if there's a specific state law, but yeah,

but evidence is out there or at least it's been stated in some sort of way. Um okay, so I guess those are my remarks or questions for section two. um for the prohibiting evictions based on additional family members. Um so what is we were talking about the amount um of people who could reside in a unit safely um say if it's a two-bedroom um obviously more than one person can live in a two-bedroom safely up to a certain amount of people. what is um that amount um is that and who u determines?

So, one of the issues is is there's figuring out exactly what the health or the fire code uh what limits they pose. That's not that's not a that's not something that's it's very clear. It's not easy to determine based on a particular apartment size exactly how many people can live in the unit. And it's sort of I think there's an intuition that there's a sense of a definition of what overcrowding is but it's not something that's easy to determine. So what we have proposed here is sort of in light of the consideration of you know landlords aren't necessarily contemplating that people are going to just comp move entire you move lots of people in that a reasonable limit isn't necessarily even based on safety but it is basically two people per bedroom. If two people per bedroom though is actually more than what health and safety codes would allow, whatever that number is, then that health and safety code number would of course take precedence. But assuming that at least two people per bedroom um or assuming two people per bedroom is not a violation of health and safety codes, that would be the the upper limit.

So if it's um two people per bedroom, uh so that would mean four people for a two-bedroom household. Is that correct? Yeah, it's it's roughly that. As Jonathan said, it's actually three people for a onebedroom. But since children are already protected, um so say two people um move in and they um have children and say they have more than two children. So that's more than four people in a household. Say they have four children or five children. Um that would exceed the two two per um per bedroom. um would that be a cause for a landlord to evict because they've um gone over the threshold amount?

There there are protections sort of that already exist related to minor children and the rights of parents and minor children, the ability to live together as a family. So those protections are a family not situation would probably have that uh to rely on as well. Um, and this is also again contemplating like after a tenency is established, people who move in in addition after the fact, not when a family is uh not not necessarily a a family that's just moving into a unit. Um, right. Moving in people who are adults um versus people moving in due to birth is I guess what I'm right

getting at here. Um, and I did have another question for this section. Uh we were talking a bit about uh discrimination um and that we have the federal fair housing law which protects certain um character certain protected classes. Um and then in California we have a more expans expanded list. Um, one one of which, um, actually I think federally is also familial status. Um, do we can we I guess I don't I'm not sure if I have a direct question regarding that, but I guess my concern is that um that the that this could fall somehow within um within discrimination of a family if we um if we're not allowing it actually.

Yeah. concern. It sounds like a concern that the cap that this might be a cap on adding f young children. Is that um that that this might prevent the addition of new children. I guess um going back to some this is only basically narrowing the existing grounds um that someone might already have for example under their lease agreement. Um so it it at least shouldn't be read I wouldn't think as a as an additional restriction from what currently exists. And then as Roman said, fair housing law would generally

um you know, unless there's an an overriding health and safety or overcrowding issue, you know, you wouldn't be able to evict someone as a matter of of fair housing law for um a spouse or a minor child. I'm sorry, we're talking about people after the fact,

I guess. I guess. Yeah. So, I guess um I guess I was relating my comments to earlier ones where um a landlord does have other non-discriminatory reasons to screen um and to not rent out a unit. So, so long as it's not based on, for example, sex, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, familial status, source of income, disability, and marital status and a few more. So with um family status, for example, um the question being would a landlord be able to um prefer a um two people moving into a two-bedroom versus or three people moving into a two-bedroom versus one person moving into a one-bedroom because that is their familial familial status. And I'm not sure, you know, that's more of like a a federal or a a broader question than maybe what you could answer.

I mean, generally familial status I my un It's been a while since I looked at this again recently, but generally it's understood to mean discrimination against families with minor children. Um, so it doesn't mean all families are compared to each other, but land housing providers cannot discriminate against families with young children because they are families with young children on the grounds of you're a family with minor children.

So it's um generally meant for um for minor children. Um but there are other instances where a landlord could say we don't want to rent to quote families. Um, we know that that would mean that would trigger discrimination if they meant children, but um, saying families generally might be grounds for a landlord being um, seen as discriminate discriminating based on that protected status. Um, so I guess I'm just trying to understand and hear definitions of what a what a family is versus and what is understood to be under the current um discrimination laws versus um I guess my understanding of what a family could encompass, which um to me um has other non-traditional um definitions, but I have an actual question. Um, so turning to section five. Um, regarding ensuring lowincome households get access to affordable housing units. Um, so we're talking about deedrestricted units which exist both in rent controlled and non non- rent controlled units. Is that correct? Um and we do have um a certain amount is that am I correct of non- rent controlled or sorry of rent control deed restricted. So um could you go back to the explanation of the aggregate amount of a person's or household's income and how that triggers um the requirements to being able to

Yeah. So, I mean, I I can speak generally and certainly I I will say I'm more familiar with the the deed restrictions that apply under 2304 um and that are with the city rather than uh where you know one of the parties to the agreement is the rent control board. Um but certainly so uh there's different income bands and they're defined by like percentages of um of annual median income. Um, and so there's, uh, extremely low, very low, low, um, and moderate are the main categories. Um, and so basically to qualify for one of those units, you would need to, you know, and this, the city publishes these numbers annually, but the, uh, combined household income of the adults in the household, you know, would have to be, um, within that range. Um, and they would have to demonstrate that through an established process. Um, and there's, you know, certain criteria that apply to things like having assets, but, you know, generally speaking, in a standard W2 situation, you know, you could add up, let's say it's a couple, you could add up their income. Um, you know, figure out what that number is. Is it, you know, within these two amounts where, you know, that's the sort of low income band, um, with these numbers that are published annually. And if they qualify, um, then they could rent the unit. In most cases, they're actually referred, um, the deed restriction requires, uh, that the applicant be referred from the below market housing weight list. So, they would kind of self-certify. and there may be a little bit of additional certification to get on that weight list, but then the landlord is still supposed to basically request all of this income documentation from them, fill out um uh these forms that are established by the city to show that they meet that income. Um and then presuming that they uh qualify initially

and move in, uh generally they would go through a similar kind of a process. um you know just like the section A program if you're familiar with that but they would have to show their income to the landlord and the landlord then has to report that to the city once a year to basically show that they're still income qualified for the unit. So you don't have someone who you know wins the lottery or um you know gets a totally different job and is is making a lot more. But again, the way that the regulations work, so for all the units for which the current uh regulations that apply to this apply, um what they say is that a uh tenant household can that initially qualified. So, not someone who's doing some kind of fraud or misleading anyone, but they just initially qualify, but then uh get a promotion, get a new job, whatever it is, they can go up to 140% of of like whatever the maximum amount is for that threshold. Um, and then uh would still be allowed to stay in the unit. Um, but if they exceed that amount, um, you know, there's different things that can apply and they may the the regulations may say, and I'm not recalling exactly, um, everything that's in there, but, um, you know, they might have priority for other kinds of units, but generally speaking, you would get a one-year notice, uh, to vacate, again, so that someone who is lower income, who who is, you know, needs that unit more than the person whose income has increased, would be able to then occupy that unit.

Thanks. That um that helps my understanding because um the deed restricted for the different categories are meant for a certain um income requirement and um if you are not no longer in that income because you won the lotto then um you would be able to move into somewhere else. Correct. and and then that uh unit would become um available to someone who does meet those lowinccome or very low income um qualifications. Correct.

Okay. Promise I'm almost done here. Just two more questions. Oh, I guess it was about the tenant protection act. Um, actually I don't have a question about that. So, thank you for thanks for your time and answering my questions. Does anyone else have any questions? Um, okay. Seeing none, thank you both so much. Um, we we really appreciate your

Oh, she just got added. I did have a question. Commissioner Dud.

Yeah. I just wanted a clarification on the preserving affordable housing for eligible households. We've we've been through it quite a bit here, but but since it's um uh mandatory to make the reports, you know, every year, right, for HUD and all that, I'm just wondering um it what what what is the purpose of this particular um uh proposal? Does it have to do just to clarify the eviction part of it or I mean wouldn't they doesn't isn't that already in place? That's my only that's question.

Um we have encountered situations and there can be a situation where let's say that someone never qualified or um they are uh over income and um or they're not providing the reporting documentation. Um, and that may mean that it's essentially causing a violation of the deed restriction. But the deed restriction is basically a contract between the owner and the city. It's not a contract that involves the tenant. And so you could have a situation where you have an overinccome tenant, but uh the landlord didn't do what they're supposed to do, which is add a portion to their lease that says it's a material requirement of their lease to qualify. And so that tenant says, "Yeah, I know I'm over income." and you know my rent is capped at this low amount, but um you know you have no grounds to evict me because there's no just cause to evict. And so even if the city or someone else is saying you know you need to come into compliance by removing this overincome tenant so that we can free up that low-inccome unit for someone who needs it more, there may not be just cause for uh eviction um in order for them to to do what they need to do to come into compliance to free up that unit.

Yeah. Thank you. I have another question. Oop. Yeah, I have another question about the um evictions for small rental debts. And my math is not necessarily the greatest here, but I'm I'm thinking it's sounding like it's about one month's rent. Uh one month's rent to get an ex an extension. Yeah, it's essentially it's a rule saying that no one should lose their home over what is the equivalent to one month of renting generally. Not necessarily what your rent is, but yeah. So, how would that be implemented and how much time would there be would would people be could it be ongoing or how would that work?

Yeah. So it would be again it's sort of a carveout to I don't know I need the language up here but currently the law says a landlord has just cause to evict a tenant if the tenant does not pay rent that they owe. So this would say a landlord has just caused to evict a tenant if the tenant does not pay rent they don't owe as long as the amount they owe is at least whatever the amount we said at least one month's rent or 150 one and a half times one month's rent. So, if the tenant rents a unit for $1,000 um or $2,000 a month and they pay a,000 they pay half their rent that month. They missed $1,000 rent $1,000 of their rent. Under current law, that failure to pay 100% of your rent, just missing part of your rent payment is enough to lose your home. This provision would say uh the tenant cannot be evicted yet until their total amount of rent that they owe is at least, you know, the the amount for that bedroom size. So, if it's a if it's a one-bedroom unit, they can't be evicted until they owe at least either 3480 or uh $3,34. Well,

will this replace the current of the current uh procedure? It doesn't change the procedure. It just says uh basically a landlord is not entitled to evict a tenant until the amount that they owe reaches a certain number, but it doesn't really change the procedures for evictions. They still get a 3-day notice. Uh if the tenant doesn't pay the amount that's stated in the 3-day notice in time, they still go to court, use the unlawful detainer process, all of that.

So, but what I'm asking is right now we have to pay let's say by the first of the month or 3 days quit. Uh would that be eliminated? with the the the first person anybody could who could could apply to um pay later. Is that is that what this is? Or would there have to be grounds? I mean the date that rent is due actually show grounds would you have to show grounds that there's you know an affordability issue or a medical emergency or something like that?

Yeah. So this would not be like a you wouldn't have to demonstrate an eligibility for this protection. it would just apply generally and also say the date that the amount that rent payments are due varies a lot. The other thing about this protection is it doesn't say a landlord is not entitled to that rent money um and that they can't recover it through like a small claims process or something else. It just says that no one the tenant cannot lose their home over owing less than a certain amount of money. So yeah, so it's there to protect people who are having issues and problems paying at that time. Right.

Right. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Uh, thank you both so much. We appreciate you being um with us here so late. Uh, do any members of the public wish to address the board on this item? Okay, seeing none, um, I just I had a point of clarification for staff. So is this a separate discussion from 11B in terms of um we're having a separate discussion aside from the already the four that we have before us already the four charter amendments that we have before us are in consideration.

That's correct. It's a separate item. Uh and and you'll you'll be addressing that next. Okay. So so my my question is Are we seeking to bring anything back for a public hearing in addition to the four that we already have? That's up to the board. Okay. Okay. Well, uh I guess we'll we'll open it up for discussion then. Vice Chair Ambry,

I would just say I think that was a really comprehensive report and um I'm very grateful for having the opportunity to to ask um so many questions and get such clarification. Um especially in collaboration with what um the city attorney's office is contemplating for city council. Um I think that um this uh presentation uh segus perfectly into our next agenda item. Um so if if unless other commissioners um want to have more discussion just solely on the presentation, um I would say that we could move on to the next agenda item and incorporate our discussion and questions in collaboration. Well, that's why so that's what I was planning on doing originally, but my understanding is that we're in different phases here because 11B is a public hearing and the question here is if we want to add anything from these four, we have to set a public hearing. So that's a different conversation than just lumping it into 11B.

If you you're saying if you want to add anything that was discussed tonight. Well, so hypothetically based on the presentation, if we want to take up a charter amendment on um prohibition for eviction of small rental debts, for example, we can't just talk about that in a public hearing under 11B because we have to set a public hearing for that first.

Right. What I what I would recommend if there are items that were discussed tonight that the board wants to consider is that you direct staff to um convene with the subcommittee and to have the subcommittee report back to the board as an administrative item with what it's recommending. probably require a special meeting because of the time frames on getting the charter uh amendment recommendations to the council. And then um potentially you could have a public hearing at the June 9th meeting or the June 11th meeting um on whatever you decide at the special meeting you want to consider to forward to the council.

Okay. And would that hypothetically would that subcommittee report be made at our next uh regular meeting in June? Well, like I said, I I would you could do that, but given the time constraints on getting this process completed, um we could have a special meeting instead between now and the June 11th meeting. Okay. If you if you want to, we could I mean, if if you want to do it at the June 11th meeting, it's just getting a little tight because everything has to be to the uh city council um July. Is that correct? Yes. July.

Okay. And that wouldn't be if we're setting a special meeting, that wouldn't be a close session, right? It would be a public meeting,

right? It would just be a special meeting, but it would be just like this. So, in theory, we could do a we could do a special meeting. Could we do a special meeting between the June and July regular meetings instead of doing one a special meeting before the June meeting? Uh, that's a possibility, too. Sure, you you could do that. You could do that. You could you could I mean if you're if it's if there's a time if there's an issue with meeting between now and June or the June on June 11th then um we could bring an administrative item at the 11th of June and then you could have a public hearing at a special meeting before the regular July meeting. Now that said it sounds like the regular July meeting might be

that would be very late. It'd be pushing it. So the bottom line is the sooner the better if if you want to go in that direction. Okay. Uh Vice Chair Ambry,

sorry, just one more point of clarification for that um small de rental debts. Um does would that so it this is envisioned to be for section 2300 of article sorry for article 23. Um, so does that mean that we as a as a rent board, if we wanted to have the same um protections that the rent control board would also need to have its own amendment to cover that? Or would a ballot measure discussing uh protection for um evict pre uh prohibiting evictions for small rental debts? Would that could that apply to all rental units including non rent including rent controlled units?

Yes. The amendments would have to be made in the two different charter provisions. Um yeah. Okay. Thank you. As to all of these things is the only one that wouldn't need to be made in the rent control provision would be the extension to single family homes. But for any of these things to be effective also to rent controlled units, they have to be amended in both places. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner.

I'm just trying to think through the timeline a little bit more because I mean we basically just got this report a couple of days ago, right? And we're hearing about it tonight. So, we're in a position where it sounds like we have to do a special meeting. So, it puts a lot of time constraints on it. Um, even just to to do another subcommittee meeting before a special meeting before the June meeting, it's a lot. This is So, may I just make a point?

Yeah. You can give general direction like the direction can be that you want to the subcommittee to consider these and you want to have special meetings that get these before the board um in a soon enough so that if there's anything that the board wants to recommend to the council that it can be timely recommended. So you don't have to give me dates right now that you want to have the special meeting between now and June or between June and July. You can just direct staff to make sure that we convene the subcommittee, that special meetings are appropriately set in a time frame that gives you the opportunity in a public meeting to consider everything that you want to consider.

Vice Chair Ambers. Okay. So, I'll go ahead and make that um direction. So, um the direction would be that the subcommittee um meets and that we set a special meeting in order to address whether um we're interested in any of the suggested recommendations from the city attorney's office which may include um prohibitions for evictions for small rental debts. Okay. is if that's the consensus of the war, staff will will be sure to make that happen. Do we need do we need other do I need? Okay. Well, then that's my direction. Just in any other direction. Oh, we don't have to vote on it for a motion.

Oh, okay. Well, just to clarify then before we move on, are you saying you're you specifically want the subcommittee to meet and then have a special meeting only as to the small rental debt proposed amendment or are you all all of them? All of them. Okay. any recommendations or any any any information recommendations or suggestions that were provided tonight by the presentation from the city attorney's office. And so my direction would be that the subcommittee meet which is not um a public hearing. Correct. Correct.

Um and that we then have a public meeting which would be a special meeting in between um today and our next uh regular schedule meeting. I would just Okay. caveat being there could be scheduling the the you can you don't have to give me a date specific right now. Okay. You know we can we can work it out. Just that yeah so get it done before Jul before it's the deadline. Correct. The direction is just to have a special meeting to discuss the new topics that were presented to us tonight. Okay. The special meeting would be an administrative item on these new provisions. I don't know what it's going to look like

potentially coming out. Subcommittee could decide that to put place an administrative, but it could that could wind up happening at the next regular meeting and then you could have a special meeting on the public hearing to actually uh consider forwarding to the city council. So staff will handle the details, but I understand the direction

when it gets to when the when these provision provisions potentially get to a public hearing. Would they be are we trying are we talking about lumping them together with the public hearing 11B that we currently have on tonight's agenda or are we talking are we going to consider that tonight and then consider these potentially in in a sep separately? Well, we have since we haven't gotten to um the next what is it 11 11B um we don't know whether or not a special meeting will occur based on something from that agenda item. So my direction is just specifically for this agenda item to have a special meeting to consider um the proposals and recommendations from item 12A at this time. and and in the next item you can talk about what you want to do with those those four items.

Okay. Uh okay. Is uh any objections or proposed clarifications to that direction as to this agenda item from anyone? Commissioner said 128. Are you referring to that one the one item we're talking about the um the the the rentals? Item 12A, meaning the the entire packet, all of the amendments from the presentation, any any and all things that are contained in um the agenda item 12A.

Yeah, there's some very interesting things here, but for me, the most complex and confusing is this family u the family all this. Yeah, it's a lot to wrap your mind around. And I would like I certainly would like more clarification before Absolutely. I don't know how we get more clarification before we really discuss it. Absolutely. And I think that's what the subcommittee will will seek to address. Um okay, we'll now return to item 11B, the public hearing on proposed charter amendments for the November 2026 ballot. May we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, chair. This item is a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to article No, this is not Let me go back to where we said we go. Uh yes, that is right. Never mind. Uh this item is a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to article 18 of the city charter for possible placement on the November 2026 ballot. As at the board's April 9th meeting, the board reviewed four proposed charter amendments developed through the charter amendment subcommittee process and directed staff to return with those proposals for public hearing. The four proposals concern commissioner term limits, the registration fee framework, petition decision timelines, and tenant occupancy protections. The first proposal would revise the board's term limit language to allow commissioners to serve a maximum of three terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive. will clarify that appointed terms count towards the overall limit. This would align the board's term limit structure with more close more closely with broader city charter provisions while preserving the board's four-year terms. The second proposal concerns the registration free fee framework. It retain the current 288 maximum allowable fee. Clarify that this cap that this is a cap and not the amount automatically charged. Preserve the board's discretion to set the actual fee below the cap. maintain the existing tenant pass through framework and establish CPI based adjustments to the maximum allowable fee beginning in 2028 subject to a 5% annual cap and no annual decreases. The third proposal concerns petition decision timelines. It would clarify that board rules and regulations govern petition processing timelines, including the general time frame for final action and extensions for good cause. The intent is to reflect the board's long-standing regulatory framework and clarify the procedural timelines are administered through the board's regulations. The fourth proposal concerns tenant occupancy protections.

It would provide that a tenency may not be terminated solely because of certain changes in household composition involving specified family members or the addition of minor children through birth, adoption or legal custody subject to lawful occupancy limits. Since the board's um 9th April 9th discussion, we know that the city attorney's office had some additional um uh proposals. Um and so um you might consider additional review of the tenant occupancy proposal before taking action on that one. Uh staff recommendation tonight is that the board conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, close a public hearing, and then provide direction. The board may recommend one or more proposed amendments to the city council for placement on the November 2026 ballot, continue consideration of any proposal for further review, or provide alternative direction to staff.

And that concludes my report. Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions?

Uh, okay. The public hearing is now open. Um, I believe we have one speaker on this item, Michael Soloff and you will have uh whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes. Thank you. Uh, I'm here tonight as co-chair of Santa Monicans for Renters Rights. As I think everybody here knows, Santa Monicans for Renters Rights was formed more than 45 years ago to put the rent control law into the charter and has been integrally involved with every campaign to make changes to it since then. So, we have a deep interest in everything that's being discussed here. That's not limited to the rent control charter. the eviction protections for non-run control units also was um a project that SMUR was deeply involved in um as well as in the campaign since at the end of the day it's the voters who decide what's what's going to happen. It's only recommendations by all of the rest of us. Um, we've looked at the proposals that are, I guess, the technical subject of this agenda item in the report, but then we also saw recently the proposals from the uh, city attorney's office about potential changes to the non-rand portion of it. Um, we strongly believe that there should be a continuation of what exists right now, which is that the same protections exist for renters, whether they're in rent controlled units or not, when it comes to eviction controls. Um, and we believe that that means that more work needs to be done to bring all of these proposals together to something that could be presented to the voters as this is what we're proposing for renters in Santa Monica. Um, let me give some

general thoughts on what we've seen so far. Um, you know, we are supportive of the term limit change. We are supportive of the administrative change to give you the tools you need to be able to um effectively uh adjudicate uh petitions. Um, we are in favor of an automatic uh escalation of the maximum uh fee recognizing that's not in fact the fee that that necessarily is involved, but to avoid having to constantly um have electoral process just over that issue. um whether you know CPI plus 5% is the right uh uh way to do it or something that parallels what we're doing with rents or something like that where we haven't had enough time to come to a conclusion on that. um as to the eviction protections, we um in addition to believing that the uh provision should be the same for both groups of tenants in in the city, we also think that as we heard, I think from your questions and also from what the city attorney's office was indicating they want to do, we agree it's very important that this be clear. Um tenants need to know their rights and not have to guess and wonder what how it's going to come out in litigation. Um, landlords need to know that so that for the vast vast majority of landlords who just want to comply with the law, they know what it is. That will avoid a lot of problems for both tenants and landlords. Um, as to the general idea of expanding the protection, the the categories of people who the law will be clear can join the household um without subjecting the household to eviction. We're supportive of that general effort. Um, you know,

there's obviously now a whole lot to be considered in in uh exactly who that's going to be since there seem to be different proposals. We're not prepared to at this time to say exactly what that is. We want to consider uh what's been raised as well as what you folks have brought forward. There are also differences in, you know, who has a clear right to remain after the original tenants between what you've proposed and what the city attorney's office has now proposed. And we think that there needs to be some more time to look at that to come to a a proper unified resolution. Um, and certainly you and the city should have the benefit of stakeholders besides the elected folks. um but also those of us who politically represent the tenants as well as other tenants who may want to come in and speak to this and and if they're landlords who want to come in and speak to it. Um several of the other proposals are not even in any way reflected in what you have before you. We would like time to evaluate that. So our bottom line is that we think that the right thing to do here and I just heard your discussion about how exactly you're going to do it is try and get yourself to a place where you can have a a public hearing and a discussion and decision making that considers all of these issues together at once. Thank you.

Thank you. Two seconds to go.

Okay. The public hearing is now closed. Um I I I think based on what we heard tonight in terms of the presentation from the city attorney's office, um I think it's clear that there's a lot more work to be done on these items. Um and making sure that we're clarifying the language, aligning the language, um where applicable. Um, so I would make a motion that we do not advance um any of the charter amendments to the council tonight and that um we bring um them back to the subcommittee um for further deliberation. Uh Vice Chair Ambry,

just a just a question. Even if we vote on the motion, um we'll still we can still have discussion about the agenda item. Correct. No, the meeting is closed, right? So, the the motion was to to convene a special meeting to Right. You want to reset your Well, no, the mo the motion was to refer everything back to the charter uh to excuse me, to the subcommittee and not advance anything to the council tonight in final form. So, you should have whatever discussion you want to have before voting on the motion because once the motion is voted upon, that's the direction um to staff to continue the matter.

But the motion remains on the floor, but we can still have a discussion. Okay. Uh Commissioner Lesley, I was just going to support your motion. That's all. Uh I think that we should have Yeah. second in the motion. Okay. To have further discussion. Okay, before we move to a roll call vote then, um, Commissioner Dudick, do you have a comment? I I I support Okay. I support the motion. Okay, great. So, um, um, I made the motion seconded by Commissioner Lesley. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Is there any other discussion? Yeah, I just have a question. So, we're going to vote on the motion, but then we're That doesn't mean the agenda item's over, correct? Yes, this motion. Yes, it does.

It It means the agenda the agenda item is over and that the discussion is tabled. Yes. Okay. We can discuss this motion right now before we

Yeah. I I'll have I'll have I have uh a discussion about the motion. I think that we could at least begin to talk about some of the um some of the proposed amendments even if we're going to not even if we're going to have a special meeting in at which time we would decide whether or not to advance the um proposed any of the four or five or three or two or one proposed charter amendments at that time. But that tonight I think we should at least begin to discuss um some of the um proposed amendments such as the term limits or um any any of the other ones.

So the motion on the floor has already been seconded. So unless there's a substitute motion, we would have to proceed to vote on the motion on the floor. That's correct. That's correct. Vice Chair Ambry, would you like to make a substitute motion? Yes. I'm trying to think of what the substitute motion is. Um, actually, no. I'll just I'll just vote. Uh, okay. Can we proceed? Unless someone else wants to make a substitute motion. Well, we we're still in discussion on the on the motion itself, right? So, are we? We have a second already. Chair can Oh, sorry.

Okay. All right. Can we proceed to a roll call vote, please? Um, yes. Commissioner Dudek, yes. Commissioner Ganska, yes. Commissioner Lesley, yes. Vice Chair Ambry, no. Chair Abnov, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Uh item 12, administrative items. Um, having having already taken item 12A out of order, we will now continue with um item 12B, the announcement of the 2026 general adjustment, may we have a staff report, please?

Yes. Thank you, chair. This item concerns the announcement of the 2026 annual general adjustment and the next step in the board's consideration of whether to impose a dollar amount ceiling. Under the charter formula, the annual general adjustment is equal to 75% of the 12-month CPI increase for the Los Angeles region ending in March, rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. The charter also provides that the adjustment may not be less than zero or greater than 3%. For 2026, the CPI increase was 3.4%. 75% of 3.4% is 2.55% which rounds to 2.6%. Accordingly, the 2026 annual general adjustment will be 2.6% effective September 1st, 2026, subject to any dollar amount ceiling the board may separately impose. Tonight, the board is not being asked to decide whether to impose a ceiling under the charter. The board must first hold a public hearing to receive the views of interested parties before deciding whether to impose a dollar amount ceiling. That public hearing is scheduled for the June 11 meeting. If the board later chooses to impose a ceiling, the charter formula results in a possible $70 ceiling for 2026. Staff is not making a recommendation tonight on whether a ceiling should be imposed. The recommended action is for the chair to announce that the 2026 annual general adjustment is 2.6% 6% subject to any dollar amount ceiling the board may consider after the June public hearing. That concludes my report.

Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions. Vice Chair Ambry. So for this agenda item, there's we don't necessarily need to take action. We could um wait and see and take action at the June 11th meeting. Is that correct?

You can only take action. Okay. So then there's no other question. Any other questions? No. Okay. Um, do any members of the public wish to address the board on this item? Seeing none, um, any other general discussion. Seeing none. Okay. Pursuant to city charter section 1805A, the 2026 general adjustment effective September 1st is 2.6%. Subject to any dollar amount ceiling that the board may in its discretion separately impose. A public hearing to consider that issue will occur at our next regular meeting on June 11th. We will now receive the fiscal year 2025 2026 third quarter budget report from staff.

Thank you, chair. Um there's a uh PowerPoint should come up in a sec.

Thank you. Thanks, Gilbert. Okay. So, uh I'll cover two budget items together through this presentation. First, the third quarter update for the current fiscal year and then as part of this PowerPoint, I've got the uh budget, the proposed operating budget for the fiscal year 2026 2027. The main point is that the current year is now projected to end better than budgeted primarily because the workspace uh renovation will move into the next fiscal year. The proposed budget for the next year includes a significant deficit, but most of that deficit is driven by one-time or non-recurring costs. Staff is not recommending a registration fee increase for 2026 2027. Um, so sticking with the item in front of you, uh, FY 2526 third quarter, uh, the bottom line, uh, the adopted budget projected deficit was $253,365. The current projection shows a net revenue at the end of the um budget cycle of $163 $163,89 and um that's an improvement from the adopted budget of $417,174. This change is primarily driven by uh savings in capital outlay because the workspace renovation is now, as I mentioned, intended to occur next year. Okay. Uh, next slide, please. Did it go?

Okay, thanks. Revenue is also performing somewhat better than expected. Um, total revenue is projected to be about 6.58 million, which is about $56,000 above the adopted budget. The largest positive variance is in interest earnings, which are projected to be around 54,000 above budget. Registration fee collections are generally stable and staff also collected more in past due fees than originally projected reflecting continued collection efforts. Next slide please. Over the expenditure side, uh over on the expenditure side, total operating expenditures are projected to be about 361,000 below the adopted budget. Salaries and wages are projected to have savings of about $125,000, mostly due to staffing transitions and vacancies. Supplies and expenses are projected to be about $28,000 over budget, which is manageable and mostly tied to recruitment and software related timing costs. Capital outlay is projected to save about $264,000 primarily because the renovation allocation will not be used this fiscal year. Um, and that concludes my presentation on fiscal year 2025 2026, uh, quarter 3. The recommended action on this item is to just receive and file the report. And I'll stop here before you move on to your next item and see if there's any questions.

Do any commissioners have any questions? Uh, seeing none, and I don't think we have anyone from the public who wants to address this issue. So, I think we can move on to the next portion of your presentation.

Okay. Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay, so turning to the proposed fiscal year 2026 2027 budget, total projected revenue is about 6.54 million. Uh total projected operating expenditures are about 7.36 million resulting in a projected operating deficit of about 816,000. Staff is not recommending an increase in the annual registration fee. The fee was increased last year from 228 to 240 and the proposed budget maintains the current $240 fee. The key point is that the deficit is not primarily structural. It is driven in large part by one-time or non-recurring costs, especially the workspace renovation and election related costs. Next slide, please. The largest single item is the $450,000 allocation for the workspace renovation. That allocation includes furniture, construction related work, electrical and data needs, flooring, painting, window coverings, and related project costs. The budget also includes $145,000 for the 2026 election cycle and potential charter amendment ballot costs. In addition, the budget includes the final $55,24 principal payment on the AY's Kalpers loan. After that payment, the loan will be fully repaid. There are also ongoing cost pressures from health insurance, retirement contributions, and indirect costs, but the largest contributions to deficit are one-time or timing related. Next slide, please. The proposed budget assumes that the registration fee remains at $240 per controlled unit or $20 per month based on the 26,660 projected billable units. The current year registration fee revenue is projected at just under 6.4 million. with total net registration fee revenue at about 6.44 million after the past due fees and after past due fees and refunds

are accounted for. Total projected revenue is about 6.54 million. Staff will continue pursuing unpaid fees and reviewing fee wavers but no registration fee is recommended for the budget year. Next slide please. The proposed budget includes 24 authorized positions, which is an increase of one position from the prior fiscal year. That increase reflects the proposed administrative services officer position. This is intended to support succession planning, administrative oversight, fiscal coordination, and operational continuity. The budget also preserves the current uh budget office coordinator position during the transition period. The public information department is aligned to reflect five information coordinators and one information analyst. The city technical services anal support is no longer shown as an agency position in the labor summary. It is reflected in the administrative indirect cost line item. Next slide please. The projected beginning fund balance is about 2.47 million. After projected revenues, operating expenditures, and the final Kalpers principal payment, the projected ending fund balance is about 1.6 million. The city reserve guideline for the agency is between 1.37 million and 1.58 million for the fiscal year 2627 um budget year including both the operating reserve target and the acred leave component. The projected ending fund balance is sufficient to satisfy that guidance with reserves at approximately 15.2% of the applicable budget measure. That reserve position supports the recommendation not to increase the registration fee for the upcoming fiscal year. Next slide, please. for the proposed fiscal year 2627 budget. Staff recommends that the board review the proposed budget, provide any questions, comments, or requested modifications, and set the proposed budget for public hearing and adoption at the regular meeting on June 11. The overall budget strategy is discipline, uh, no registration fee increase this year, sufficient reserves, recognition

of onetime costs, and continued monitoring of long-term revenue sufficiency. That concludes my report and available for any questions. Uh the one question that I just had um for the the one-time renovation um are we at the final figure on that or is there still a possibility that it could come back even higher or are we confident that we are now at our like last best and final total? I've been told that this is the number that we need.

Okay. You know, I I anyone who's done a renovation knows things come up, but I've been working very closely with the um city staff that provides the services for this and we have an understanding that we have a limit to what we can and want to spend and so they've assured me that they're working hard to keep that number.

Okay. Uh do any other commissioners have any questions? Uh, seeing none, Vice Chair Ambry's informed me she doesn't have any questions either. Um, no public comments. Um, okay. So, staff will place a public hearing on the June 11th agenda so that the board may consider adopting the proposed 2026 2027 operating budget. Um, with that, our final item is classification specification updates. May we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, chair. This item recommends updates to two classification specifications. The first recommendation is to adopt a new administrative services officer classification. This proposed classification reflects the fact that the responsibilities associated with the current budget office coordinator position have expanded over time beyond the traditional scope of that classification. The proposed administrative services officer classification would better reflect the agency's long-term operational needs, including budgeting, financial analysis, contract administration, facilities coordination, payroll oversight, technology coordination, and broader administrative operations. Importantly, this does not increase staffing levels. The classification would be used only upon vacancy of the current budget office coordinator position uh with perhaps some overlap and would remain subject to board approved budget appropriations. The second recommendation is to revise the staff assistant 3 classification. The main change is to remove Spanish fluency as a minimum qualification and instead identify Spanish language skills as desirable. Uh, Spanish language ability remains highly valuable, but requiring bilingual fluency as a minimum qualification significantly reduces the applicant pool for an entry- level position. The agency currently has adequate Spanish speaking capacity among existing staff to assist members of the public who need language support. The core duties, reporting structure, and overall responsibilities of staff assistant 3 position remain unchanged. Staff recommends that the board adopt the administrative services officer classification specification and the revised staff assistant 3 classification specification. That concludes my report.

Thank you. Uh, do any commissioners have any questions? Seeing none, um, no public comments. Um, does any commissioner wish to begin discussion? Um, I would make a motion that we proceed with the staff recommendation to adopt the administrative services officer classification spec and the um staff assistant 3 class spec both as attached. Um, before anyone seconds that motion, Commissioner Dudick. Oh, I was going to second.

Oh, okay. Wonderful. Okay. Uh motion by myself, seconded by Commissioner Dudick. Any further discussion? Seeing none, may we have a roll call vote, please? Yes, Commissioner. Wait, sorry. Uh Commissioner Lesley. No, I I just want to thank staff for the report for our budgetary report. Um very much in detail. You guys have done an excellent job. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just add that uh Lyman Noseworthy is heavily responsible for the quality of these reports. Thank you very much. Um okay, I think we can proceed with the roll call vote now. Okay. Uh Commissioner Durk,

yes. Commissioner Ganska, yes. Commissioner Leslie, yes. Vice Chair Ambry, yes. Chair Ivanov, yes. Motion carries. Um, can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board on June 11th, 2026? Commissioner Lesley, I move that we convene the meeting or we I'm sorry, adjourn the meeting to June. Look, it's a Yeah, this is a long one for us, especially when you're in pain. Uh, thank you. Till our June meeting. Thank you. Second. Okay. Uh all in favor voice vote.

I I Okay. Meeting adjourns. Okay.