August 27, 2015 -- City Council members reached no conclusions on how to increase the availability of affordable housing in Santa Monica during a study session dedicated to the subject on Tuesday. 

Read More:
http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2015/Aug-2015/08_27_2015_Santa_Monica_Faces_Complicated_Challenge_with_Affordable_Housing_Deficit.html

August 25, 2015 -- Confronting a slew of headaches tied to Santa Monica’s growing popularity, the City Council emerged from a special retreat Sunday vowing to double down on three top problems: Congestion on car-clogged city streets, the lack of affordable housing and getting the municipal airport closed.

Read more:

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2015/Aug-2015/08_25_2015_Council_Sets_Priorities_for%20Santa_Monica.html

LANDLORD DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SECTION 8 VOUCHERS OUTLAWED

David Mark Simpson
No more “No Section 8” on rental listings in Santa Monica.

Council quickly and unanimously approved an ordinance that prohibits housing discrimination based on a tenant’s source of income, including Section 8 vouchers.

“You had asked for this ordinance because there had been some evidence both from members of the community and from city staff that work in our housing division that persons in the community were experiencing difficulty obtaining housing that seemed to be related to their source of income and that is particularly true of Section 8 tenants,” City Attorney Marsha Moutrie told council Tuesday night. “The ordinance that’s before you this evening would address that, provide a civil remedy, and would also increase the penalties in the city for housing discrimination.”

Neither federal nor California law prohibits discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders, Denise McGranahan, senior attorney at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told council.

This is because a court determined that Section 8 vouchers are not a source of income under California law.

Twelve states, nine counties and 18 cities have outlawed discrimination against Section 8 tenants.

“Section 8 is one of the key ways housing is provided to low income tenants living on fixed incomes,” McGranahan said. “Without Section 8, these tenants might otherwise live on the streets, in shelters, or double up with relatives.”
The program, which is used by 2 million people, is plagued by discrimination, McGranahan told council.

Discrimination, she said, is worst in wealthier neighborhoods like Santa Monica.

“We see the refusal to accept Section 8 as a form of tenant harassment,” she said. “Private landlords often refuse to accept Section 8, even from their existing rent control tenants even though they could get more rent from section 8 than under rent control. They say no, assuming that long-term rent control tenants will vacate rather than lose their vouchers allowing owners to increase the rent to market.”

The ordinance would not require landlords to lower their rents to accommodate those who have Section 8 vouchers.

“Housing choices are limited due to two factors: Discrimination and the fact that vouchers do not allow tenants to pay market rent,” McGranahan said. “If the city obtains increased payment standards, this proposed law would help more people. Voucher holders who are not at the top of the city’s affordable housing wait list, lose their vouchers if they cannot locate affordable housing within 90 days. Many are forced to port to other cities, which is detrimental to the city’s Section 8 program.”

This type of discrimination, she said, furthers the segregation of neighborhood.

“Studies suggest that landlords discriminate against Section 8 voucher holders as a pretext for discriminating against minorities, disabled, and families with children,” McGranahan said. “These populations are over represented in the Section 8 program, including in Santa Monica, as compared to the general population.”

Those who violate the ordinance could be forced to pay between $1,000 and $10,000.

dave@smdp.com Copyright 2014— Santa Monica Daily Press. All Rights Reserved Integration by: Business Endeavor, LLC

2015 New Laws Affecting Landlords

There are a few new laws that affect landlords that will come into effect January 1, 2015 or some of have already been in effect since this past September. The good news is that none of the laws are overly burdensome on landlords or detrimental to your income making ability. The bad news is that rent control has still not been abolished!

AB 2561 effective January 1, 2015. Backyard Plants. This new law requires a landlord to permit a tenant to participate in “personal agriculture” in portable containers approved by the landlord in a tenant’s outdoor backyard. The tenant is allowed to do ground level planting only for fruit and vegetables. NO marijuana planting for personal use is allowed.

AB 2565 effective July 1, 2015. Electronic Vehicles. Landlords must allow for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations by renters so long as they meet the electronic station requirements at the tenant’s expense. This applies to any lease, executed, renewed or extended on or after July 1, 2015. The landlord must approve the process for modification. The law does not apply to properties with less than five parking spaces and property subject to Rent Control. The law requires a tenant to maintain a $1,000,000 Lessee’s general liability insurance policy. The tenant would be required to pay for all costs prior to installation, and later for all costs of damage, maintenance, repair, removal and replacement of the charging stations.

AB 2310-Evictions Los Angeles, Long Beach, effective September 1, 2014. The law allows the city attorney of these cities to demand that a landlord evict a tenant for unlawful possession of weapons and ammunition. If there are safety concern issues, the law allows the city attorney to bring the action on behalf of the city. Prior to filing the action, the city attorney must give a landlord a thirty day notice requiring the landlord to evict their tenant. The basis for the eviction would be a arrest or warrant by a law enforcement agency for illegal possession of weapons and or the reporting of an offense at the property.

AB 2747- Security Deposits and electronic communications. Effective January 1, 2015. This law allows a landlord and a tenant to agree to use electronic communications regarding general security deposit issues. The law allows the landlord to use email for some of the requirements of a security deposit including the Right to inspect the property prior to the termination of tenancy. However, a security deposit itemization is not included in this provision. Delivery of the itemization MUST still be by Personal Service of First Class Mail.

Assembly Bill No. 60– After January 1, 2015, the Department of Motor Vehicles will issue driver licenses to individuals who do not provide a social security number on their application, but provide satisfactory proof that their presence in the U.S. is authorized under federal law. Further, DMV may also issue a license to an individual if they are unable to show proof of legal residence. The applicant may sign an affidavit attesting they are ineligible for a SSN and unable to show proof of legal residence. This applies to Landlords in that they may not use the new license to deny a prospective tenant an apartment during the screening process.

Senate Bill No. 745 – All smoke alarms sold in California after July 1, 2014 will have a non-replaceable, non-removable battery capable of powering the smoke alarm for at least 10 years. The amendment does not apply to smoke alarms that have been ordered by, or are in the inventory of an owner, managing agent, contractor, wholesaler, or retailer on or before July 1, 2014, until July 1, 2015.

1. Beginning January 1, 2015, all smoke alarms must display the date of manufacture on the device, provide a place on the device where the date of installation can be written and incorporate a hush feature to be approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal. Landlords of all residential rental units will have to change the smoke alarms to conform to Senate bill No: 745.
Senate Bill No. 612 – A tenant may notify landlords that he or she, or a household member, was a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or abuse of an elder or dependent adult, and intends to terminate the tenancy. To terminate the lease, the notification must be written and include one of the following attached to the notice: A copy of the restraining order, emergency protective order or protective order from the courts; a copy of the police report; or documentation from a qualified third party, such as a doctor.

Assembly Bill No. 10 – Minimum wage will increase to $9 per hour on July 1, 2014 and $10 per hour on January 1, 2016. Landlords may be required to pay on site managers the prevailing minimum wage.

There are also a few California Appellate court cases that have been decided this past year which impact landlords and specifically evictions. The first case Foster v. Williams (2014) 229 Cal. App. 4th, Supp. 9 gives a new statutory description of how a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit must list the person to be paid. We recommend that all of our clients list a physical address to which to pay rent to and list an individual to pay rent to NOT a Corporation or a LLC. The judges in Los Angeles and in Lancaster have determined that the person to pay rent to on a three day notice must be a natural person. Also, it is advisable to list that under the dates and times in which rent can be paid that you list Monday through Sunday, otherwise some judges will deem your notice invalid if you serve the notice on any other day than a Monday or Tuesday.

There was also a new case published the Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado (2013) 224 Cal.App 4th Supp, 2, 169 Cal. Rptr 2d 653 which has changed the requirements when filing a post foreclosure unlawful detainer action. You can no longer rely on merely having a certified copy of a trustee’s deed upon sale to prove up your case. Rather, after this ruling it is advisable to have all documents recorded in the chain of title in order to prove your case, specifically, the deed of trust, the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale and the Trustees Deed upon Sale.

Santa Monica Daily Press
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2015

BY DAVID MARK SIMPSON Daily Press Staff Writer

CITY HALL For the third fiscal year in a row, City Hall met the affordable housing goals set out by Proposition R. Affordable housing projects were finished in large numbers during fiscal year 2013-14 despite the loss of the redevelopment agency (RDA) - a major source for affordable housing in the city by the sea. Last fiscal year, developers created more affordable housing units in Santa Monica than they had in any of the previous 20 fiscal years, according to a report from city officials. And that’s just as far back as the readily available data goes. The drought is coming, however. The feast of affordable housing last year was largely a result of projects that were approved before the dissolution of the RDA in 2012. City officials are projecting that the goal will be missed this fiscal year.

Prop R, passed in 1990, requires that 30 percent of all multifamily housing completed each fiscal year be affordable and that half of all affordable housing created be for low income households. Last year, 458 multi-family units were added to Santa Monica and 257 of them (56 percent) were affordable to low-income residents. The second best year for overall affordable housing production was in 2008-09, when 248 units were created. In 2010-11, only eight affordable units were created. The percentage of low and very low income residences created was the highest since the turn of the millennium.

In 2012, in order to plug a budget shortfall, Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to dissolve every RDA in the state, including the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency. Last fiscal year, 98 percent of all affordable housing was built by nonprofit, publicly subsidized developers, according to the report from city officials. “Historically, the funding for subsidizing nonprofit developments, which have produced the majority of affordable housing, came from a Housing Trust Fund created by the Redevelopment Program,” the report said. “The dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency in February 2012 has meant the subsequent loss of funding for affordable housing.

Without a new source of funding dedicated to subsidize nonprofit affordable housing, staff anticipates significantly fewer affordable apartments being built in the future.” Only 19 percent of the 366 housing units in the pipeline are designated affordable and only 13 percent are designated for low income residents. Last fiscal year, only 13 units were approved for development and not one of them is designated affordable. Developers looking to add housing can do a number of things to satisfy affordable housing requirements. They can build affordable housing on-site or off-site. They can also pay a fee, about $30 per square foot of development that will go back into the production of affordable housing.
Last fiscal year, all developers opted to pay the fees rather than build the housing, resulting in close to $900,000 for future projects. Since 1994, 40 percent of all new housing has been designated at least moderately affordable with a quarter of all new housing being affordable to low and very low-income residents.

In November, voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have raised taxes on the sale of million dollar homes in order to pay for affordable housing. As a result, in January, council voted to cobble together a slew of different funds that will cover about what RDA would have provided over a two-year period. City officials were quick to point out that this is not a long-term solution.

SMRR WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY TO TAX PROPERTY OWNERS SO THEY CAN FUND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING (MORE VOTERS FOR THEM LESS WATER FOR US AND MORE GRIDLOCK FOR EVERYONE)!

By Hector Gonzalez
Staff Writer

January 14, 2015 -- City officials are still working to identify buildings in Santa Monica that might collapse in a major quake—the first phase of a comprehensive seismic safety program that’s been delayed as officials double-check potentially vulnerable structures against existing building permits, an official said this week.

Santa Monica’s seismic safety program, announced last February, called for officials in the City’s Building and Safety Division to inspect hundreds of residential and commercial building built under outdated earthquake standards.

In announcing the program, officials said the goal was to create a comprehensive inventory of such structures throughout the city. Based on the inventory, City Council members were expected to adopt new building regulations by this past fall.

But the process of identifying every potentially vulnerable building is taking longer than originally anticipated, said Ron Takiguchi, building officer for the Building and Safety Division.

“There is no inventory yet,” Takiguchi said Tuesday. “The inventory follows identification, after we verify records.

“To give you an example, we may identify something that looks potentially seismically hazardous, but then we look at (city) records and find that’s not the case. So we want to be sure,” Takiguchi said.

During the identification process, Takiguchi said, much of the work has focused on “soft story” residential structures — apartment buildings, townhouses and other multi-unit, wooden-framed buildings of two or more stories built atop a weak spot such as a large open garage.

Such structures are particularly vulnerable to collapse in a major quake, according to the state’s Health and Safety Code. As an example, the code cites the failure of the soft story Northridge Meadows apartment complex that collapsed in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, killing 16 residents.

Soft story structures were permitted in California prior to 1978. Across the state, tens of thousands of soft story residential buildings have never been seismically reinforced, according a report on the Association of Bay Area Government’s website.

In Santa Monica, a first round of seismic inspections completed at the end of last year identified about 2,000 soft story structures, Takiguchi said. But some potentially vulnerable properties in certain residential zones were not accessible during the first inspections, or they did not match city records or zoning maps, he said.

“In some cases, we actually went out to some of the areas and it wasn’t clear what streets to look at versus what’s on the map,” Takiguchi said.

“In other case garage doors were closed and we couldn’t verify at that time, so we want to have a second look at some of those buildings.”

Santa Monica Mayor Kevin McKeown said council members are aware of the complexities involved in identifying all the city’s potentially hazardous structures.

“We know there have been delays,” he said this week. “We haven’t forgotten about this.”

Although some work remains in identifying vulnerable buildings, officials are now nearly finished with that process, Takiguchi said this week.

“We’re close,” he said. “It’s going to be records verification at this point.”

Records verification can also be a complex process, he said.

“We take a building identified as a potentially hazardous building and we look at the building records—when the building was built, the materials that were used, any records of retrofitting that might have happened in the past, and any plans that are associated with that building’s retrofit,” said Takiguchi.

City building officials also are working with the Structural Engineering Association of California “to determine what technical standards will be applied these hazardous buildings.”

“The important point is, we want to be very comprehensive” before presenting any final reports to the City Council, said Takiguchi. “We want to make sure that we cover all that we can.”

Source: http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2015/January-2015/01_14_2015_SM_Officials_Work_to_Identify_Quake_Vulnerable_Buildings.html

Call a plumber.
Water users who fail to cut their consumption over their 2013 totals will start seeing penalties on their bill in October, which covers their August and September usage.

The ordinance, which was finalized unanimously by City Council on Tuesday night and is meant to address the current drought, is unrelated to the proposed water rate increases, which council will consider finalizing in February.

Businesses and residents will be expected to lower their consumption by 20 percent over their 2013 usage. Residents who were already doing a good job saving water in 2013 will be protected, in theory, by a threshold. Residents of single-family homes that use fewer than 16,450 gallons every two months won’t have to worry about their 2013 totals. The same is true of multi-family residents using fewer than 8,225 gallons.

Currently, 80 percent of multi-family users and 42 percent of single-family users are falling below those thresholds.

Business won’t have a threshold – they’ll be expected to hit the 20 percent reduction – in part because, given the diversity of businesses in the city, it would be too complicated to develop a reasonable threshold, Dean Kubani, manager of the Office of Sustainability and the Environment told council on Tuesday.

Still, both businesses and residents can apply for a waiver — allowing them to reduce less than 20 percent without getting hit by penalties — if they can prove they’ve done everything they can to save water, including the installation of efficient toilets and shower heads.

The proposed penalty would be $10 for every hundred cubic feet (748 gallons) of water used over the allowance per billing period. Customers who break the allowance more than seven times in a row could be required to have a flow restrictor installed and may be hit with a $10,000 civil penalty.
Councilmember Sue Himmelrich expressed concern over the idea that users who consumed more water in 2013 will have higher allowances than those who worked to save water.

“Doesn’t the way that this program is working reward people who are really wasting a lot of water?” she asked Kubani.

“We could set everything the same for everybody,” Kubani said. “I think if we tried to do that we may have 500 people here tonight to speak about it. We’re trying to achieve a 20 percent reduction in water use and by asking everybody to achieve a 20 percent reduction in water use, that’s the way we’re proposing to do it. I think there are different ways that you can do it but this seems to be pretty equitable.”

Councilmembers pointed out that a resident could have gone on vacation for two months in 2013 and therefore have allowances that would be near-impossible to achieve. Kubani said that these residents could apply for a waiver.

Many residents, particularly those of single-family homes, said that the allowances were too burdensome and that the ordinance was too much stick without enough carrot. Single-family homes use a quarter of the city’s water and half of that water is used on landscaping, city officials have said in the past.

City officials cited numerous carrots, including a free water audit — which helps residents and businesses figure out where their water is being wasted — and rebates for residents and businesses who buy drought-resistant landscaping or rain barrels.

“We’re obviously in a very serious drought and we need to do something and I know there was some discussion about perhaps postponing the implementation of what someone called the sticks versus the carrot,” said Councilmember Gleam Davis. “And the problem, of course, is that if we do that we will have months and months and months where our water usage probably won’t be reduced as much as we would like.”

Starting in April, water users will start seeing hypothetical penalties on their water bills. The actual penalties won’t start hitting until August.

dave@smdp.com

See more at: http://smdp.com/penalties-coming-water-wasters-august/144740#sthash.7TlmGwrb.dpuf