City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 23, 2024
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 19
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the City’s Tenant Protection Laws and Discussion of Potential Resolution for Charter Amendments for additional Tenant Protections
Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending the City’s Tenant Protection Code, Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, Tenant Harassment Code, and Tenant Buyout Agreements Code; and
3. Consider directing staff to draft a Resolution to amend the City Charter related to tenant protections, including, but not limited to amendments to Chapters 18 and 23 of the City Charter, which govern just causes for eviction from rent controlled and non-rent-controlled units respectively.
Executive Summary
There are five categories of amendments to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) to protect Santa Monica renters from evictions and housing instability.
The first amendment would amend the Tenant Protection Code (Chapter 4.27 of the SMMC) by providing that a tenant who receives a bad faith excessive rent increase, imposed with the intent of influencing the tenant to vacate to get around a just cause eviction requirement, has a defense to any eviction based on a failure to pay that bad faith rent increase.
2 of 19
The second series of amendments would amend the Housing Anti-Discrimination Code (Chapter 4.28 of the SMMC) by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a tenant’s housing status, including a history of homelessness or lack of residential rental history.
The amendments would also strengthen existing laws on source of income discrimination by explicitly prohibiting a landlord from refusing to make basic repairs required to participate in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program.
The third series of amendments would amend the Tenant Relocation Code (Chapter
4.36 of the SMMC) to allow tenants facing constructive eviction to receive permanent relocation financial assistance, to minimize the disruption of an involuntary move. The amendments address constructive evictions that occur as a result of a large rent increase when a unit is not subject to rent control, prolonged temporary relocation, tenant harassment, or a unit that cannot be made habitable or cannot be permitted for residential use.
The fourth series of amendments would amend the Tenant Harassment Code (Chapter
4.56 of the SMMC). These amendments would clarify and expand the types of actions that constitute harassment when done in bad faith, including using self-help to evict a tenant, refusing to accept rent payments, imposing excessive or unlawful rent increases, and retaliation. The amendments would also provide two additional examples of prohibited coercion and intimidation, namely refusing to cooperate with a tenant’s request to lawfully replace a departed occupant with a new subtenant on a one-for-one basis, and repeatedly offering to buy a tenant out after having been informed the tenant does not want to be bought out. Finally, the amendments would also increase the maximum potential penalty that can be awarded by a court from $10,000 per violation to $20,000, to keep up with inflation and remain a meaningful deterrent.
The fifth series of amendments would amend laws relating to tenant buyout agreements (currently codified at SMMC 4.56.050), by extending those protections to tenants exempt from rent control but subject to local just cause eviction protections, requiring that any buyout agreement reached be for at least the amount required by the Tenant Relocation Code, and providing that a landlord’s failure to file a buyout agreement with 3 of 19
the City may be raised by the tenant as a defense to an eviction based on that agreement.
Discussion
According to reporting on data released by the Judicial Council of California, the yearslong downward trend in eviction filings reversed last year with the lifting of pandemic-era restrictions. CalMatters, Across California, eviction cases have returned to—or surpassed—pre-pandemic levels (Nov. 21, 2023). The average number of evictions filed in Los Angeles County from January through August 2023 was 17% higher than the average number filed each month in 2019. According to reporting in the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County was on track to see 46,000 eviction cases filed in 2023—an increase of more than a 10,000 cases from 2022, and more evictions filed in any year since 2016. L.A. Times, L.A. eviction cases rose significantly this year. But it’s not all bad news for renters (Dec. 28, 2023).
Information reported to the City Attorney’s Office since 2021 confirms this trend.
Landlords reported to the City Attorney’s Office a total of 19 evictions filed in 2021, 25 evictions filed in 2022, and at least 67 evictions filed in 2023. While these reported numbers are likely under-representative of the total number of Santa Monica evictions filed, because some landlords are not aware of or choose not to follow the requirement to file eviction documents with the City Attorney’s Office, these data are consistent with the publicly reported data confirming landlords filing more evictions as pandemic-era restrictions end.
The data on eviction filings reported publicly and to the City Attorney’s Office also does not account for the large number of evictions that occur outside of the legal process, whether as a result voluntary agreements to move out, unsustainable rent levels, or tenant harassment. The Los Angeles Times reported on December 28, 2023 that Daniel Yukelson, Executive Director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles stated that most owners try to address eviction issues with tenants outside of court, include offering tenants buyout agreements.
4 of 19
In light of information demonstrating an increase in tenants facing eviction and pressures to move, on August 22, 2023, City Council directed that the City Attorney and City Manager draft an ordinance to present to Council adopting additional renter protections including but not limited to:
a) limiting evictions for non-payment of rent less than the amount of one month’s rent;
b) requiring relocation assistance for rent increases that exceed the lesser of (1) the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers, plus five percent, or (2) ten percent;
c) a requirement that any “buyout” agreement payment reached between landlord and tenant be at least the minimum relocation required under City law for a nofault eviction; and d) requiring that buyout agreements reached between landlord and tenant must be registered with the City of Santa Monica and the lack of a registration shall amount to an affirmative defense in any unlawful detainer proceeding.
Staff has drafted an ordinance described below, and recommends Council adopt a resolution for the November 2024 ballot to limit certain types of evictions in the City Charter.
A. New Eviction Protection Against Excessive Rent Increases: SMMC Chapter
4.27.090
The purpose of this protection is to ensure that landlords cannot circumvent just cause for eviction protections by imposing an excessive rent increase to an amount above market rate. There are many rental units that are covered by just cause protections but exempt from any rent restrictions, including single family homes, condominiums, and non-restricted apartments built within the last fifteen years. For these units, an excessive rent increase could be used as a bad faith workaround where a landlord cannot establish a just cause or does not want to meet the requirements for just cause, such as longer notice periods to remove a unit from the rental market or not being able to evict during the school year. The landlord can simply raise rent to an amount no tenant can afford and then move to evict for nonpayment if the tenant does not pay. 5 of 19
A new section would be added to Chapter 4.27 to create an affirmative defense to a nonpayment eviction for units that are not rent controlled, where a landlord imposes a bad faith excessive rent increase to an amount substantially more than market rates for comparable units, with the intent to influence the tenant to vacate through fraud, intimidation, or coercion. The proposed language provides that evidence of bad faith includes but is not limited to: (1) imposing a rent increase within six months of an unsuccessful just cause eviction attempt; (2) imposing a rent increase within six months of a tenants complaint regarding health and safety issues, harassment, or discrimination; and (3) imposing a rent increase when price gouging protections are in effect.
A similar ordinance enacted in San Francisco in 2019 was challenged by landlord groups and upheld by the California Court of Appeal in 2022.
B. Amendments to Housing Anti-Discrimination Code: SMMC 4.28.030 The Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, Chapter 4.28, prohibits landlords from committing several types of housing discrimination. Currently, SMMC section 4.28.030 covers disability, age, source of income, parenthood, pregnancy or the potential or actual occupancy of a minor child. This proposed ordinance would make two important changes to Chapter 4.28.
1. Adding Housing Status as a Protected Class
First, “housing status” would be added as a new protected class to address the significant barriers currently and formerly unhoused persons in Santa Monica face when applying for rental housing, especially those who have rental housing vouchers such as Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers.
The most recent amendment to the Housing Anti-Discrimination Code in 2015 added “source of income” as a protected classification as an affordable housing measure, making Santa Monica the second City in the state to prohibit source of income discrimination covering housing vouchers. The impetus for this law was evidence that 6 of 19
Santa Monica landlords were refusing to rent to Section 8 voucher holders or refusing to let their rent-burdened tenants use a voucher or other types of rental assistance.
Community education about and enforcement of that law by the Consumer Protection Division of the City Attorney’s Office and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles since 2015 has resulted in dozens of refusals to rent by landlords being reversed. The enforcement program also helps bring the diversity of the Section 8 pool to the City’s population in terms of income and race.
The enforcement program has also revealed that landlords find other ways to get around voucher discrimination, including refusing to accept applicants without current addresses, rental history, landlord references, or credit history. These applicants are frequently unable to use their vouchers, which are time-limited, therefore, being unable to escape homelessness.
Housing status discrimination has also been identified by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty as a major barrier to addressing homelessness nationwide because rental admission policies usually require a recent history of residing in housing or having rental references. In their 2018 report: Protect Tenants, Prevent Homelessness, Michael Santos wrote at page 38:
Potential renters who are experiencing homelessness, or who have experienced it in the past, face multiple barriers to getting rehoused. But the most maddeningly ironic might be when someone is denied housing because they are currently, or formerly homeless. Yet such discrimination is a major problem, with homeless people experiencing discrimination in seeking housing, employment, or even public benefits.1
According to the 2023 Homeless Count, 926 people in the City experienced homelessness, an increase of 15% from 807 during City’s 2022 Homeless Count.
Addressing homelessness is one of the City’s five priorities, identified at the City Council’s workshop on March 11, 2023.
1 https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ProtectTenants2018.pdf 7 of 19
The proposed amendment would add discrimination based on “housing status” to the prohibitions set forth in SMMC Section 4.28.030 (a), (b), and (c). The amendment would also define “housing status” under a new subsection (l) to SMMC subsection 4.28.030, reading as follows:
(l) For purposes of this part, “housing status” means currently or formerly experiencing homelessness, currently or formerly living in transitional, temporary, or shelter housing, or lacking a residential rental housing history.
In 2022, Washington D.C. became the first jurisdiction in the country to ban all discrimination against homeless people, including by landlords. California law does not prohibit “housing status” discrimination by landlords. Santa Monica would likely be the first California jurisdiction to add this protection to its anti-housing discrimination law.
2. Adding Refusal to Make Repairs to Meet Housing Quality Standards Inspections as Voucher Discrimination
SMMC subsection 4.28.030(i) would be amended to specifically identify that a landlord’s refusal to make repairs to meet Housing Quality Standards inspections required of the Section 8 program also constitutes a “refusal to accept” rental assistance, in violation of the prohibition against source of income discrimination.
On September 12, 2022, SMMC subsection 4.28.030 was amended by adding subsection (i) to provide specific examples of the types of actions that violate the City’s source of income discrimination law. Defining what “refusal to accept” a voucher means was declaratory of existing law and intended to help landlords better understand their obligations and tenants understand their rights.
Staff recommends adding another declarative example of what it means to “refuse to accept” a voucher: The refusal to make repairs identified by a Housing Quality Standards inspection. When a landlord refuses to make repairs to comply with an initial inspection required of the Section 8 program, the unit does not pass and the Housing Authority is not legally permitted to subsidize a new tenancy. When a landlord refuses to make repairs to comply with an inspection for an existing tenancy, the Housing Authority 8 of 19
may have to eventually cancel the Housing Assistance Payments Contract with the landlord, resulting in the tenant having to move. Refusing to make repairs is a loophole to refuse to participate in the Section 8 program. Clarifying that this constitutes discrimination would be helpful to both landlords and tenants understanding what the City’s source of income discrimination law prohibits and may prevent unnecessary tenant displacement.
C. Amendments to Grounds for Permanent Relocation: SMMC Section
4.36.020
The primary purpose of these amendments is to update, clarify, and strengthen Santa Monica’s tenant relocation assistance laws to protect vulnerable tenants and ensure that tenants who must move are able to afford new housing, thereby mitigating homelessness.
Currently, tenants are entitled to permanent relocation assistance when they must move out due to a no-fault eviction, for example for an owner to move into the property, as well as when they decide to move after receiving a large rent increase after their formerly controlled apartment home is exempted form rent control. The proposed amendments would add five additional grounds for permanent relocation:
1. The tenant elects to relinquish a tenancy following a rent increase of more than five percent plus inflation, or ten percent, whichever is lower, the maximum currently allowed for covered properties under the statewide Tenant Protection Act.
2. The tenant elects to relinquish a tenancy after a temporary relocation lasting at least six months.
3. Code Enforcement determines that the tenant has been forced out by landlord misconduct.
4. The Building Officer determines that health and safety conditions in the unit exist that cannot be fixed.
9 of 19
5. The tenant elects to relinquish the tenancy in a bootleg unit that cannot be permitted for residential use.
These bases for permanent relocation would be added to SMMC Section 4.56.020, with corresponding changes to other sections of Chapter 4.56 to harmonize the Code. The proposed amendments would also reinsert accidentally omitted language clarifying that the amount of permanent relocation is set by City Council resolution.
The proposed relocation requirement for tenants facing extreme rent increases would help protect a substantial number of tenants who may fall through the gaps in existing state and local protections. Although most units in Santa Monica are covered either by local rent control or state law rent caps, there are many units exempt from both, such as units built within the last fifteen years, owner-occupied duplexes, and many condominiums and single-family homes. Some of these units, such as newer market rate units, are subject to just cause for eviction protections but are not subject to any rent limitation. This protection ensures that where tenants are subject to extreme rent shocks, they are provided the resources to move into another unit rather than made homeless.
In February 2023, the City of Los Angeles enacted new permanent tenant protections, including requiring permanent relocation assistance for extreme rent increases causing displacement. The Los Angeles Ordinance requires payment of relocation where a landlord increases the rent above the lower of either (1) five percent plus inflation, or (2) ten percent, and the tenant elects to move out. These proposed amendments would enact a substantially similar requirement in Santa Monica but use the City’s existing permanent relocation amounts set by resolution. The Los Angeles Ordinance was upheld at a preliminary hearing and in a tentative decision issued before a final ruling.
The City already has an analogous provision requiring relocation payments where a property owner obtains an exemption from rent control for an owner-occupied duplex or triplex and then issues a rent increase causing the tenant to move out. 10 of 19
The proposed language would be added to Section 4.36.020 and would read as follows:
(5) [A landlord shall pay a relocation fee to a tenant when] the tenant elects to relinquish their tenancy following a proposed rental increase that exceeds the lesser of (1) the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, plus five percent, or (2) ten percent. For purposes of this subsection, the proposed rental increase, whether imposed as a single increase or payable periodically over a 12-month period, shall be calculated based on the highest legal monthly rate of rent established as of the date of the notice of rent increase, not any temporary, promotional, or discounted rent.
The other proposed amendments would ensure that relocation is provided under a variety of circumstances, including where a tenant has been temporarily relocated for at least six months and chooses to give up their tenancy rather than live with extended displacement, where a tenant has been forced out by misconduct by the landlord, where a tenant is forced out because of health and safety conditions that cannot be fixed, or where a tenant is forced out of a bootleg unit that cannot be permitted. These new triggers ensure that where conditions are not tolerable or where a tenant must give up their tenancy for no fault of their own, they are provided the resources to find a new home and do not become homeless.
D. Amendments to Tenant Harassment Code: SMMC 4.56 et seq.
The purpose of the amendments to strengthen the City’s Tenant Harassment Code is to more clearly put both landlords and tenants on notice of conduct that constitutes unlawful harassment, and to give the City and tenants who chose private enforcement more tools to combat and deter harassment from escalating to the point of a tenant being forced to move.
The Tenant Harassment Code currently prohibits various acts when done in “bad faith”—with the intent to vex, harass, or annoy—by a landlord against a tenant. The 11 of 19
amendments to the Tenant Harassment Code would specify that the following, done in bad faith, are also prohibited forms of tenant harassment:
• Using “self-help” to evict a tenant, including changing locks, removing doors or windows, and removing furniture
Not all forms of “self help” are currently specifically prohibited by the Tenant Harassment Code. This amendment would close that gap.
• Discrimination on the basis of housing status
This amendment would update the Tenant Harassment Code consistent with the amendments to the Housing Anti-Discrimination Code discussed above, by prohibiting bad faith discrimination on the basis of housing status, as the Tenant Harassment Code already prohibits bad faith discrimination on the basis of other protected classifications. • Refusing to accept a tenant’s lawful rent payment
The Tenant Harassment Code currently prohibits a landlord’s bad faith refusal to acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment. The amendments would clarify that this includes a landlord’s bad faith refusal to accept rent payments, which can be done to induce a tenant into falling behind on rent or other payments. • Imposing an unlawful or excessive rent increase
As discussed above, an excessive rent increase is one that would increase the rent significantly above market for the purpose of forcing a tenant to vacate in circumvention of just cause laws. An unlawful rent increase under the Tenant Harassment Code includes rent increases that violates any limit on the amount a landlord can increase the rent, including local rent control, the state Tenant Protection Act, or price gouging laws.
Therefore, whereas the proposed affirmative defense to eviction on the ground the rent increase was excessive and in bad faith would be available to non-rent controlled tenants only, this provision of the Tenant Harassment Code would apply to all tenants because it would also prohibit unlawful rent increases in bad faith. 12 of 19
• Retaliating against a tenant for reporting a violation of or exercising any right protected by law
While many instances of bad faith retaliation may already be covered by the Tenant Harassment’ Code’s prohibition on the use of fraud, intimidation, or coercion to influence a tenant to vacate (SMMC Section 4.56.020(f)), this new provision would also apply when a landlord retaliates against a tenant with the intent to cause some other kind of harm.
In 2022, the City Council amended Section 4.56.020(f) of the Tenant Harassment Code to include specific examples of fraud, intimidation, and coercion used to influence a tenant to vacate, which may constitute tenant harassment. The purpose of clarifying this was to put both landlords and tenants on clear notice of their rights and obligations and to help deter specific forms of harassment. For the same reasons, the amendments would add the following two examples of coercive and intimidating behavior covered by Section 4.56.020(f):
• Unreasonably withholding the right to sublease when otherwise authorized by rent control or applicable just cause eviction law
Rent Control Law (Charter Section 1806(a)(2)) and Housing Policies Charter Amendment (Charter Section 2304(a)(2)) both prohibit evicting a tenant for illegally subletting if a subtenant replaced a departed occupant of the unit on a one-for-one basis and the master tenant provided the landlord at least 14 days’ notice of the proposed change in occupancy. The City Attorney’s Office and LAFLA have received reports from tenants whose landlords fail to cooperate with them when they request approval for subletting in this situation. Tenants are then forced to either take on a subletter and risk being sued for eviction where they can attempt raise this defense, or not subletting at all and in some cases move out because they cannot afford the rent for the entire unit. Clarifying that a landlord’s bad faith refusal to cooperate with this process constitutes tenant harassment will allow tenants to affirmatively enforce this right before they feel forced to move.
13 of 19
• Making repeated buyout offers within 6 months after a tenant has informed the landlord in writing that they do not wish to enter into a buyout agreement; While tenants have the right to refuse to enter into a buyout, the City Attorney’s Office is aware that tenants who are repeatedly approached about buyout offers even after they have told their landlord they are not interested in considering an offer may feel coerced into accepting a buyout, either because the repeated communications lead them to believe that they must engage in buyout negotiations or in order to make the communications stop.
Finally, the amendments to the Tenant Harassment Code would also increase the potential monetary penalty for each violation by up to $20,000. The Tenant Harassment Code currently provides for statutory penalties of $1,000 to $10,000. This maximum was last increased in 2015. Increasing the maximum penalty would provide courts greater flexibility to impose an appropriate penalty in cases with a limited number of egregious acts of harassment and may better deter harassment.
E. Amendments to Tenant Buyout Provisions: SMMC 4.56.050 This section would move the tenant buyout provisions from SMMC. 4.56.050, which is a subsection of Chapter 4.56 (Tenant Harassment), to a new Chapter 4.57 (Buyout Offers and Agreements), and amend those provisions in the following respects.
First, the buyout provisions, which are currently applicable only to rent-controlled units would also apply to non-rent-controlled units protected by just cause eviction requirements. These existing requirements include pre-negotiation written disclosures from landlords to tenants about their rights, a requirement that all buyout agreements be filed with the City, and the right of the tenant to rescind any buyout agreement for any reason within thirty days after signing. These protections were adopted for rent controlled units in 2015 to help ensure tenants do not enter into buyout agreements unaware of their rights. With the passage of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, many units exempt from rent control but covered by local just cause eviction law, are now also covered by state law limits on how much the landlord can raise the rent. Tenants of 14 of 19
these units who receive buyout offers face many of the same dynamics and possible pressure tactics that tenants of rent controlled units face. Expanding the provisions to apply to all units that have just cause protections would ensure tenants throughout the City have the same basic protections when face without a buyout offer.
Second, the proposed ordinance would require that any buyout agreement would have to be equal to or greater than the permanent relocation fee required under SMMC.
Section 4.36.040 (When permanent relocation fee required). This amendment effectuates the direction of Council. A buyout agreement that does not meet this or any other requirement would be ineffective and may be rescinded by the tenant at any time.
Third, the pre-negotiation written disclosures landlords are already required to give to tenants would be required to include these additional statements: (1) a statement that it may constitute tenant harassment if a landlord continues to make buyout offers in bad faith within six months after the tenant wrote the landlord that the tenant does not want a buyout; and (2) a statement that the buyout amount must be at least the minimum buyout amount, i.e. the permanent relocation amount.
And fourth, under the proposed ordinance, if a landlord fails to file a copy of a buyout agreement with the City, then the tenant may assert that as an affirmative defense to an action brought by the landlord to recover possession of the unit.
Finally, consistent with the other provisions of the Municipal Code, someone who violates this Chapter would be subject to criminal penalty, civil liability, and financial penalties and other monetary payments.
F. Potential Resolution for Charter Amendments
To protect tenants from eviction due to small rental debts and other grounds, staff recommends that Council direct staff to draft a Resolution placing on the November 2024 ballot amendments to Chapters 18 and 23 of the City Charter, which govern just causes for eviction from rent controlled and non-rent-controlled units respectively. 15 of 19
1. Evictions for Small Rental Debts
To limit evictions based on non-payment of small rental debts, the proposed Charter amendment would provide that no landlord shall take action to terminate a tenancy based on nonpayment of rent if the notice to pay rent or quit seeks unpaid rent in an amount less than 150% of fair market rent for unit with the same number of bedrooms as that occupied by the tenant, or if the notice to pay rent or quit fails to state the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s unit, the tenant’s monthly rent, and 150% of the applicable fair market rent for a unit with the same number of bedrooms as that occupied by the tenant.
“Fair market rent” would be defined as fair market rents for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, California HUD Metro FMR Area, for all bedroom sizes, as set periodically by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Because rents in Santa Monica are on average higher than rents in other parts of the region, a prohibition on evicting tenants who owe less than 150% of fair market rent would protect tenants who may only be one month behind on rent, while ensuring that all tenants benefit from the same minimum threshold amount of rent due before they can be evicted.
This amendment would only limit a landlord’s ability to evict a tenant when the tenant owes less than 150% of fair market rent, but would not preclude a landlord from collecting that rental debt through other means nor would it cancel the tenant’s debt.
2. Evictions Based on Unpermitted Physical Alterations
The City Attorney’s Office is also aware of multiple instances of landlords seeking to evict tenants for making physical alterations to their unit, even when the tenant did so with the consent of the owner. In these cases, the landlord years later seeks to evict the tenant for nuisance, breach of lease, or illegal use of the rental unit because the work was done without a permit. In some cases, the work can be legalized but only the 16 of 19
landlord can obtain a permit or seek a variance and the landlord refuses to do so. These situations are most likely to affect long-term tenants.
Staff recommends amending the City Charter to provide the following affirmative defenses to evictions based on nuisance, breach of lease, or illegal use if:
a. the basis for the eviction is that the tenant made physical alterations without a permit and the tenant had the landlord’s consent to make the alteration and is unable to obtain a permit due to the landlord’s lack of cooperation;
b. the basis for the eviction is that the landlord received a notice of violation or citation for the unpermitted alteration but did not provide the tenant with a copy of the notice or citation; or
c. the basis for the eviction is that the landlord received a notice of violation or citation, the tenant is not able to appeal the notice or citation, seek a variance, or obtain a permit to legalize the work, and the tenant requested the landlord do one of the foregoing but the landlord refused.
These proposed amendments would only limit a landlord’s ability to evict a tenant for unpermitted work that meets these criteria, but would not limit any other remedies the landlord may have against the tenant.
If directed by Council, staff will draft a Resolution for Council’s consideration which would place an initiative on the November 2024 ballot to amend the City Charter to include these eviction protections.
G. Outreach
The City Attorney’s Office presented information on the proposed tenant protection measures to the Rent Control Board on November 9, 2023 and the Housing Commission on December 7, 2023.
17 of 19
Members of the Rent Control Board expressed support for the measures, and some emphasized the importance of public education about the proposed changes to the Tenant Relocation Code so that landlords and tenants know that a tenant is eligible for a permanent relocation payment before a tenant moves. If the ordinance is adopted, the City Attorney’s Office Consumer Protection Unit will update its website, share this information, conduct public education and outreach events, and educate members of the public of the complaint and enforcement process.
Some members of the Housing Commission expressed a concern that tenants with low rents could fail to pay rent for multiple months and still not exceed the threshold of 150% of Fair Market Rent. Housing Commissioners discussed some ideas to address this including making the threshold amount one month of the tenant’s contract rent which would vary from tenant to tenant or requiring that a tenant enter into a payment plan to pay back any rent owed under the threshold amount, in order to not be evicted for that amount. The proposed charter amendments are be modeled on the City of Los Angeles’s ordinance adopted last year, which sets one threshold amount applicable to all tenants regardless of their contract rent, but Council may wish to consider alternatives. The proposal would not cancel rent that a tenant owes below the threshold or prohibit a landlord from seeking this amount in small claims court.
Some Housing Commissioners also expressed an interest in other protections for subtenants. On August 22, 2023, City Council directed the City Manager’s Office to include consideration of additional protections for subtenants as a part of a report back with recommendations on a potential rent registry. Importantly, under current law, master tenants cannot legally evict subtenants without just cause, master tenants are prohibited from harassing subtenants under the Tenant Harassment Code, and a subtenant who pays a master tenant more than the Maximum Lawful Rent for a rent controlled unit may file a petition for excess rent with the Rent Control Board.
Enforcement
18 of 19
As a matter of standard practice, the City Attorney’s Office Consumer Protection Unit will conduct outreach and education about these amendments. Enforcement itself occurs through warning letters and then, when necessary, lawsuits.
The City of Santa Monica has a long history of protecting tenancies to stabilize housing.
The Consumer Protection Unit of the City Attorney’s Office has also consistently and actively enforced tenant harassment and anti-discrimination laws to the benefit of many.
The Consumer Protection Unit also provides significant community education and rights projects that help both landlords and tenants better understand their rights and responsibilities. Those efforts include two housing rights workshops each year attended by nearly 150 people annually and articles in the Santa Monica Daily Press that often focus on housing rights.
Environmental Review
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed ordinance would make regulatory and administrative amendments to the City’s Tenant Protection Code, Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, Tenant Harassment Code, and Tenant Buyout Agreements Code and would not result in any physical effects on the environment; therefore, the proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
No financial impacts will result from these amendments. 19 of 19
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Principal Legal Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. ORD-Tenant Protection Amendments
B. Judicial Council of California reporting on evictions - November 21, 2023 C. Los Angeles Times report on evicitons - December 28, 2023 D. National Law Center report - "Protect Tenants, Prevent Homelessness" - 2018 E. Written Comments
F. PowerPoint Presentation