Public comments and input from the Resident Advisory Board, voucher participants, the Housing Commission, the public and the Housing Authority Responses to the comments
Public/RAB Member Comments: The Housing Authority should do more to accommodate homeless families and those at risk of becoming homeless.
Response: the SMHA has allocated 57 Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) to a supportive housing development at 1413 Michigan Avenue for individuals experiencing homelessness. Additionally, SMHA has proposed expanding its Tier 1 priority to allow referrals from approved partners for vulnerable Santa Monica residents. More information about the City’s approach to addressing homelessness can be found on the Addressing Homelessness website. santamonica.gov - Addressing Homelessness
Public/RAB Member Comments: The proposed policy that allocates 50% of voucher attrition to Santa Monica residents referred by partner agencies does not mention how the workforce could benefit from a tiered system that includes employed individuals.
Response: SMHA already has a tiered system that prioritizes Santa Monica’s workforce. The proposed policy allocating 50% of voucher attrition specifically applies to Santa Monica residents referred by partner agencies who are experiencing homelessness. General Santa Monica residents and individuals working at least 25 hours per week in Santa Monica are classified as Tier 2 priority.
Public/RAB member comments on a Home Ownership Program: The Housing Authority should administer the Homeownership Program for HCV program participants as a way to assist those of low or extremely low income in purchasing a condo or house.
Response: The Housing Authority does not offer an HCV Homeownership program. Adding such a program would involve evaluating the associated regulations, assessing the feasibility of such a program given the gap between maximum voucher payment standards and real estate prices in Santa Monica, and determining the staffing and other resources needed to support the program. Currently the Housing Authority is focused on completing its core responsibilities according to HUD’s requirements and does not have resources that can be allocated to assessing the feasibility of new programs such as a homeownership program.
RAB member comment on funding: Funding should be provided for low -income residents to make repairs for longstanding maintenance issues, etc.
Response: The Housing Authority is currently funded to administer its voucher programs only and do not have additional funding to provide home repair grants. However, the Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness, details the physical standards required of units occupied by Section 8 HCV-assisted families and identifies decisions about the acceptability of the unit that may be made by the family based upon the family’s preference. Chapter 8 also identifies life-threatening conditions that must be addressed on an expedited basis.
Public/RAB Member Comments: The Tier 2 list for workforce priority should include In-Home Support Services (IHSS) providers if their primary work is in Santa Monica.
Response: SMHA currently has a workforce priority for individuals who work a minimum of 25 hours per week in Santa Monica, provided they are not employed through a temporary agency or on a temporary assignment.
Public/RAB Member Comments: SMHA should hire additional staff to enhance customer service delivery.
Response: The SMHA's staffing levels are determined by available funding and aligned with HUD’s requirements. To better support the most vulnerable populations and improve housing outcomes, SMHA has created dedicated Housing Navigator position.
RAB members comments on Housing Quality Control Standards (HQS):
• The Housing Authority allow for interim inspection outside the annual inspections. • The Housing Authority should add an addendum to the recertification that allows the tenant to list any grievances with the landlord.
Response: The Housing Authority presently permits interim "Special" inspections, as detailed in the Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness. Staff will persist in advising voucher holders of their tenant rights as outlined in the Chapter and will explore creating a form to address Housing Quality Standards (HQS) documentation issues.
RAB member comments on HQS inspections: Would like SMHA to define better define HQS Inspection guidelines.
Response: The Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness, details the physical standards required of units occupied by Section 8 HCVassisted families and identifies decisions about the acceptability of the unit that may be made by the family based upon the family’s preference. Chapter 8 also identifies life-threatening conditions that must be addressed on an expedited basis.
Public/RAB Member Comments: Pages 9-16 of the Summary of Proposed Changes discuss owner violations and tenant relocation procedures that SMHA will follow. Voucher holders have the same just-cause protections, and the suggested clarification is:
"All PHA tenants have just-cause rights. If an owner is responsible for a housing quality or lifethreatening serious violation, the violation will be verified by a Housing Authority staff inspection and, if necessary, referred to Santa Monica and/or LA County Code Compliance for remediation."
Response: The suggested language aligns with SMHA’s current procedural process. SMHA does not hold tenants liable for owner-caused deficiencies but ensures appropriate steps are taken in accordance with inspection guidelines to address the issue. If a deficiency is identified, SMHA will take necessary action to ensure the issue is resolved and will notify the appropriate departments, including Code Enforcement, when required.
Public/RAB Member Comments: The current waitlist process would benefit from increased transparency, allowing the public to know and access their waitlist position in real time.
Response: The SMHA is unable to disclose individual waitlist positions, as placement is determined not only by the date and time of application but also by the priorities for which an applicant qualifies. The status of the 40,000+ individuals on the waitlist may shift based on eligibility factors such as living or working in Santa Monica. However, SMHA maintains records of application submission dates and can provide general information, including the total number of people on the waitlist and the date range of applications currently being processed.
Public/RAB Member Comments: SMHA needs to better manage its waitlist to provide greater access specifically for Santa Monica residents and to address the 40,000+ applicants currently on the list.
Response: SMHA is in the process of closing its waitlist in the future while continuing to process existing applicants. However, the waitlist will remain open for families and individuals who qualify for Tier 1 Priority, as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Administrative Plan.
RAB members comment on oversight Committee for landlords: RAB member would an oversight committee to hold owners and management companies accountable.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. The SMHA staff does not have the authority to establish landlord oversight committee. However, the Administrative Plan, Chapter 8: Housing Quality Standards and Rent Reasonableness, details the physical standards required of units occupied by Section 8 HCV-assisted families and identifies decisions about the acceptability of the unit that may be made by the family based upon the family’s preference. Additionally, the following resources depending on the issue:
Code Enforcement: santamonica.gov (smgov.net)
County Public Health Department: Online Form - Complaint Form (lacounty.gov) Legal Aid Foundation of LA: LAFLA: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles | Justice • Equity • Hope
City Attorney’s Office: [email protected] RAB members comment: The SMHA should establish a structured Client Advisory Board (CAB) with officers, meetings, agendas, minutes, and scheduled meeting times to ensure voucher holders have a representative voice in program operations. Holding a voucher is a unique experience, often accompanied by stigma, which non-voucher holders may not fully understand. To assess program effectiveness, the City should survey voucher holders.
Response: Staff is in the process of developing a Client Advisory Board in accordance with City and federal requirements, while also incorporating feedback from the Housing Commission, the public, and voucher holders.
RAB members comment: While voucher holders are required to be respectful, there is no language ensuring they receive the same respect. This creates an imbalance, implying that voucher holders are subordinate to other parties in the housing contract. All parties should be treated equally.
Response: The SMHA is committed to treating all participants with dignity and respect. While program rules outline tenant responsibilities, we will review policies to ensure that expectations for mutual respect are clear for all parties.
RAB members comment: Letters sent to compliant participants use unnecessarily harsh language, which can instill fear, particularly in those who have experienced homelessness. This may not be the intended effect, but it results from a lack of input from a client advisory board.
Response: The SMHA strives to maintain clear and professional communication. We will review participant notices to ensure language remains informative and fair, without unnecessary severity, while still maintaining compliance with HUD regulations