The Council Record

“the as it stands right now, 5% plus 100% of CPI allows for rents to double within eight years… if you look at a f flat 5% that results in your rent doubling in about 14 years… the proposal that council member said and I have have been proposing would result it the 60% of CPI would result in your rent doubling in 30 years instead of eight. That is significantly more manageable for our city workers…”

Context: Santamaria's core rationale for a 60%-of-CPI cap, comparing rent-doubling time horizons against the state TPA and a flat 5%.

“a fixed percentage alone will not be able to accurately be tied to the cost of living or allow for net operating income needed for a constitutionally required fair right of return… That is the reason why we say 60% of CPI and not 100% of CPI. Federal studies have shown that about 40% of CPI is already accounted for for housing and so counting it as 100% of CPI essentially would make us count the housing category twice.”

Context: Santamaria's technical justification for the 60% figure, invoking fair-return and the housing share of CPI.

“I'm not really happy with anything that links to CPI. So when I do my research on California CPI, there's absolutely nothing in the statistical basis of CPI that has anything to do with the expense loads on investment property… mortgage rates, um taxes, repairs… it's just I think uh it's an oxymoron linking to CPI as a phrase. it it is a contradiction… It's apples to oranges.”

Context: Jordan's central objection to a CPI-indexed cap, arguing CPI does not track landlord operating costs.

“I think the the cost to administer this will be crippling… I don't know where you think the additional costs are going the additional dollars are going to come from to fund this program… I don't see where you see it coming from other than sliding sideways from somebody else's uh social equity or program and service… I don't see any new revenue coming in that will carry the millions of dollars to run this.”

Context: Jordan warns the program's administrative cost will be 'crippling' to the general fund.

“the idea that this is not going to be expensive to do is doesn't seem apparent to me tonight. I spent some time with the attorneys from Santa Monica… they spend $6 million a year and they have a 24 person staff that does their rental housing and uh rent control uh program… we're going into this thing… without really a monetary study per se. We have some ideas. We have anecdotes. We have emotion. We have politics. Do we know the number of units?”

Context: Rowse's principal fiscal/feasibility objection, citing Santa Monica's program cost and the absence of a monetary study.

“it's amazing to me that we can sit up there with the hubris and say we're going to put the burden of our entire city's affordability for housing on a relatively small sector. Those people with the multifamily units per pre period of 1995… what happens in these markets when we have onerous uh landlord restrictions is you end up diminishing not only the the number of units being produced, you diminish the quality of the the units themselves…”

Context: Rowse argues rent control burdens a small pre-1995 multifamily sector and degrades supply and quality.

“this one is beloved to me because it's where I had stability growing up… And yet, it's still profitable, increased in value because it's a constrained market. And where the wealth generated in this property comes from is not from the rents. It's from the increased value of the property just by existing over time.”

Context: Sneddon's anecdotal case-study argument that rent stabilization preserves landlord profitability because wealth comes from appreciation, not rent.

“I just want to explain my no vote on that is earlier in this discussion felt like it's come to the table. But some of the comments I heard, it feels like they're just completely ignored… it felt like this is just going to get railroaded through. So if it had been a little bit more collaborative during the discussion, I might have voted yes on that.”

Context: Friedman explains his 'no' vote on the moratorium/Ellis-Act motion, citing a lack of collaboration despite his stated willingness to work across positions.

“I want to emphasize that that pause was for the benefit of the mom and pops. It doesn't benefit the tenants. … We took two and a half years pausing and that pause was for the property owners. … and that whole time tenants rents were being raised.”

Context: Sneddon argues the moratorium ('pause') is necessary because years of delay have only allowed rents to keep rising on tenants.

“this action tonight is about good governance. It is about doing policy the right way. … this is about preserving what currently exists so we can have honest, challenging … conversations about how to put together a program that truly serves Santa Barbara. Without this, … our community is at risk, all of our community.”

Context: Harmon frames the moratorium as preserving the status quo while a permanent rent-stabilization program is developed, and signals she will make or support the motion.

“I truly don't buy the allegations that if we provide some breathing room to tenants, all of a sudden landlords won't be repairing units because you weren't doing it already. This sounds more like a threat than anything else, and it is simply not good governance for us to be reacting simply to threats.”

Context: Santamaria rebuts landlord warnings that a rent freeze will reduce maintenance/repairs, citing her experience as a community organizer with deteriorated units.

“Even if you vote against the permanent rent stabilization ordinance, I do think that every one of you should at the very least support an immediate pause and breathing room for everybody so that we can craft a long-term ordinance with the care and public input that it requires.”

Context: Santamaria's rationale urging colleagues to back the temporary freeze regardless of their position on the eventual permanent ordinance, and she requests the freeze and just-cause provisions be voted separately.

“it does reduce housing supply when you put in these extra restrictions because housing units come off the market. There's not investment in new housing. … It reduces the supply. It reduces the investment. So it reduces the number of jobs that they have available.”

Context: Friedman, who says he personally had to leave Santa Barbara over rents, explains his no vote on supply-and-investment grounds tied to building-trades jobs.

“We don't have the data. We don't even know how many units we're talking about. … we haven't done the the monetary research. We haven't done the physical research that it takes to do something this incredibly impactful in a community. We haven't done it yet.”

Context: Mayor Rowse's central objection — voting to freeze rents without knowing the number of affected units, landlord expenses, or fiscal/economic effects.

“I think it's discriminatory to to one set of landlords out of all the different landlords in this town … this has never worked anywhere. … I spent some time with the the lawyers in Santa Monica. They spend $6 million a year running their program in the same size city.”

Context: Rowse argues the freeze unfairly targets one sector (pre-1995, Costa-Hawkins-eligible stock) and cites Santa Monica's program cost as evidence rent control is costly and ineffective.

“this particular ordinance um the say today we we don't think it will have a significant cost or staffing impact. It'll be on a complaint basis … that said going forward a more comprehensive rent program will obviously need more resources.”

Context: McAdoo responds to Jordan's request to anticipate costs, distinguishing the low-cost complaint-based moratorium from the resource-intensive permanent program (and floats using the business-license database as a rental registry).

“So, I'm not saying we're going to get sued. I'm say we might. I've been told by my attorney this isn't a taking. And uh okay, so taking's got a legal definition. I'm certainly not an attorney, but man, if it it walks and talks like a duck. I mean that is, you know, we're we're basically taking this your properties and freezing them until we decide what to do with them. And I just think that is not responsible.”

Context: Mayor Rowse explaining his no vote on the temporary rent-increase moratorium (January 13, 2026): despite counsel's advice that the freeze is not a taking, he argues it functions like one — freezing owners' property 'until we decide what to do with them.'

“It's a major economic decision for many of for many in the small business sector, and it's broadly applied without regard to individual circumstances or or consideration. … the rent freeze ordinance represents a strong arm top-down approach, rather than a sincere attempt at approaching the issue with mutual respect and trust for the future of our rental community. Remember that a lot of the rent spikes are the result of government action, not about individual landlord greed. … When 1482 came down the pike, it was precisely when we started spiking rents.”

Context: Mayor Rowse argues against adopting the moratorium, framing it as a broad economic decision and claiming rent spikes follow government action like AB 1482.

“I would ask that we take a pause on this to really understand even the scope of what we're talking about. We do not have the facts. We do not have the data, the number of units, some confusion over what an ADU is, what a granny unit is … And I think the administrative costs of this are so far beyond what we've kind of casually chatted about.”

Context: Rowse urges colleagues to delay rather than adopt, asserting the City lacks data on affected units and has underestimated administrative costs.

“There's a reason why Santa Monica spends $6 million a year. I don't know if we're going to spend that kind of dough, but the other side of the coin is, they're the same same size agency, why are they doing that?”

Context: Rowse cites Santa Monica's roughly $6M annual rent-program cost as a benchmark for what Santa Barbara may face.

“this very temporary moratorium on increases. I don't really want to call it a rent freeze because we're not freezing rents as has happened in the past. This is just a very temporary moratorium on increases while we can collect and establish all of these really meaningful good ideas to be able to protect the small local small-scale property owners and tenants.”

Context: Mayor Pro Tem Sneddon distinguishes the measure from a 'rent freeze,' framing it as a temporary pause on increases pending a permanent program.

“I've been meeting with many housing providers … and have really great ideas including … maybe having a housing provider designation for those who are staying below the 120 AMI or are demonstrating that they're not raising to the maximum. … there could be either maybe some form of financial incentive for that, maybe low interest loans or … a way to address the really real … maintenance costs for the small scale local housing provider.”

Context: Sneddon floats incentives (low-interest loans, a 'housing provider' designation) for small landlords who stay below 120% AMI, acknowledging their maintenance costs.

“I agree that we have more our staff has more information to gather about our housing stock, and that's exactly where our rental registry will come in. … the overall larger rent stabilization ordinance, which is not what we're discussing today … this is something that has been shown to work in Alameda, Pasadena, and other cities.”

Context: Harmon responds to Rowse's data concern by pointing to the planned rental registry and citing other California cities as evidence rent stabilization works.

“this is a temporary increase, and it ends the second that we have a permanent rent stabilization ordinance. … the we're going to sue you threats are getting old … nobody here is seizing property. We are implementing regulations on a business, and we are doing that to stabilize the community.”

Context: Harmon rebuts the 'no off-ramp' and takings arguments, framing the moratorium as temporary regulation of a business rather than seizure of property.

“staff didn't really have anything to hand out. We were pushed towards going to the resources that the rental housing … mediation task force offers, which is not anything that's required by either party, so it didn't really apply when somebody's getting illegal notices and forced out of an apartment … by eviction notices and construction. … your problem as an individual is not our problem as a city necessarily. It has to grow to be a problem of the people against somebody … So I think there's work to do there.”

Context: Jordan, who pulled the item, warns that the ordinance leaves an enforcement gap because the City can only act when an individual tenant's problem escalates to a broader public harm.

“my concern is just this is um potentially, I guess, at this time at least, the tip of the iceberg in a black hole of uh financial resources… without having people being able to make a decision based on the entire scope of the financial commitment even before we get to a successful rent stabilization ordinance.”

Context: Jordan, who pulled the item, explains his refusal to commit funds without knowing the total financial scope of the program.

“A lot of municipalities who've done this work have learned from the work, and I will say have absorbed increasing costs because of what they did not anticipate on the front end. So, ordinance adoption is one part of the process, but what you include in that ordinance impacts every single step of implementation, from the petition process to the appeals process… even the number of exemptions, if you have no exemptions outside of state law, that creates more petitions, which creates more staffing capacity needed.”

Context: Andersen explains why technical consulting is needed, warning that ordinance design choices drive downstream administrative and staffing costs.

“everything has a ripple effect, and I think having that level of expertise, I will say is not just a comfort place. It's necessary for us to do the work in a way that's as most cost efficient as possible for the City of Santa Barbara given our financial circumstances.”

Context: Andersen answers Santamaria's question on why the consultant is a cost-effective approach despite the expense.

“I am usually very apprehensive of consultants because it's it's always, right? It's just like this black hole of just like we just throw money… but also, I I really want to recognize that staff is doing everything possible to put as little work on that consultant. And if it's only technical support, then the way I'm seeing this is this is a way to support you all because this ordinance, you were already given direction by Council to complete this ordinance and develop this program.”

Context: Santamaria explains her support for funding the consultant as backstop technical support for already-directed staff work.

“We could have done it for free, but we wouldn't have done it well, um and there would have been a lot of questions that we didn't think to even ask and a lot of information that we didn't have… I don't love spending money now, either, but this is um money that's imperative, I believe, that we spend.”

Context: Harmon supports the spend, framing it as inherent to doing the ordinance thoroughly rather than quickly.

“I will not be supporting this. The the timeline and compression is self-imposed by our freeze… I don't think this is a adequate kind of money that you're going to need to get the kind of information to craft something that, you know, I oppose anyway, but I don't know that it would even work. It's almost impossible to to glean that kind of information out of the community, the mixture of housing we have and whatnot.”

Context: Rowse states his opposition, tying the rushed timeline to the rent freeze and doubting the data can even be gathered.

“the original cost proposal was over $80,000. You see before you today a $65,000 agreement. Um it is specific to data collection and analysis as relates to total impacted units under a potential ordinance… they are assisting us with um looking at legal and administrative cost implications of implementing a rent stabilization program.”

Context: Andersen describes the narrowed RSG scope and its core deliverables when Jordan questions why an outside consultant is needed.

“And the reason for 60% of CPI is that CPI in itself 40% of that is already housing. And so we don't want to count housing twice. And that is what we would be doing if we put it at 100% of CPI. … We talk a lot about the Santa Barbara way and it needs to be tailored more to our living expenses.”

Context: Santamaria states her rationale while making the formal motion to set the rent cap at 60% of CPI.

“I knew that the 60% was the lowest number that was legally defensible from the research and … fully expected that that number would be negotiated upward … but something had to go in there as a placeholder.”

Context: Sneddon explains, responding to Friedman, that the 60% figure in the earlier sample ordinance was a placeholder she expected to be negotiated higher.

“I won't be supporting the motion only because with 1482, what we learned was landlords felt compelled to go to the whatever the floor was or what the cap was … immediately to protect themselves. And that's how we ended up with that … hyperinflationary rent even from landlords that didn't raise every year.”

Context: Rowse explains his 'no' vote on the 60% CPI / 3% cap, arguing caps induce landlords to take the maximum every year.

“you're framing your percentage off of CPI on a frame that doesn't take into account what could or couldn't be … escalating costs of a particular category that is often times unique to a property owner and not to the general public.”

Context: Jordan presses the RSG consultants on why CPI (a consumer index) is used as the cap basis when landlord cost categories like commercial insurance and water rates diverge from CPI.

“generally if … you have a very low rent cap, it could cause for … more petitions for fair returns from housing providers.”

Context: RSG consultant flags, during the rent-limits presentation, the fiscal/administrative trade-off that low caps drive more fair-return petitions.

“Now the fun part which keeps all the attorneys really busy is that there's no actual legal definition of fair return. … the one most recognized way … is a maintenance of net operating income or NOI approach which … looks at … the income and expenses of … rental property and making sure that they're being able to maintain like a level of profit over time and they're constitutionally … entitled to that.”

Context: RSG defines 'fair return' for the Mayor, explaining the NOI-maintenance standard and that denying it is a regulatory taking.

“I feel a little bit like I'm … making a decision in the void to be frank around numbers and it feels a little bit like guesswork which I'm struggling with. … I would love if possible to see a chart for maybe the last 10 years that would identify specifically what CPI would have been in each of the last 10 years and to benchmark what 60% 75% and 100% would have been.”

Context: Harmon, while supporting the motion, concedes the council is voting on the cap number without seeing the underlying CPI data and requests a historical chart.

“One of the areas for me is around vacancy deontrol [decontrol] specifically. … the minute that we move out, I have real concern that rent prices are going to shoot up. … They're likely to look at … all families with school-aged children … and say you're probably going to be here for 10 years. you're no longer the kind of tenant that we want to rent to.”

Context: Harmon raises an 'intellectually honest' concern that vacancy decontrol plus long-tenancy incentives could lead landlords to screen out families and seniors.

“There are a couple things that that come to mind, not in no particular order. One would be uh the potential litigation or the potential operating cost of the city for the rent stabilization ordinance.”

Context: Answering Councilmember Friedman's question about budget unknowns not accounted for in the general-fund reserves.

“So, we know that there's active litigation. So, to pay for that, as well as a potential cost of implementing a program if council were to approve that, um there would be a fee component to that program, I believe, but I it most certainly probably would not be fully cost recoverable.”

Context: Staff explaining that an eventual rent stabilization program would carry administrative costs only partly offset by program fees.

“Neither of those programs are approved by council at this time. So, it is not appropriate to budget for the financial impact of those ordinances”

Context: Staff's rationale for excluding rent-stabilization costs from the FY2027 budget — the ordinance is not yet council-approved.

“are there any unknowns in terms of um expenditures uh that could that are not cooked into the budget or any potential revenues that are in there that could either exacerbate and go us further uh dip further into the emergency reserves or build them that are not accounted for in any of the of the budget.”

Context: Friedman's question prompting staff to name the rent stabilization ordinance as an un-budgeted fiscal risk.

“So um I won't be supporting this. … we are currently in our emergency reserves in the city and uh, we haven't even had an emergency yet. And so we're scrambling to try to find ways and now it appears we're going to be perhaps reducing some of the services that we would be able to provide through our flexible housing fund. And this lawsuit uh, was avoidable 100%. It could have been done a different way that would have avoided litigation.”

Context: Friedman explains his no vote on funding the rent-stabilization litigation defense, calling the lawsuit avoidable and warning it drains emergency reserves and the flexible housing fund.

“if you do a back of a napkin math on the reserves, where we are now and where we should be, it's probably something like, uh, $3 million a year for 15 years just to get back to where we should be. … it's not really … about where it comes from. It's just about continuing to dig a hole um in our available dollars for anything. And um for that reason … I won't won't support this either.”

Context: Jordan opposes the appropriation, framing the litigation cost as compounding an already severe reserve shortfall.

“I can say this pretty fairly conf if we have to go all the way with the litigation and then lose and battle that it would most likely be more than $400,000.”

Context: Doimas confirms to Jordan that the $400,000 is only an estimate and that a full trial loss, with adversary attorney-fee exposure, would likely exceed it.

“we are proposing to use some of the unallocated balance in the basically the funds from measure I sales tax that have gone into the flexible housing fund to cover the litigation costs as this is related to uh the rent stabilization program development and and rent moratorium. So that … money would then go back to replenish the reserves consistent with policy.”

Context: McAdoo explains the funding source: reserves backfilled from the Measure I flexible housing fund, tying the litigation cost directly to the rent stabilization program and moratorium.

“the same corporate landlord lobby who couldn't afford relocation assistance and can't afford to put off a single rent increase somehow has the money to sue us. … it is my belief that we need to equip our city attorney's office with the tools that they need to defend us.”

Context: Santamaria's rationale for supporting the litigation funding, characterizing the plaintiffs as a corporate-landlord lobby.

“why aren't we hearing this in closed session? It is clear that this is turning into a political discussion and we can't speak freely. … even by the comments about whether this was preventable or meritless … is um reference to discussions within close session and I don't think that's appropriate.”

Context: Sneddon objects that the litigation-funding item is becoming a political debate touching closed-session strategy, the concern that ultimately drives the continuance.

“I will support um this item when it comes back before us. … these are incredibly complex areas of law and policy that we are wading into. And I think that it is vitally important that we see these questions through um to their end. And that means investing in the conversation whether we're talking about it from a policy perspective or uh through the legal lens.”

Context: Harmon confirms a brief delay causes no litigation harm and signals she will support the appropriation when it returns.

“this is one of these things that is uh was we put ourselves in this position was self-inflicted … I agree with Mr. Jordan and Mr. [Friedman] and not support but I'm going to support the motion because we're stuck in this situation. We're going to need to have this authority to go forward and uh I don't see any reason to continue this.”

Context: Rowse calls the litigation a self-inflicted predicament but says the city is now stuck needing the funding authority, and opposes continuing the item.

“the elephant in the room for me when it comes to policy is our council's commitment to moving forward with the rent stabilization program I believe strongly that that program is a good thing. But or maybe and the research says that the degree to which rent stabilization is effective at stabilizing communities over time is in direct relation to our ability to incentivize, lower the cost of, and expedite housing production at the same time.”

Context: Harmon opens her in-lieu fee deliberation by tying her position to the council's in-progress rent stabilization program and conditioning that program's effectiveness on housing production.

“It's that second leg of the three-legged stool of ameliorating our housing crisis. … Rent stabilization is one leg. Housing production and incentivizing it is another.”

Context: Harmon characterizes rent stabilization as one of three interdependent 'legs' (the others being housing production/incentives) in the council's housing-crisis strategy.

“setting fees at the highest legally defensible amount simply doesn't reflect the kind of pro-[housing] policies we need to implement to make our stabilization program work now while at the same time building towards solving the crisis in the long term.”

Context: Harmon argues against maximizing in-lieu fees, framing lower fees as necessary to make the rent stabilization program work by supporting housing production.

“essentially all of the money that we are considering allocating in fiscal year 27 is already spoken for and we have a rent stabilization ordinance that is coming before us. It's going to happen and we need… funding for the startup costs. The program and the fees that we will collect… will eventually kick in and we'll be able to sustain the program, but in the beginning we're going to need startup money.”

Context: Santamaria warns during the mid-cycle budget discussion that FY27 funds are largely committed while the forthcoming rent stabilization program needs startup money before its fees can sustain it.

“if we are not providing the adequate funding to get this program properly off the ground and to function the way it's intended, we're only going to create more costs for the city. So, I very much want to highlight that we need to do some serious work on identifying startup money for the rent stabilization ordinance”

Context: Santamaria argues that underfunding the program at launch will generate larger downstream costs for the City.

“there is a h 100,000 remaining which I mean is usable money towards um rental stabilization ordinance or to other things.”

Context: Sneddon, reconciling the Flexible Housing Fund line items, identifies roughly $100,000 unallocated that could be applied to the rent stabilization ordinance.

“1 million for uh the operations of [Casa Esperanza]. Uh and then uh $400,000 that the council just approved uh for uh for attorney services to defend the rent stabilization ordinance.”

Context: Answering Friedman on FY27 Flexible Housing Fund uses, Glusk confirms $400,000 going to legal defense of the rent stabilization ordinance.

“There's also startup costs for um implementation of the rent stabilization program.… There's also a fee study that we will be conducting to support the rent stabilizations program and measure I is supporting um the rent stabilization program as well.”

Context: In the staff budget presentation, Glusk identifies startup costs, a supporting fee study, and Measure I funding tied to the rent stabilization program.

“does that also include the item from today on the 300,000 that we transferred out um for the litigation?”

Context: Friedman probes whether the displayed Flexible Housing Fund figures already account for the litigation transfer approved that day.

“using an estimated cost of approximately $154 per covered unit and an estimated 13,000 covered units in the city. Um that equates to an estimated program cost of approximately $2 million annually. Um, so it's important to note here that actual program costs may vary depending on the final ordinance structure and the level of administrative … services and oversight needed to carry out the ordinance as directed by city council.”

Context: RSG presenting its preliminary estimate of the annual cost to administer the rent stabilization program.

“Four of the five peer jurisdictions review use formulas ranging from approximately 70% to 100% of CPI generally paired with fixed caps between three and 5%. Research and peer jurisdiction experience suggests that lower rent caps may in some cases increase reliance on the petition process where landlords believe allowable increases do not keep pace with operating costs or provide a reasonable return.”

Context: RSG summarizing peer rent-cap formulas and the feasibility risks of setting a cap below market peers in response to council's request to study lower caps.

“comparing the mobile home park rent ordinance to the one that we're crafting right now is truly apples to oranges. They do not have vacancy decontrol. We do and there is a reason why they have a higher rent cap because they cannot adjust all the way to market rates the way that all of the units that would be covered under the rent stabilization ordinance would.”

Context: Santamaria's central rationale for rejecting the staff-suggested 75% CPI mobile-home cap and keeping the lower 60% CPI cap, hinging on the presence of vacancy decontrol in the new ordinance.

“for the rent cap formula, I am going through and seeing our 40 plus year old mobile home rent cap ordinance. It is not like our rent stabilization ordinance that we are crafting today. … They need a higher rent cap because they cannot bring their units or their lots up to market rate. … I would encourage option B. … I don't see necessarily new data for changing the rent cap formula.”

Context: Santamaria's formal comment urging no change to the 60% CPI / 3% cap, calling it and the Section 8 exemption the issues she feels strongest about because 'there are real people on the literal chopping block.'

“when I first read this, I thought, oh, it's 75% for the mobile home park and that's a similar thing. But then realizing that the mobile home park ordinance is rent control. It isn't vacancy decontrol. So it it creates that sort of false equivalence that these are addressing the same issue. So, um, on that one, I would just keep moving forward as we've been doing.”

Context: Sneddon endorsing maintaining the existing rent-cap direction, framing the mobile-home 75% cap as a 'false equivalence' because it is hard rent control without vacancy decontrol.

“I think it's a train wreck both for landlords and tenants in the long run. … by looking at the details in the report we saw today, if we carry these out, I think we're very much underestimating the costs of carrying this out. … We haven't done a f we've got a financial analysis of what it is from one side, but not from the other. … we've pretty much put a very chilled atmosphere out there in the business of being a landlord.”

Context: Mayor Rowse's lone-dissent closing comment opposing the direction, asserting the program costs are underestimated and that the fiscal analysis examined only one side.

“in terms of the examples, 60% of the change of CPI is not the majority of rent stabilization programs throughout California or the nation. So, I think there was a reference that it was and it was best practice and it's and that's not the case from the research nor the research presented in the staff report.”

Context: Staff's closing correction of the record, rebutting the suggestion that a 60% CPI cap is the majority approach or 'best practice.'

“we tend to see the longer standing ordinances Santa Monica, Berkeley, um those that have been around for a long time have significantly built out processes um for both tenants and landlords um to offer services. They have staff around 22 to 25 um specific to the rent stabilization program.”

Context: Staff explaining to Mayor Rowse why Santa Monica spends ~$6M/yr (three times Santa Barbara's ~$2M estimate) on its rent program.

“this is a really exciting opportunity for us to provide protections that did not exist before and to preserve the stability and the integrity of this community. And so I I want to take us out of any if anybody is in the mentality of like fear, oh lawsuits, oh money, like you know, we're we are truly doing a community benefit that has been in progress for decades.”

Context: Santamaria's framing opening remarks, explicitly dismissing concerns about litigation and cost as 'fear' before launching her amendment requests.

“I think this is going to cause some issues where property owners are essentially double dipping because then you can raise your rents on which what we allow the base rent and 6% CPI up to 3%. then you can come in and do capital improvements and submit a different petition to start passing on the cost for one another one project and then a different project.”

Context: Santamaria argues the separate capital-improvement pass-through petition lets owners 'double dip' and should be folded into the fair-return petition.

“this is a key area where RSG was advising us based on other rent stabilization programs to actually separate it out. Um, given the rent cap formula adjustment being 60% of CPI and and no exceptions for small property owners, the capital improvement petition process is their pathway to recoup some of those cost when they don't they're not operating, you know, multiple units and multiple properties across the city.”

Context: Staff, relying on RSG consultant advice, defends keeping a separate capital petition as the principal cost-recovery path for small landlords under a 60%-of-CPI cap with no small-owner exemption.

“the presumption is that whatever the landlord was charging at on the base rent was a fair return at the time because there was no restriction on that rent. So that was market rent at the time and whatever net operating income they were receiving from the operation that was a fair return to them. So that that's the assumption that underlies that approach.”

Context: Hentschke explains the constitutional fair-return mechanism: the maintenance-of-net-operating-income standard presumes the 2025 base-year NOI was already a fair return.

“I'm a little bit confused on the insistence on not exempting deed restricted housing. These units are already price controlled and in a lot of ways deed restricted housing are the only units that actually have vacancy control… coupled with the fact that there's constitutional issues such that the other jurisdictions don't even enforce the rent control ordinances on deed restricted units. I we're like fighting over something that just doesn't I don't understand it and it seems to add a lot of complexity for our affordable housing providers who are just trying so hard to survive”

Context: Harmon breaks with Santamaria, arguing the push to regulate already-covenanted deed-restricted units adds complexity for affordable-housing providers with no real benefit.

“regarding the section 8 and not exempting it, I still think that's very misguided… [reading Rob Pearson] you are assured with section 8 that the tenant is only paying 30% of their income as rent. It's an easy win all around and I see no downside. It will also promote administrative ease for all tenants, landlords, city staff, and housing authority staff by not having to juggle two payment limits. Further, HUD annually sets the fair market rents for the section 8 program, and it historically lags actual market rents.”

Context: Friedman, opposed to the program, reads former 35-year Housing Authority director Rob Pearson's email urging explicit Section 8 and deed-restricted exemptions.

“What are we spending a whole bunch of money on? The RSO… Not only have we spent a bunch of money on it so far, the projected amount of money we're going to spend is monster. I'm not in favor of the program and we're already in a lawsuit that we've had to do because of the rent freeze when we've had to allocate $400,000.”

Context: During the earlier FY budget discussion, Rowse cites the rent stabilization program's projected costs and the $400,000 rent-freeze lawsuit as a major expense, stating his opposition.

“generally when you have a rent board that has more regulatory authority, it's a a much more um expensive program to administer and it was we believed the direction of the council to have a rent board that was primarily adjudicatory and advisory in its capacity.”

Context: Responding to Santamaria's push for a regulatory rent board, Hentschke warns that a more powerful board materially raises administration costs.

“The community has been heard. We are not debating for or against rent stabilization. Community direction is clear. Council direction is clear. This is moving forward. And now we are working to refine the ordinance to create a program that can hopefully meet expectations and objectives.”

Context: Opening the July 28 hearing on the public-comment summary and final ordinance amendments, Andersen frames the meeting's premise: the for-or-against debate is over.

“we are currently seeking cost proposals for a third party fee study. We are estimating these costs to be between $35 and $50,000 and that includes a 12-week timeline to complete that study.”

Context: Explaining that the program's fee structure will be set later by separate resolution, Andersen discloses the city is only now soliciting a third-party fee study.

“requiring every unit to register may push some owners of unpermitted or non-conforming units such as unpermitted ADUs or garage conversions to end a ten[anc]y rather than register and expose themselves to code enforcement. In other words, a registry meant to protect tenants could for a narrow set of units put those same tenants at risk of dis displacement.”

Context: Presenting the open question of whether the rental registry must cover all units, Andersen relays staff's warning about unpermitted units.

“staff has gone to incredible length and a lot of efforts to do this and put this together. And some of the comments made tonight, some of the invective, some of the negativity about motivations or competence are really out of place and unfortunate and shouldn't be happening here. Staff is working their butt off to do this. … being a bully is not the way to get things done.”

Context: Before deliberation begins, Rowse rebukes the tone of the evening's public comment toward city staff.

“for what amounts to essentially very little additional price protection, we meaningfully increase the risk that one ongoing source of funding to build that capital Affordable housing, the exact kind of housing that we need and want[,] dries up.”

Context: Harmon — alone on the council — argues for exempting deed-restricted affordable housing, warning the RSO could choke off the residual-receipts loan repayments that fund new affordable units.

“With that being said, uh the majority, you're going to do what you're going to do and uh you have a lot of people behind you. There's a lot of people that don't support it, but and that's the way that's the way elections work and I'm fine with that.”

Context: Friedman, in the minority, explains he largely stopped engaging after the April 7 cap vote landed at 60% of CPI despite signals the number could move.

“I really want to for us to narrow the scope of the exemptions because every exemption for one type of provider is leaving hundreds of tenants unprotected. And so I don't want to leave in higher ed. I don't want to leave higher ed staff or students unprotected.”

Context: Arguing against exemptions for higher-education and Section 8 housing, Santamaria states her blanket principle on coverage.

“We do not want to present to you an ordinance … recommended for adoption that we think won't withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

Context: After council direction on capital-improvement pass-through limits, Hentschke cautions that several amendments need constitutional vetting before the final draft returns.

“Practically speaking, one of the things that has been weighing on me very heavily is there's the drafting of the ordinance, which I'm so glad that we're we're so focused on the the smallest words. That's really great. And there's this huge cavernous gulf between what we're talking about and how we're actually going to implement this program. And I have no idea how we're going to do that. And I to me that is where I'm what keeps me up at night is how we actually do this.”

Context: Responding to staff's question about phasing the all-units rental registry, Harmon voices her core worry about the program.

“What I want to advise is precluding a a landlord from obtaining a capital pass through because of their corporate status is going to put you smack dab into a constitutional argument.”

Context: As council pushes to deny capital-improvement pass-throughs to corporate and large owners, Hentschke warns the line cannot be drawn by owner identity.

“at full implementation staff is anticipating 7 to nine full-time equivalent positions and total annual budget expenditures of $2 to $2.4 $4 million. That is based on the ordinance as introduced and on the experience of comparable California jurisdictions. … First, the earlier estimate estimate presented to council will rise. The $2 million total and the $154 per unit figure predate council's direction to extend the registry citywide and to narrow the exemptions along with incorporating the cost for petitions.”

Context: Presenting the introduction draft, Andersen updates the program's cost: the $2 million / $154-per-unit estimate that has anchored the debate since May is obsolete.

“Third, fees cover most, not all. The two-tier struct fee two-tier fee structure, excuse me, is expected to cover most annual operating costs, but full cost recovery is not anticipated in the early years, if at all. It's important for us to highlight that no program in the state of California has reached full cost recovery. So, staff is recommending that measure I bridges that gap um by a declining amount as the program matures and stabilizes.”

Context: Closing the cost section of the staff presentation, Andersen explains why the registry fee will not fund the program on its own.

“I will admit that's less straightforward than I thought it was. I thought it was a calcul so an economist has to be involved. … that's more complicated than I thought it was.”

Context: After Hentschke explains that a fair-return petition turns on a rebuttable MNOI presumption and economist testimony rather than a lookup formula, the ordinance's co-author reacts.

“Um RSG calculated for us is about $27,000 from program staff time, technical consultation, the hearing officer time, and additional legal support for the fair return petition process. And the capital improvement petition process is approximately $13,950.”

Context: Answering Friedman's question about what a petition actually costs to process, Andersen cites RSG's per-petition estimates — costs the July 28 direction folds into the registry fee.

“we're we're basically being asked tonight uh my colleagues up here is to adopt a program that either meets the revenue generation and so has a lower level of service which is going to create a lot of issues. um or we adopt a program that meets the expectations but then there's going to be a large general fund subsidy because of that 80%. So the two choices before us.”

Context: Having established with staff that 80% fee compliance on a $2.4 million budget leaves about half a million dollars a year to the general fund, Friedman frames the decision.

“I'm curious about what it would look like if we brought back the fee study before we adopt the ordinance. … I've heard from both property owners and tenants, you know, everybody wants to know how much it's going to cost them before we adopt the ordinance.”

Context: Near the end of council questions, the ordinance's lead sponsor asks whether adoption could wait for the fee study.

“there is absolutely no way we would implement by Jul January 1st if we wait till after the fee study comes back.”

Context: Responding to Santamaria's suggestion to bring the fee study back before adoption, McAdoo states the trade-off between knowing the cost and keeping the launch date.

“Uh the exemption for deed restricted affordable units and the exemption for housing choice voucher tendencies [tenancies] are critical to my support for this ordinance. Um to me, those two exemptions are a red line.”

Context: Opening deliberations after the recess, Harmon states the condition of her vote.

“That said, I do continue to have um sort of a fundamental overarching concern here that we are separating the drafting of this ordinance from the development of our understanding of how it's going to be implemented. Truthfully, that bifurcation does undermine my confidence in my own understanding of what I'm voting for.”

Context: Harmon, who will vote yes, explains the reservation she carries into the vote.

“it is really difficult for any one of us no matter how much we are champions of this ordinance to go to someone and say actually I don't know how much you're going to pay for this I used to be able to tell people right it was 154 that we estimated and so that unknown wasn't really an unknown. We at least had an estimate. And now that we don't have an estimate as to how much it's going to be per unit, per year is it's a it's a harder cell [sell]. It just is.”

Context: In deliberation, the lead sponsor describes the effect of staff's cost update on her ability to explain the program to constituents.

“I think to be clear, we need clear direction. Like if we can't just do the fee study without having clear direction on what's exempted, what you want included. So we need to have that direction from count[cil] and every time we come it has changed and I I and we have added more things. So this we can't just come back and start doing a fee study like we need direction from council.”

Context: Interrupting Santamaria's suggestion to pair adoption with the fee study, McAdoo explains why the study has not started.

“There is no case law that says that it is um preempted. There's no case law says that it is not preempted. There is a risk if you include it. If you want to exclude it, we only included it because we thought the council wanted the broadest possible coverage.”

Context: Asked by Santamaria whether covering corporate-owned single-family homes conflicts with Costa-Hawkins, Hentschke describes the legal exposure of a provision present since the June 10 draft.

“And so I'm know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this, but I I think going at a 3% cap that makes it just so that for the first year we are not dealing with fair rate petition calculations and complications and understanding that this is an iterative uh process that a rent board will weigh in on. will have data, rental registry, um that I'd be okay with that, too.”

Context: During deliberation, the ordinance's co-sponsor suggests a flat 3% cap for the first year in place of 60% of CPI, citing the complexity of fair-return petitions she had just learned about.

“what I understood from tonight's meeting is how much far more complicated that is and expensive than I had previously understood. I thought it was a formula. You enter the numbers into the formula and that's how it was a little bit presented before. So tonight is sort of a a very different understanding for me than anything as I've understood it up until now.”

Context: Clarifying her 3% suggestion for Harmon and counsel, Sneddon explains what changed her view.

“most importantly, I mean, you can Google this yourself, a freeze with no ROI um process has a shelf life, and we're at the end of that shelf life. You now have landlords out there who are going on the almost two years without any rent increase option at all.”

Context: Explaining why he seconded Harmon's motion to force a vote he would oppose, Jordan warns that the moratorium's legal footing is running out.

“Was there a financial model that justifies 60% versus 3%. or was it just what we could legally get away with … going forward with this ordinance without even knowing what the base costs are for sure without this fee study isn't something that is good practice to begin with … this is not a very proud moment for this council.”

Context: Closing deliberation before the votes, Rowse reacts to the last-minute 3% suggestion and the missing fee study.

“the clarification is you're actually not introducing the ordinance tonight. You this is this is you're directing us to come back to reintroduce the ordinance next week in the form that it is that that gets landed on tonight. So I think you're giving direction for the final draft of the ordinance.”

Context: Answering Friedman's question whether splitting the votes amounts to a reconsideration, McAdoo clarifies the legal status of the evening's votes.

“Right now, there are 1,518 voucher holders on section on the section 8 waiting list in the city of Santa Barbara. That's 1,518 people who deeply need this subsidy who cannot find a unit that will accept their voucher. And the shocking thing about that number is that it doesn't even come close to actually reflecting the real urgency of the need. New applications for housing vouchers have been closed in this city since June of 2023.”

Context: Opening council deliberation after public comment, Harmon explains why the Section 8 exemption matters to her, citing the Housing Authority's closed waiting list.

“Practically speaking, layering more bureaucracy on top of what already exists does almost nothing to improve habitability while it does quite a lot to disincentivize landlords from participating in the program altogether. … It will be cold comfort to the voucher holder that that same apartment, now $4,000 a month, no subsidy accepted, is only going to go up by $81 next year. It will be cold comfort because that tenant just won't be there at all. The risk is profound and it is not one that I am willing to take.”

Context: Harmon's core argument against covering Section 8 tenancies: added RSO complexity drives landlords out of the voucher program, and a capped rent is no substitute for the subsidy.

“very critically in the background of this conversation is the expiration of the tenant rent increase moratorum [moratorium]. Every day that we do not pass this ordinance, we increase the city's risk. We increase the city's litigation exposure and we also increase the risk that the moratorum [moratorium] will somehow lift with tenants bearing that consequence. I don't see any justification for those risks. We all know this ordinance will need to be shaped and molded in the months and years to come. Pressing pause now, even for a few weeks, is a gamble with no justifiable upside.”

Context: Closing her remarks, Harmon ties passage tonight to the rent-increase moratorium's expiration and the city's litigation exposure, and says the ordinance will be revised after it passes.

“I just want to correct some things for the record. The 1,500 the the the folks on the wait list, that's not a wait list waiting for a unit because landlords won't give it to them because they have a secondary voucher. Those are people waiting for a voucher and the housing authority doesn't have the money to issue those vouchers because we've seen cuts from the federal government. … Landlords want to participate. The data on the housing authority dashboard is 91.96% of vouchers are being used.”

Context: Santamaria rebuts Harmon's waiting-list argument with Housing Authority dashboard data, reframing the 1,500 as people waiting for vouchers rather than for landlords.

“There is zero data that shows that inclusion or partial inclusion of deedrestricted [deed-restricted] affordable housing section 8 voucher holder tenants is going to diminish the participation. The data shows otherwise. Again, San Francisco has an ordinance like what we're trying to propose today. And it's not decreasing their usage of the vouchers. There's only 11 out there.”

Context: Continuing her rebuttal, Santamaria asserts there is no evidence that covering Section 8 tenants reduces landlord participation and cites San Francisco as the model.

“One of the conversation or some of the conversations I've been having with property owners is allowing them to consider the capital improvements they made since December 16 of 2025 to be eligible for pass through because during the rent freeze that those are the ones that you're making, right? You're making the ne only the necessary things … We want to allow a property owner to recoup some at least some of those costs for those necessary repairs. So, I do think it would be important that we clarify when a capital improvement um is eligible for pass through.”

Context: Santamaria raises owner-side fixes: letting capital improvements made during the rent freeze qualify for pass-through, and clarifying when a capital improvement is eligible.

“the cost is a really big thing and I know that we don't have our fee study yet. The last number we had heard was it was roughly $154 per unit per year. That number is subject to change. But I also want us to clarify that I think the numbers that were cited last week, I don't know how accurate they were. So, I know I know staff mentioned something about a couple like 20-ish thousand dollars for some things, but I don't think we know those numbers yet. So, I just want to clarify that these are not known numbers that we should be attaching ourselves to. … one of the things that I've seen in other cities is the combination of the capital improvement pass through petitions and the fair rate of return petitions into one.”

Context: Santamaria questions the per-petition cost figures staff cited on September 22, notes the fee study is still pending, and proposes merging the two owner petition types.

“in the sample one it was uh capped at an increase of 60% of inflation with no ceiling. Now it has a 3% ceiling. Second our sample let owners recover those costs over time. This version limits them to a short list of approved projects. It caps the pass through with $100 a month even for something as large as a seismic retrofit. Third, there are at least six of these, just to name a few. Our sample ordinance on the fair return was intended to be a simple form-based calculation like many other places do. Now, it requires a hearing and a prepundonderance [preponderance] of evidence and enlisting an economist, something that no tenant can do.”

Context: Sneddon itemizes how the ordinance has changed from the sample ordinance she and Santamaria sponsored: the cap ceiling, the pass-through limits and the fair-return process.

“I have agreed to because there were the four votes needed. I have agreed to every additional iteration, every additional request. Every time it's come back, the goalpost moves and moves and moves. And now, now we're at a place where I'm not going to get to pass this after nine years of working on this. I wanted to pass it last week. … And because of how this has played out, frankly, because of how I feel I've been played, we're not passing it. I still would pass it today with with things that are far beyond what that initial one was. And I have taken it on good faith, trust that I was being given the most upto-date, the best standards.”

Context: Sneddon, a co-sponsor, says she accepted every change to hold four votes and feels 'played,' but would still vote to pass the ordinance tonight.

“But the housing authority doesn't have traditional sources of income and revenue generation to be able to approve and pay for any fees going to the rent board or whatever it is, whatever the cost is going to be. Right now, it says $154. It's going to be higher. If the housing authority had to pay for that, what revenue do they have to you to to generate? They don't have it. … The only revenue they have that's not federally restricted is there is is primarily the rents that they receive. Some of those rents come from loans that the city gave to them. And the only way those loans get repaid is those rents are collected.”

Context: Friedman argues the Housing Authority has no unrestricted revenue to pay registry or rent-board fees, and that those fees would come out of rents that repay city housing loans.

“Well, we received a letter today by the very same developers who are creating the housing that we all said we want, especially in that in downtown. The way it works is that lenders look at the market overall and the conditions in the market and if you have restrictions they look at what could it be 10 15 years from now the risk goes up so the cost to borrow money goes up … we need 1 to 2,000 units. We have a project that created 80 with a 10% affordable. And in this letter, he specifically says that if you pass this, the financing wouldn't work because it would cost more money to borrow.”

Context: Friedman reads from a developers' letter received that day, arguing lenders price rent-regulation risk into financing even for new construction the ordinance does not cover.

“And again, this has been very expensive. I don't hear any conversations about how we're going to pay for this. It's already cost us close to half a million,400,000 [$400,000] in litigation. There's going to be more, especially if it doesn't pass. If it passes, we're probably going to have another attempt at a uh at a referendum. Those are all costs. Last week, we heard that when you have the the enforcement and the whole the whole program and all the fees, it only comes up to 80%. There's 20% that they just can't collect the fees for whatever reason, and it's not by lack of trying. So that would be subsidized by the general fund. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that I haven't heard anyway that's going to be paid for.”

Context: Friedman tallies the program's costs: litigation to date, a likely referendum, and the 20% of fees staff expect not to collect, which the general fund would absorb.

“The community actually had a chance to vote on Prop 33 the last time it came through, which would have made Costa Hawkins a lot weaker and a lot easier to do this kind of thing. the community in Santa Barbara voted no. Now, we can poll, we can listen, we can do all these things, but the but that's the real the definitive poll is the ballot box. So, and we also talked about increased litigation exposure from this rent freeze going forward if we get to the first of the year. This is a selfinflicted [self-inflicted] exposure. This isn't like the bad boys from the outside doing this. We're doing this to ourselves.”

Context: Rowse answers the claim that the community has long wanted rent control by pointing to the local Prop 33 vote, and calls the moratorium's litigation exposure self-inflicted.

“It's like saying to the city, okay, here's the deal. You want to do three uh 60% of CPI or plus 3% or whatever it is. Let's do that with, you know, water. Let's do that with electricity. Let's do all your employment contracts at those caps. Let's let's go for that. And you go, we can't do that. Well, what the hell's a landlord supposed to do who's in business for himself or herself? The same thing. They can't do that. They can't do it in perpetuity. Socializing a private asset is not the answer to happiness. It's the answer to a more limited supply.”

Context: Rowse's closing argument against the cap: the city would never accept 60% of CPI or 3% on its own water, electricity or labor costs, and a capped private asset shrinks supply.

“Now, what I have seen in my research from other cities, the costs of the program are mostly covered. And usually what isn't covered is actually the fee that you are subsidizing or forgiving for the deed restricted affordable housing units. That is what we're going to have to find money to pay for if we don't charge the registry fee to them. And I'm okay with excluding them from the registry fee as long as we can find a way to pay for it. But I also don't want to promise anyone anything unless we have the fee study in front of us. … we unfortunately don't have the numbers for this city here and I so wish we did. That does make me feel a little bit of a hold up because it I want to make sure that what we're passing is is something that we can't afford.”

Context: Responding to Friedman on cost, Santamaria says fee-funded programs elsewhere mostly cover themselves except for fees forgiven on deed-restricted units, and admits the city lacks its own numbers.

“I want to say that in terms of the exemption, the way that the exemption is is currently written, it is exempt from the entirety of chapter 26.90. All of it. … Habitability is already addressed in the ordinance because you um for rent controlled units because you can't get a rent increase without that. But there is nothing in chapter 26 90 [26.90] that is an enforcement mechanism with regard to habitability. … the rent board is as we told you at the last meeting is a hearing on a hearing body that considers whether it considers appeals of a decision on a rent petition. … It is it is not a um an enforcement agency and never has been. That's not how it's ever been written.”

Context: Asked whether exempt tenants could still reach the rent board over habitability, Hentschke explains that the exemption covers all of Chapter 26.90 and that the board is not an enforcement body.

“the issue is what are we passing tonight? And that's where we need clarity because is the structure to pass what is before you the RS the RSO as it's written currently before you today. And why that's important too is because the next step of course is to bring it back for adoption. So we need that clarity. So if we know that there isn't anything else being added to it that we are coming back right away now with the adoption and that process of 30 days and … everything else will follow suit.”

Context: Doimas interrupts the habitability exchange to pin down what the council is voting on, warning that any addition to the text would restart the adoption clock.

“Completeness includes notifying the landlord of habitability issues and offering the opportunity for corrective action which we would do with a housing authority property dealing directly with the housing authority and that property owner. That habitability inspection is code enforcement that remains in and outside of the rent stabilization ordinance. That process does not change. The only change is that there could be a downward adjustment in rent that an administrative hearing officer would issue findings on, not the rent stabilization board. If the tenant disagrees or the property owner disagrees, they can appeal to the board to then consider that. … the adjustments that the housing authority can make to actually completely relinquish federal assistance payments to that property owner in absence of habitability being addressed is actually a more powerful tool than we will have with the rent stabilization ordinance as it's drafted.”

Context: Answering Santamaria's question about what the exemption removes, Andersen walks through the tenant-petition process. The captions do not name the speaker; the attribution rests on content and her habitual address.

“Yeah, that is correct. And I would like to point out you you mentioned San Francisco. The San Francisco does exempt section 8 from its rent control provisions. It does not exempt section 8 from just cause exactly like we currently do it in Santa Barb in Santa Barbara.”

Context: Confirming that remodel-related habitability belongs in Just Cause, Hentschke corrects Santamaria's San Francisco example: that city exempts Section 8 from rent control but not from just cause.

“if we do need to make subsequent adjustments to the rent stabilization, we can do that by a subsequent ordinance when we have more information on whether or not it adequately addresses the habitability concerns. And and frankly, I think that there's a significant legal issue that we have to evaluate about a tenant petition as it intersects with section 8. I don't know that we can do that in a short period of time. Really need to evaluate how those regulations intersect particularly um with respect to the federal regulations. And so the so we we think we have lots of tenant protections for habitability existing.”

Context: Hentschke tells the council a habitability petition for Section 8 tenants raises a federal-law question staff cannot resolve quickly, and that any change would come by later ordinance.

“I will move adoption of the ordinance ordinance pursuant to staff recommendation and direct our staff to explore opportunities to improve habitability, including through the just cause ordinance and other mechanisms as they see fit.”

Context: At the Clerk's request Harmon restates the motion that passed 4–3 moments later: introduce the ordinance per staff recommendation, with direction to staff on habitability.