The Santa Monica Rent Control Board unanimously affirmed two hearing officer rent-decrease decisions during its Jan. 8 meeting after hearing staff summaries and tenant testimony.

In the first appeal, staff told the board that tenant Adam Olszewski’s rent-decrease petition (P2024-05575) showed defective tiles in a common-area walkway and that the hearing officer awarded a $56 decrease for that condition. Staff said the owner’s photos submitted on appeal were not dated and the tenant provided evidence refuting the owner’s claim that repairs had been completed. Olszewski, who spoke to the board, asked the board to “take into consideration the below arguments” and said photos he submitted showed the tiles still rattle and shift under pressure. With no owner representative present, Vice Chair Ivanov said he saw no clear error in the hearing officer’s decision and moved to adopt the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions of law; the motion passed on a roll-call vote with all commissioners voting yes.

In the second case, staff reported that tenant Dror Amir filed a petition alleging multiple maintenance deficiencies at 2921 Arizona Ave., Apt. 8 and that the hearing officer had granted decreases for several conditions. Staff characterized the award as a total decrease of $160 for various maintenance conditions and described a $100 award tied to the patio condition as the hearing officer’s mid-range determination for that specific impairment. Dror Amir told the board the patio has been damaged for nearly three years, that he and his family have reduced use of the space, and that they were relocated because of mold remediation; he said work promised by management has been slow and inconsistent. An owner representative for the new management company, Lisonbee Austin, said the company has begun demolition of the patio area, relocated the tenant to reduce direct impact, and is “working off of the timeline” provided to the company. Commissioners emphasized the board must decide based on the hearing record, not subsequent repairs, and noted that restoration of rent is possible only through the hearing department’s verification process if repairs occur after the record closed. The board voted to affirm the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions of law in that appeal, with all commissioners voting yes.

Staff explained that decrease awards take effect on the first rent due date at least 30 days after the decision and that retroactive decreases are applied back to the petition filing date per the decision’s instructions. The board’s actions were strictly appellate: members said they reviewed whether substantial evidence in the hearing record supported the hearing officer’s findings rather than reweighing evidence.