City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Actually, I should go.

The August 13, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board is called to order. Would the secretary please take the roll? Yes.

Commissioner Dudek?

Here.

Commissioner Gonska? Here. Commissioner Leslie?

Here.

Vice Chair Ambres?

Here.

And Chair Ivanov? Here.

Please join me in the salute to our flag. If anyone wishes to address the board either on a specific item on tonight's agenda or at public comment, please see our board secretary to fill in a speaker slip. If commissioners have had an opportunity to review the minutes from the July 9th meeting, may I have a motion for their approval? Commissioner Dudek.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for the last meeting. Thank you.

Second. Motion by Commissioner Dudek, seconded by Commissioner Gonska. May we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska? Yes. Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrys?

Abstain.

And Chair Opinoff?

Yes. Motion carries. OK, special agenda items. Does the executive director have anything to report to the board?

I do have one announcement. Thank you, Chair. I want to remind Santa Monica renters that applications are now open for Santa Monica Renter Aid, the city's new homelessness prevention program funded by voter-approved Measure GS. The program provides one-time or short-term financial assistance and housing stabilization services to eligible Santa Monica renter households experiencing a temporary housing crisis. Assistance may include help with rent, utilities, relocation expenses, housing-focused case management, and referrals to other services. The first application window closes next Thursday, August 20th. Eligibility and available funding will determine who receives assistance, with priority given to households at greatest risk of homelessness, including low-income households, older adults, people with disabilities, and families with minor children. Residents may apply online through the Santa Monica Renter Aid webpage. Anyone who needs help with the application can receive free in-person assistance from the people concerned on Tuesday from 3 to 7 p.m. at Virginia Avenue Park or on Thursday from 1230 to 430 p.m. at the main library. Paper applications, multilingual assistance, and accessibility accommodations are available. If you or someone you know may be at risk of losing their housing, please visit SantaMonica.gov and search for renter aid before the August 20th deadline. That concludes my announcements.

Great okay 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 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 up to the podium and speak into the microphone when your name is called. If there's anyone who wishes to address the board during public comment who has not yet filled out a speaker slip, please see our board secretary. And I have one speaker slip, Mr. Bill Davids. And whenever you're ready, you'll have up to three minutes to address the board.

There is an expression that goes, justice delayed is justice denied. We have a situation at 220 San Vicente Boulevard that might be unique or might be foreboding for other buildings under in control in Santa Monica. Essentially we have an array of tenants. We have a lot of seniors. We have a lot of tenants with health issues in the building. We used to have children in the building. We have people who work from their homes in the building, and the process of going through mediation and construction hearings is unacceptable in terms of our circumstances at two twenty. First of all, the seniors, especially the seniors with serious health issues probably won't be around to participate in mediation and construction hearings. We've already lost one senior who had been in the building for many, many years. I've been in the building for 36 years. You have people with disabilities who are not being heard. They're not seniors, but they do have disabilities, sometimes conspicuous, sometimes inconspicuous. We are not able to get into the process soon enough, and we are not able to reach decisions or determinations soon enough. None of us know our expiration dates. There are people in the building who are simply moving out. There are new tenants who are moving in who know nothing about rent control. We are dealing with circumstances that go back to December of two thousand and twenty four. The city attorney's office has been meeting apparently with ownership, and I believe there's a representative from rent control in those meetings. There is no tenant representative in those meetings. The meetings have become biased and lopsided against the tenants in the building because our voices are not heard. We have been left out of the process, and if we try to gain into the process, we are going to go through an intolerable length of time before determinations are made about our individualized cases. There has to be an adjustment in terms of the way rent control goes about its hearings, whether it means hiring more hearing officers or expediting the process in some way. This is a process in my building that is probably going to go on for at least another year to come. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we get a member of staff to connect with Mr. Davids?

Yes, in fact, we already have. OK, great. Thank you.

OK, I have another speaker, Arthur Peter. And whenever you're ready, you'll have up to three minutes.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Arthur Peter. I own a building at 953 5th Street in Santa Monica. And actually, this is the first time I've ever spoken on this matter. And as a former smoker, it's probably coming odd to me. But... Santa Monica has probably some of the best laws in the country with regards to not smoking in buildings, public parks, pretty much all over the city. The one difficult thing that I'm experiencing in my building is I have a tenant that has been with me prior to, I think it was 92. Older tenants are allowed to smoke within their units. Newer tenants, I think post-97 or 98, cannot smoke in their units. This creates a really difficult problem in that the tenants that I have in the building who don't smoke, some have been driven out, some with newborns, kids, what have you, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. If they're smoking on the balcony, common areas, yes, I can do something. But that particular person can smoke in the unit. I'd like you guys just to think about that and the ramifications on continuing to allow that to happen. The newer buildings, none of the newer buildings, as far as I know, you're allowed to smoke inside of, if I'm correct. Thank you for your time. Just wanted to bring that to your attention. And this is things that myself and other property owners have experienced. And it really creates a difficult situation when one is doing that. Thank you.

Thank you. OK, jurisdictional items. Our first jurisdictional item, 10A1, is owner occupancy exemption application P2026-00663. regarding 832 Cedar Street. Can we have the staff report, please?

Good evening, Commissioners. The applicant in this case is Mr. Mayan Gupta. He bought this property, which is a two-unit property, back in October of last year, and he says that he moved in at that time. and he's applied to exempt it as an owner-occupied property of three or fewer units. The title records show that he has the requisite ownership interest, and the unit count also satisfies the criteria for the exemption. He doesn't own any other residential property in Los Angeles. He submitted utility, financial, and government records that show that he's lived there for at least the 120-day period that's prior to the application that's required. And because there were no tenants on the property, In accordance with our procedure, we sent the hearings investigator to do an inspection on the property, and her report, as detailed in the staff report, is consistent with his claimed occupancy. Staff recommends that you grant the exemption application and adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Okay. Does any Commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Okay, seeing none, does any Commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion? Commissioner Gonska?

I move that we grant the application and adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Commissioner Leslie?

I second the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by Commissioner Leslie. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie? Yes. Vice Chair Ambriz? Yes. And Chair Ivanov? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay, our next jurisdictional item is owner occupancy exemption application P2026-00665 regarding 728 11th Street. May we have the staff report, please?

Commissioner, the applicants in this matter are Justin and Miriam Slade, and it's also a two-unit property, and they bought it back in December of last year, and they've applied to exempt it as an owner-occupied property of three or fewer units. They're the sole owners. The unit count also meets the criteria required. They also don't own any other property in Los Angeles County. They submitted utility financial and government records to show that they've lived on the property for at least the requisite 120 days prior to the submission of the application. And again, this is a property without tenants. So we sent the hearing investigator to do an inspection. And as detailed in the staff report, her report is consistent with the claimed occupancy. Staff recommends that you grant the exemption application and adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thank you.

Does any commissioner have questions about the staff report? Is that you in the queue? Commissioner Dudek?

No, I was going to make a motion.

Okay. Does anyone else have any questions before we make a motion? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, I make a motion that we grant the exception application for 728 11th Street in Santa Monica.

Vice Chair Ambrose.

I'll second the motion, but I have a comment.

Okay, go ahead.

I'd just like to say that I appreciate that in this item, 10.8.2, that there was... significant evidence presented in addition to gas bills, water bills, and other evidence similar to item 10 , that there was much more robust evidence that's presented, such as the loan statements, the voided checks, and Sorry. Some of the other bills that were addressed to the same mailing address. I appreciate when that kind of evidence is presented. It makes the decision, at least for me, much more secure. And it's a big decision, I think, that we have to make when making these exemptions to take these decisions not lightly. So I really appreciate when an applicant presents such significant evidence to us in making these decisions. So I'm seconding the motion. Thank you.

OK, great. Motion by Commissioner Dudek, seconded by Vice Chair Ambriz. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambriz? Yes. And Chair Abhinav?

Yes. Motion carries. Okay item 10 a three has been continued to the regular meeting of the board on September 10th 2026 in that case our next jurisdiction jurisdictional item 10 a four is hearing 2026 dash 00278 regarding 1438 19th street may we have the staff report, please.

Certainly, commissioners, this is kind of what happens to these owner occupancy exemptions on the other side through our monitoring process. This is a property at 1438 19th that's owned by Mr. Muhammad Muayyedi. And the board granted him the exemption application back in 2012. In December of last year, code enforcement informed us that the property appears to be entirely tenant occupied, so we began our exemption lapse process and we sent an initial determination based on the information we provided that the exemption has lapsed because Mr. Moiety doesn't appear to be residing on the property. He, however, objected to that, and because he did so, the matter was referred to an evidentiary hearing, and when that occurs, then it's up to the board to determine whether the exemption has lapsed and the hearing officer provides the evidentiary hearing recommendation. And that is exactly what's before you. The hearing officer found that the exemption had lapsed by operation of law back in July of last year when Mr. Moayeri moved off the property to an address in Sherman Oaks and rented his unit that he was residing on to Ms. Sharon Whitsett. Board regulations provide factors in determining whether an owner resides on a property as their principal residence, and as detailed in the staff report, but for a homeowner's exemption that Mr. Moayeri continues to maintain with the state, and utilities that still he has in his name on the property, all the other factors show Mr. Moyeri no longer resides on the property. The board's regulation do excuse certain extended absences by an owner from a property, cases such as military service, travel for employment, or hospitalization, but the hearing officer concluded that none of these Examples apply here when Mr. Myrie entirely vacated his unit, leased it to a tenant, albeit with the stated goal of assisting a fire victim, and with a renewable six-month lease at essentially a monthly rent of $3,500. By renting out his unit and moving off the property, the hearing officer found that Mr. Moyeri had ceased to reside in the unit as his principal place of residence as of July 2025, and that his owner occupancy exemption had lapsed by operation of law. Although Mr. Moyeri states in his written response that her conclusion, the hearing officer's conclusion, is unfair, it is nonetheless supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is in accordance with the Board's regulation. Staff therefore recommends that the Board adopt the recommendation and the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decision and conclude that the exemption has lapsed by operation of law.

Thank you. Does any Commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Okay, seeing none, I don't believe we have a representative for the applicant who would like to address the board. In that case, would any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or make a motion? Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, I'm curious to know if the, I can't pronounce his last name.

Muayyiri.

Okay, if he in the past had ever vacated, if this was the first time.

We have had, if I recall correctly, There had been other instances where we thought that he had done so, but he provided documentation. As he pointed out in the decision and also in his own submission, there was a... Let me just go back to the... My apologies for not having that available at this time. but he had provided a reason for his absence earlier when he was assisting some, that's right, he had gone on an international trip, and while he had gone on an international trip, he had allowed someone to stay in the apartment because that person was having their own property repaired, and because it was a temporary situation in which It's very distinct from this. He did not rent it out, the unit. He wasn't collecting rent. He was away on travel, and he let a friend stay at the place. The agency didn't find that the evidence showed that the exemption had lapsed or that Mr. Muayri had ceased to reside on the property as his principal place of residence. In this case, he had literally moved off and rented the unit, so it's quite distinct, and that's why I believe the hearing officer found that the exemption has lapsed.

Thank you.

Commissioner Leslie?

So, my question is, So I guess Mr. Mayuri, is that how you pronounce his name, was trying to cure his lease here by ending it two months prior to? Is that what his attempt was? Because he states in this letter that he attempted to tell the tenant to leave two months prior to the six-month lease.

I think the evidence in the hearing decision shows that it's a little more nuanced than that, that there was an involvement by code enforcement. And as a result, the tenants decided to relocate. And after that happened, Ms. Whitsett decided not to renew. But even so, I think the fact that Mr. Mayeri simply stopped living on the property and rented his unit out is really sufficient evidence to find that the exemption had lapsed. Nothing prevents Mr. Mayeri from moving back on the property and applying again and proving to the board that he does in fact reside on the property. But at this point, since he moved off and he rented it off, to the hearing officer and to staff that is sufficient evidence of the exemption having lapsed.

Would it be sufficient for him to move back and say that he's going to be a tenant there in occupancy over a few months or a year or two?

Well, at this point, the question before you is, has the exemption lapsed? If you do agree with the hearing officer that the exemption has lapsed, nothing prevents Mr. Mayeri from applying again and proving that he now has moved back, and that's his principal residence, and that he has been living there for at least 120 days, just like the earlier two cases that you mentioned. approved earlier in the agenda. He certainly can do that. But at this point, the question for you to determine is whether he has, in fact, ceased to reside on the property as his principal residence, and if so, has the exemption lapsed.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Gonska?

I move that we adopt the hearing officer's recommendation and her findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the exemption lapsed by operation of law.

And I'll second that. Motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by myself. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambres?

Yes.

And Chair Ivanov?

Yes.

The motion carries.

Okay, moving on to appeals our next item is tend to be one in appeal of consolidated construction related impacts cases P 2024 dash 053 63. and P2025-00027 regarding Units 1 and 4 at 953 Fifth Street. May we have the staff report, please?

Certainly, Commissioners. Ms. Sofco and Ms. Bennett are tenants of Unit 1 and 4 at 953 Fifth Street, and they filed construction decrease petitions alleging various impacts from the owners' electric and plumbing upgrades, repairs to balconies, replacement of a common area walkway, and unit renovations. The hearing officer granted them decreases totaling $8,397.96 to Ms. Bennett and $4,612.44 to Ms. Sofco for various impacts and reductions of housing services. And the tenants have appealed the decision. Now, this is different than the other cases that were before you earlier in the agenda, because here you're sitting as an appellate body. Therefore, the board should affirm the decision if it's supported by substantial evidence. The tenants argue that they should have received decreases for work on Saturdays, higher decreases for noise impacts. Ms. Bennett argues that she should receive a higher decrease for reduction of her parking amenity. Ms. Sofco argues that she should have received a decrease for a displacement on July 2024, as well as scaffolding-related interference with ingress. openings in her daughter's bedroom wall and kitchen cabinet, dust, loss of landscaping, invasion of privacy, and displacement due to mold remediation. She also argues that she should have received a higher decrease for inadequate construction management. Under the board's construction decrease regulations, decreases may be granted for impacts that substantially reduce housing services or substantially interfere with a tenant's ability to occupy the unit as a residence only if the construction is for work that is not necessary repairs or maintenance. For work that is necessary repairs, decreases may only be granted if the work is carried out in an unreasonable manner or takes an unreasonably long time to complete. And as petitioners, tenants bear the burden, the evidentiary burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, the hearing officer found that the only work that did not constitute necessary repairs were the unit renovations. For all of the other work, decreases can only be granted if they were done in an unreasonable manner or took an unreasonably long time. As detailed in the staff report, the record reasonably supports the hearing officer's exclusion of weekends from the relevant decreases, denial of decreases for scaffolding, for the small holes in the kitchen cabinet or under the kitchen sink in the bathroom, for dust, for loss of landscaping from repairs to the walkway, for the claimed invasion of privacy from when Ms. Sofka had been temporarily relocated and was not in her unit and her landlord entered her unit on a Sunday morning, and for displacement during mold remediation. Substantial evidence also supports the amount of the decreases granted for reduction of the parking amenity when the workers temporarily block their parking spaces, for noise, and for inadequate construction management. Staff therefore recommends that the board affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law. OK, thank you.

Does any commissioner have questions about the staff report? Okay, seeing none. I don't believe we have any any representatives for either of the tenants that are here to address the board. But I do believe we have the owner here. Mr. Arthur Peter. And whenever you're ready, you'll have up to five minutes. And we just ask that you do your best to keep your comments to what's within the evidentiary record.

Absolutely. Good evening, Commissioners. I want to commend you on the whole process that I went through with regards to the hearing officer. First, the mediator. And then the hearing officer, I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but it felt fair and somewhat balanced. But what I wanted to kind of bring to the board's attention today, kind of as a property owner, and I don't know if this is going to hurt your decision or anything like that, is as you guys know, our housing stock in Santa Monica, probably 90% of it is 60 to 70 years old. These are old buildings that are not built like brownstones in New York, where they're going to last forever. They've hit kind of their useful life. So myself, as a property owner, I have to sit there and make a decision. I have to plow some serious money into this thing to get another 40 years out of this you know new electrical new plumbing new roofs that's my responsibility. Where it becomes you know difficult and granted I screwed up on some of the construction on my building, and you know what had tried my best. Is. it's really difficult to make repairs without noise, without dust, when you're doing these things on the outside. For example, when we do the soft story retrofit on the buildings, it's a mess. The parking is messed up in the back and the front if they're tucked under dingbats and what have you. I just hope that you guys can take that into consideration kind of on the landlord's point of view and really understand that You know us as landlords we've known our tenants for 2030 years and we don't want to put them through any undue burden or anything like that we try our best to get stuff you know done properly and make them proud, because it is their home. Just try to take that into consideration when we're going through this. this process as landlords and fixing up the buildings. Because, you know, some people will make a decision and say, you know, no, this is too much. I'm out and maybe sell the thing to the developer. And then all of a sudden we don't have apartments. We have a bunch of condos and we don't have the housing anymore. And we're in a worse situation than we already are in L.A. So just wanted to bring that to the attention. Thank you.

Thank you. Would any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or make a motion? Vice Chair Ambriz.

Yes, as was mentioned with the staff report, Ms. Sovko and Ms. Bennett did bear the evidentiary burden, which did not meet the necessary threshold for the hearing officer to grant the decrease. For the construction impacts, I found that the hearing officer's decision was sound. And even looking at the videos and the photos that were provided to us, I agree with the hearing officer's decision. As we review this case on appeal, as an appellate body, we are not reviewing it as a finder of facts, and I do not think that the hearing officer's decision made any abuse and discretion. And so I would like to make a motion to approve this case. to affirm the decision and to adopt the findings of facts and conclusions of law.

Commissioner Gonsko?

I'd echo those comments. I also found this decision to be very thorough and accurate. And our staff reports are always extremely well done, but this one in particular, point by point, addresses each of the concerns raised in the appeal, definitely to my satisfaction. So I also want to just point out You know oftentimes we we. have cases where landlords are it feels like from the evidentiary record or not, making a good faith effort to do things properly to do things timely. In this case, I find it to be very different and I just want to point out there's a number of examples within this staff report where. it's clear to me that the landlord the building owner did take efforts to do this correctly and when he failed he tried to remedy the situation very quickly so just to read a few of those. Code enforcement opened an investigation on August 13, 2024, advised the owner that scaffolding needed to be removed, where the walkway was too narrow, which the owner did the following day. Another example, he hired an exterminator to deal with rodent problem. Another example, he arranged for the tenant and her daughter to be temporarily relocated within a few days. Another example, he quickly secured temporary housing for one of the tenants upon learning of a problem, did so at a higher cost than the rent that he was receiving from the tenant. another example landlord mitigated the impact of the noise by offering tenants off-site workspaces so i just wanted to point that out that it seems like here that the tenant that the building owner did try to address in in fact did address many of these things in real time so i just wanted to point that out and give credit where credit's due so i would second the motion uh commissioner leslie i just wanted to make a statement

When it comes to construction, it is very frustrating for not only the tenants, but the landowners as well. It can be sometimes very lengthy processes. And by the time our tenants come here to the Rent Control Board, they are fully frustrated. However, we have updated the amounts of monies that are due to tenants. And I find that this has been very thorough although some people walk away a little bit more frustrated than others. But in this case, they've gone through it very thoroughly, and they've done a great job. So that was my statement I wanted to make before we start voting on this item. Thank you.

Great, okay. Motion by Vice Chair Ambry, seconded by Commissioner Gonska. Any further discussion from anyone before we proceed to a...

Yes, I was just going to comment that construction can be very frustrating and inconvenient, but there is a difference between being what is inconvenient that kind of goes with it, with the... and being reasonable or unreasonable inconveniences. And I do find that I agree with the commissioners that this landlord did his very best and acted promptly in many, many situations. And I concur with what everyone has said so far.

OK, great. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yes.

Chair Abanoff?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Okay, the next item is 10B2, an appeal of excess rent petition P2025-04865 regarding unit 409 at 1431 Ocean Avenue. And before we proceed with the staff report, I'm gonna have to recuse myself from consideration of this appeal because this is actually, this has to do with the building that I reside in. So to maintain the integrity of the process, Vice Chair Ambriz will take over as chair for this portion of the meeting.

Okay. So the next item is an appeal of excess rent petition P2025-04865 regarding unit 408 at 1431 Ocean Avenue. May we please have the staff report?

Yes. Commissioners, tenant Jonathan Lohayem, and my apologies if I'm mispronouncing, filed a rent decrease petition alleging that his landlord had overcharged him rent because he had been charged for his sub-metered electricity. The hearing officer denied his petition because she found that the landlord had only been charging him the actual cost of the electricity as per a lawfully installed sub-meter and the lease that Mr. Loham had signed specified that he would be responsible for the cost of the electricity. The tenant has appealed the decision and again you are acting as an appellate body in this matter, therefore you should affirm it. if the decision is supported by substantial evidence, even if the board may have decided the matter differently had it been the finer of fact. Under the rent control law, a landlord is liable for excess rent if the landlord charges the tenant for a base amenity. Here, the hearing officer found that landlord provided electricity was not a base amenity of the tenancy because in the lease, Mr. Loham had agreed to pay for electricity and the amount that he was charged was based on his actual usage of electricity and the actual cost of electricity as per a lawfully installed sub-meter. Under the Charter, rent is defined as periodic payments to or for the benefit of the landlord. A tenant's payment of master meter utilities to a landlord doesn't constitute rent when it's payment of the actual cost of the electricity and the tenant's actual usage of electricity as measured by a lawfully installed submeter, because it is as if the tenant is paying the utility company through the landlord. It is not a periodic payment to the benefit of the landlord, and therefore, it is not rent. And this is consistent with state law under the California's applicable public utilities code. Mr. Lohiam argues that this conflicts with the appellate court's holding in Action Apartment versus Santa Monica Rent Control Board. But that case, as detailed in the staff report, is distinct because in that matter, the landlord wasn't charging the tenant based on a lawfully installed sub-meter for his actual usage and for the actual cost of the electricity. The landlord wasn't acting, it wasn't as if the tenant is paying the utility company through the landlord. Here, the landlord was only charging for the actual cost and the usage as verified by an audit. And Mr. Lohan didn't provide any evidence to refute that evidence. Because substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's decision, staff recommends that the board affirm it and its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Thank you for the report. Does any commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Commissioner Leslie.

So for two years, the landlord did not charge for electricity. So when he started charging, what was the response from the tenant?

Well, so I think that if I may, the question that's before you is when the when the tenant started paying rent, I'm sorry, started paying for the utility. Was the tenant paying rent? That's the question, because this is an excess rent petition. And in order to find there's excess rent, you have to find that the tenant paid rent. And the problem with the tenant's case here is that the tenant wasn't paying rent. He was paying utility as he had agreed to do so in the contract, but in doing so, he couldn't show that that was rent because the landlord was merely acting in place of like the payment would go to the landlord as if the tenant had contracted with the utility company directly. Had it been a different situation where the landlord was saying they had electricity, the tenant said that I'm going to pay for electricity in the lease, but the landlord didn't have a sub-meter, and they do something like, for example, in other situation where the master meter utility, the landlord says, well, there's four units, I'm going to split it by four. In that case, it's not the actual cost of electricity, and it's not the actual usage by the tenant. So in that situation, you are making payment to the landlord for the benefit of the landlord. That's distinct here. Here, that's not the case. That's why, because the tenant wasn't paying rent, you can't have excess rent, and why the hearing officer's decision is correct according to the law and according to the board's regulations and the Santa Monica charter.

Thank you.

Commissioner Dudek. I'd like to make a motion that we affirm the hearing officer's decision. Oh, that's what? Oh, we're still on questions? I'm sorry. I don't have any questions.

Any other commissioners have questions before I jump in the queue? So I have a question. So one of the things that was pointed out was that it was explicit in the lease that the tenant was responsible for the payment of the electricity. However, there was, as Commissioner Leslie had noted, two periods of time in which the landlord neglected or did not charge for the utility charge. So my question is, could the landlord's failure to collect the charge, even if the lease expressly states that the tenant is responsible, convert that service into a base amenity?

I mean, in short, no. That would be an issue between what the property owner and the electric company is being charged, as well as the landlord's collection of a separately charged utility. But it doesn't convert it to a base amenity attached to that tenancy, especially as would have existed at a prior date. So it doesn't alter the agreement, and it doesn't alter the base amenities associated with that unit.

OK. So I'm not seeing any slips here for a representative for the appellant, the tenant, or for the owner who would like to address the board. So unless I see any, we will close that. Does any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion. Commissioner Dudek. Yes, I'd like to make a motion that we affirm the hearing officer's decision and findings of fact and conclusions of the law and deny the appeal regarding 1431 Ocean Avenue, Unit 409.

I just have a procedural question. If I wish to make a comment, is that before or after making a second?

I think you can make a statement along with a second, if you want to state your basis, as long as it's part of actually seconding the motion.

OK, I'll jump out of the queue. Commissioner Gonska.

I'll second the motion.

And then I'd like to make a statement. Thank you. So just a few comments about this case, which I find very interesting. Although I support the motion, I'd like to say that I think that the facts in this case demonstrate that that both tenants and landlords, I think, need some more education around metered electricity and water. I think that one of the benefits of living with rent control is that you're able to predict your rent through the annual rent increase that's set each year, and additionally, the limitation on banked rent increases. In this case, the tenant was not charged for two periods of time. And I think that when a tenant is hit with a fee that they weren't necessarily expecting, as what occurred here, it can be very shocking and also hit a person's household expenses in a way that they're not able to predict. So I'm looking at this from a lens of transparency and whether or not the billing practice was good or fair. So I'm hoping that we could possibly do some more education to tenants just looking more at what the lease is stating and what the responsibilities are of the tenant so that tenants know whether or not they are responsible for the electricity and so that everyone knows that they could be hit with this type of fee, even if they haven't been charged in the past. Those are my comments. Thank you. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambres?

Yes.

Motion carries.

We'll wait for Chair Ivanov.

Okay, is there any further business before the Board?

Okay, hearing none, the August 13, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board is adjourned to its next regular meeting on Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers.