Santa Monica City Council
July 14, 2026




Z



[\ ]
[

^_
X`a





b%.)'*('+;* c>ddedddfdd
ghijklm cnedddfdd
I.o*"$)*O+)O*' cndedddfdd
('+;*")%K'C%GP)%.G c<pen?dfdd
C".&$+"q%.G /2@17A3433
(;r.);r.s'+O*%)#s'*K%+'$ /016B31333433
5%)#E"*F$E*;G*"- c<e?nted>?fdp
sOqqM%'$uv")'*%"M$ c<dedddfdd
:;.'$<=>=?v"%.)'.".+' c<e<wdepxdf<>
:;.'Cv"%.)'.".+' c<t>e<tnf<>
:;.'Dv"%.)'.".+' c<t>e<tnf<>
EsN'$)*;;-v;.%);*%.G c?nwe<t?f<?
(;r.);r.DO)*'"+PE*;G*"- c<xtenxdfdy
z{i|}~z{i|}€kklm‚mh c<edw>e>wnf<>
ƒk~ij„
†hj
~‡h
i c<e?>yewxtfxd
ˆQRS‰Š‹ŒŽ‹Œ‘’
[[[“

^”Y
V`a





J+;.;-%+('K'M;q-'.) c<yenddfdd
€kj}mh
l /2012@9469
5;--O.%)#JK'.)$u,+)%K")%;.$ cyn<edddfdd
sq;.$;*$P%q$uE"*).'*$P%q$ ct?ewddfdd
•jmkh
–m„m–m{i—‚mh /@91333433
EO˜M%+N'M")%;.$ /912@94@2
,&K'*)%$%.G cpdedddfdd
™m~†
hm€k
hmk|m /901B3@478
(;r.);r.s%G."G' /981333433
(")"s'*K%+'$ /@B1227439
ƒk~ij„
†hj
~‡h
i c>nnex<xfwp
ˆQRS‰Ž‹’Š‹š››’Š
“[œ[[][[“

^_
W`a





!".F5P"*G'$ cnedddfdd
'.'*"MDoo%+'sOqqM%'$".&v"%.)'.".+' /91963433
g‡~†|j
—h
i† /681@7@4@A
N'.) c<?xetxdfdd
JM'+)*%+ c<yeyddfdd
žm{m—Ÿim† •k~{m /91632428
,++;O.)%.G cndedddfdd
,O&%) c>?ewddfdd
C'G"M cppewddfdd
¡O-".N'$;O*+'$ ctpedddfdd
¢£‡
—‚mh /031683433
¤žg‡——ijh c<>edddfdd
¥"¦'$uC%+'.$'$ cyddfdd
€m‚~mj†Ÿ
—† /91603433
E;$)"G' c<dex>dfdd
¥*"K'Mu,O); c?edddfdd
J&O+")%;.".&s)"oo('K'M;q-'.) c<>edddfdd
z‡†
m††„m–m{i—‚mh c<>edddfdd
I.$O*".+' cnne<d>f<>
€mmh
l†§zikj¨© cnedddfdd
ƒk~ij„
†hj
~‡h
i /6331333433
ˆQRS‰ŠªŒ‹‘›Œ’Ž
[]




 “
‰ª‹Œ’‹ªŒŠ’Ž

4.D.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: DTSM FY 2026-7 Operational Budget [Revision 1] (7776 : DTSM Workplan and Budget) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.E
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Award Bid #4468 and Authorize City Manager to Enter into Agreement With Cal Interpreting & Translations for Citywide Language Access Program Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines;

2. Award Bid #4468 to Cal Interpreting and Translations Corporation for translation and interpretations services for the City Manager’s Office Citywide Language Access Program;

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Cal Interpreting and Translations Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Summary
According to the American Community Survey, more than 27 percent of Santa Monica residents speak a language other than English, and nearly a third of those residents speak English “less than very well.” This language barrier often creates a strong sense of isolation not only for individuals but for entire communities who end up struggling to navigate City services or other day-to-day tasks where English is required.

In May 2024, the City instituted a new Language Access Policy Administrative Instruction to further our work in the area of justice, equity, and diversity. This policy set new standards for when translation and interpretation are required for customer-facing documents and public meetings, with translation into Spanish required for most documents the public uses to do business with the City. To implement this policy

4.E
Packet Pg. 280
2 of 5
successfully, continued vendor support is required in order to meet increased demand for high-quality translation and interpretation services for Citywide projects.

Discussion
In 2022, it became a part of the CMO Work Plan to pursue the development of a translation and interpretation policy, which resulted in a community engagement process of over 150 non-English-speaking community members on their language access needs, and the subsequent Language Access Policy. Within that policy, all customer-facing documents are required to be translated into Spanish, and instructions on how to request interpretation are to be offered for all Council and Board and Commission meetings, in addition to all public hearings. In order to meet the increased demand for translation and interpretation generated by the Language Access Policy, a formal agreement with a professional translation and interpretation provider is necessary.

In our community outreach efforts leading up to the development of the Language Access Policy, we heard from many community members who were eager to engage with the City but found existing language barriers difficult or impossible to navigate across communities. Many community members described their frustration at receiving a legal notice, citation, or other time-sensitive information from the City that they did not know how to respond to in time, because they did not know what they were. Many were also frustrated by the City’s reliance on staff for translation and interpretation needs, given the technical and jargon-heavy nature of City business that often exceeds staff’s command of their non-English language—if staff who could speak their language were available. Many of the staff that we engaged internally shared these frustrations, and voiced a lack of capacity for tedious translations projects on top of heavy workloads.

To address these issues, the Language Access Policy calls for professional translation for any City documents that explain a City process, require a signature, have legal consequences, contain advanced technical terminology, and/or are longer than two pages. The Policy also offers professional on-demand interpretation services for public meetings. Concurrently with implementing the Language Access Policy, Cal Interpreting

4.E
Packet Pg. 281
3 of 5
& Translations won bid #4468 and has been successfully providing these services through Professional Services Agreement 4021. Given that Council authority is needed for the extension of that agreement and the valuable services they provide, staff recommends that Council approves a five-year agreement with Cal Interpreting and Translations to provide translation and interpretation services.

Vendor/Consultant Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder Cal Interpreting and Translations
Evaluation Criteria
(include all that
apply)
Price; the ability to provide translation and interpretation into Spanish, Mandarin, Farsi, Russian, Amharic, in addition to interpretation in American Sign Language; American Translators Association certification
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.180
Submittals Received
Bidder Spanish Translation
Cost (per word)
Other Language
Translation Cost (per
word)
Minimum Spanish Interpretation
Cost (per hour)
Cal Interpreting and
Translations $.12 $.13 $35 $90
Daniel Shamebo
Sabore $.10 $.15 $65 $100
Datagain $.14 $.16 N/A $120
Focus Language
International Inc. $.12 $.14 - $.20 $45 $75
Health Plus Trans,
LLC $.25 $.27 N/A $115
Interpreters
Unlimited, Inc. $.11 $.17 $50 $125
Language Network
Inc. $.18 $.28 - $.37 N/A $94
LinguaLinx
Language Solutions $.12 $.12 - $.18 N/A Not Offered
Officemotive, Inc $.06 $.08 $50 Not Offered
Powerling Inc. $.12 $.15 - $.21 $30 $110
Bid Data
Date Posted Posted On
Advertise In
(City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
01/19/2024 City's Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily Press 11 01/19/2024
Best Bidder Justification
Cal Interpreting and Translations was the best bidder, since they offer all of the services

4.E
Packet Pg. 282
4 of 5
required; offer the lowest priced combination for Spanish translation, minimum translation cost, and Spanish interpretation; and retain American Translators Association Certification.

Environmental Review
The Agreement is exempt from 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 Agreement would provide translation and interpretation services and would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to award a five-year agreement with Cal Interpreting and Translations to provide translation and interpretation services.

Agreement Request
FY 2026-2027
Request Amount
Future Years
Request Amount Department Account #
Total Contract
Amount
$50,000 $450,000 01200009.552010.99900 $500,000
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: David Gardinier, Equity & Communications Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Language Access Policy Administrative Instruction

4.E
Packet Pg. 283
5 of 5
B. Contract #4021 Executed
C. Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25
D. OAKS INITIATIVE FORM

4.E
Packet Pg. 284

ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION
SUBJECT: Language Access Policy NUMBER: II-4-30
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2024 PAGE: 1 of 5
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Administrative Instruction (AI) is to set Citywide standards for when and how translation and interpretation is provided for public meetings, customer service in languages other than English, and customer-facing publications and resources.

II. SCOPE
This AI is intended to define Citywide translation and interpretation policy, including when and how translation and interpretation are to be used and the services available to support such work.

III. DEFINITIONS
Bilingual Bonus Skills Pay List: List maintained by Human Resources of staff who receive supplemental pay for their skill in languages other than English.

Professional translation/interpretation: Translation or Interpretation provided by a certified individual or firm to ensure high quality and accuracy, typically provided through a contracted service provider. To be used for more extensive translations or interpretation provided for formal settings, public meetings, or official forms.

Customer facing forms and documents: Documents designed to engage the public and those used to do business with the City. Examples include brochures, flyers, announcements, forms, requests for service, citations, warnings, instructions, and informational documents. Due to available resources, documents used for internal planning or technical city business, such as staff reports, ordinances, information items, etc., are not included in this list.

Staff translation/interpretation: Limited or quick translation or interpretation services provided by City employees to support customer service, provide information in real-time, and complete transactions.

Substantial Number of Limited English Speaking Persons: A group of people who speak a shared language other than English, and make up 3+% of the city’s total population. As of the 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate, Spanishspeakers are the only limited-English speaking language group in Santa Monica with over 3 percent representation in Santa Monica, warranting required translations for customerfacing documents.

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Language Access Policy Administrative Instruction (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION
SUBJECT: Language Access Policy NUMBER: II-4-30
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2024 PAGE: 2 of 5
IV. POLICY
The following steps must be taken to deliver high-quality customer service to our nonEnglish speaking constituents:

A. All digital or printed City customer-facing forms and documents must be translated and made available in Spanish.

B. City document translations must be done professionally if any of the following apply to your document:
• The document gives instructions or is required to complete a City process. • The document requires a signature.
• The document contains advanced technical terms and/or jargon. • The document is one with legal consequences that requires the recipient to respond, such as a citation, a warning, information about contesting a citation, or other documents related to enforcement.
• The document is longer than two pages.

C. All other City printed or digital customer-facing forms and documents that do not meet the above criteria may be translated either by a staff member from the Bilingual Bonus Skills Pay List, or done professionally through the Language Access Request Form, or via an existing vendor with your department.

D. All time-sensitive City communications (I.e. major disaster SM Alerts, street closures, construction notices, action items with response deadlines) shall be translated into Spanish in a manner that balances urgency with translation accuracy, at staff’s discretion.

E. All Council Agendas (not including staff reports and attachments) must be professionally translated and published in Spanish.

F. All Council agendas, Boards & Commissions agendas, and public hearing notices must have instructions in English and Spanish on how to request live, real-time professional interpretation. Messaging must say that staff will do their best to secure interpretation, and that advance notice is preferred.

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Language Access Policy Administrative Instruction (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION
SUBJECT: Language Access Policy NUMBER: II-4-30
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2024 PAGE: 3 of 5
G. When possible, all the above documents should include messaging or be accompanied with an insert in Spanish, Mandarin, Farsi, Russian, & Amharic about how to contact 311 for further assistance. This messaging should also include TTY contact information and should be included on the City’s letterhead.

H. All City customer service counters must be equipped with the appropriate devices to be able to access a language interpretation line, allowing us to serve customers in their language.

I. All staff, including police, fire, building and safety, and code enforcement staff, must utilize a language interpretation line to respond to persons in their own language, when appropriate bilingual City staff are not readily available to assist in interpretation, and when doing so would not endanger any parties involved.

J. Departments are expected to pay for all translation and interpretation costs, unless the document/meeting meets the following criteria, in which funds from the Citywide Language Access Fund may be used:
• The document/meeting is for a Citywide project, affecting all departments. • The document/meeting is for a City Board or Commission. • The document/meeting is directly related to a City Council meeting.

Projects not eligible for Citywide Language Access Fund dollars may still use the Language Access Request Form for access to language access vendors maintained by the City Manager’s Office. Each department will be charged for their use of language access vendors via interdepartmental transfer (IDT) on a quarterly basis.

K. The City Manager’s Office and Virginia Avenue Park staff shall maintain a library of devices to facilitate both real-time language interpretation and ADA accessibility needs at City public meetings.

L. Human Resources shall maintain an easy-to-find directory on The Hub of staff who can provide informal translation and interpretation services. This list shall include the staff member’s name, the language(s) they are certified to help with, their department, and contact information. The list must also include the date last updated, along with instructions on how Staff can be certified to receive bilingual skill pay and be added to the list.

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Language Access Policy Administrative Instruction (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION
SUBJECT: Language Access Policy NUMBER: II-4-30
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2024 PAGE: 4 of 5
M. Software purchases used to generate public-facing documents (such as agenda management software) must include the ability to translate documents into Spanish, at a minimum.

V. PROCEDURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

PROCEDURE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS
Reference Citywide Language Access SharePoint site as
central repository for all things language access, including Bilingual Bonus Skills Pay List, Customer Services
Resources for serving customers in other languages, and the Language Access Request Form for
translation/interpretation requests.

All City Staff
Translate all documents/forms in Points A, B, C , & D into Spanish, checking first to see and if Bilingual Bonus Skills Pay staff translation is adequate, and what resources are available within their department. If neither is sufficient, they may use CMO’s language access vendors via the Language
Access Request Form.

All City Staff
When requesting interpretation for public meetings, check with CMO and/or Virginia Avenue Park staff on the
availability of real time transmitter devices.

All City Staff
Reconcile Citywide Language Access account with
departmental transactions on a quarterly basis via IDT.

City Manager’s Office Staff
All City Council Agendas professionally translated and
posted in Spanish via Language Access Request Form.

Records and Election Services
staff
Add template language on requesting live interpretation to Council/Commission/Public Hearing meetings. Arrange for live professional interpretations, as requested via Language Access Request Form .

Records and Election Services
staff
Boards & Commissions staff
Public Hearings staff

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Language Access Policy Administrative Instruction (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION
SUBJECT: Language Access Policy NUMBER: II-4-30
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2024 PAGE: 5 of 5

PROCEDURE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS
Add template language on requesting live interpretation to Council/Commission/Public Hearing meetings. Arrange for live professional interpretations, as requested via Language Access Request Form .

Records and Election Services
staff
Boards & Commissions staff
Public Hearings staff
Add template language either as an insert or at the bottom of documents in Spanish, Mandarin, Farsi, Russian, & Amharic about how to contact 311 for further assistance, in
accordance with Point F.

All City Staff
Review training materials & utilize language interpretation line to provide customer service in customer’s language.

Public Safety staff
Code Enforcement staff
Front-Line Customer Service
staff
Maintain Bilingual Bonus Skills Pay List on the Hub in
accordance with point J.

Human Resources Staff
Perform basic translation and interpretation tasks when requested by City Management as outlined in the MOU’s
Bilingual Skill Pay under urgent and informal circumstances (as opposed to more complex translations and
interpretations outlined above, which must be done
professionally).

Staff receiving Bilingual Bonus
Skills Pay
VI. FORMS
A. Language Access Request Form
B. New Language Access SharePoint Site
VII. AUTHORIZED BY
_________________
David White
City Manager

4.E.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Language Access Policy Administrative Instruction (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) - 1 -
Rev. March 2025
Agreement No. 4021

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”), entered into as of _________________ (“Execution Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica (“City”) and Cal Interpreting & Translations (CIT) is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS:

A. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.

B. CIT is qualified to do business, and is doing business, in the State of California. CIT represents it has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise necessary to provide the services set forth in this Agreement.

C. The City and CIT now desire to enter into an agreement for CIT to provide professional services to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Term. This Agreement begins on the Execution Date and terminates on June 30,2026, unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section 14.

2. CIT Services. CIT will perform all of the services (“Services”) described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. CIT will complete the Services in accordance with Exhibit B, Budget.

3. City Services. The City agrees to:

3.1 Make available to CIT any currently existing documents, data or information required for the performance of the Services.

3.2 Designate a representative authorized to act on behalf of City.

3.3 Promptly examine and render findings on all documents submitted for staff review by CIT.

4. Compensation. The City will compensate CIT for the Services performed in an amount not to exceed $94,999, as set forth in Exhibit B.

5. Invoices. CIT will invoice the City for the Services in accordance with Exhibit B and the City will pay any undisputed amount within 30 days of receipt.

6. Notices. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement, must be in writing and will be deemed served when delivered personally, by email, or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as follows:

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396 12/16/2025

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) - 2 -
Rev. March 2025

6.1All notices, demands, requests or approvals to the City:

City Manager’s Office
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Suite 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: David Gardinier
Re: Agreement No. 4021
with a copy to:

Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: City Attorney
Re: Agreement No. 4021

6.2All notices, demands, requests or approvals to CIT:

Cal Interpreting & Translations
5990 Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 250
Van Nuys, CA 91411
Attention: Franco Scocozza

1.888.737.9009
[email protected]
Re: Agreement No. 4021

7. Independent Parties. Both parties to this Agreement will be acting in an independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of one another. Neither the City nor its officers or employees will have any control over the conduct of CIT or any of CIT’s agents, employees, or subconsultants, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

8. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties. Any preliminary negotiations and agreements of any kind or nature are merged into this Agreement. No oral agreement or implied covenant may be held to vary the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by City and CIT, and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

9. Insurance. Prior to commencing work, CIT must procure, maintain and pay for insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services by CIT or CIT’s agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants for the duration of this Agreement.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) - 3 -
Rev. March 2025
CIT must obtain insurance that, at a minimum, meets the requirements for insurance set forth in Exhibit C, Insurance Requirements and Verifications.

10.Defense and Indemnification.

10.1 Indemnification. As to CIT’s Services produced under this Agreement, CIT agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, boards and commissions, and employees (collectively, “City”) from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, or costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, or payments for injury to any person or property (collectively, “Losses”) caused or claimed to be caused by the acts, errors and/or omissions of CIT, or CIT’s employees, agents, officers, and subconsultants. CIT’s responsibilities under this Section 10.1 include liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, which may be in combination with the acts or omissions of CIT, its employees, agents or officers, or subconsultants; provided, however, that CIT’s duty to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any Losses arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Notwithstanding CIT’s obligation to defend City hereunder, City has the right to conduct its own defense and seek reimbursement for reasonable costs of defense from CIT, if City chooses to do so.

10.2 Enforcement Costs. CIT agrees to pay any and all costs the City incurs enforcing the indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions set forth in Section 10.1.

11. Prohibition Against Transfers.

11.1 CIT may not assign, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without the City’s consent will be null and void, and any assignee, hypothecatee or transferee acquires no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.

11.2 The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of CIT or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of CIT, if a partnership or joint venture or syndicate exists, which results in changing the control of CIT, will be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means 50% or more of the voting power of the corporation.

12.Permits and Licenses. CIT, at its sole expense, must obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all required business and professional permits, licenses and certificates.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) - 4 -
Rev. March 2025

13.Waiver. A waiver of any breach of this Agreement may not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.

14.Default and Termination.

14.1 If CIT fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, and if the default is not cured within a period of five days after the City’s written notice of default specifying the nature of the default, City may immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to CIT.

14.2 The City has the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving ten days’ written notice to CIT. Upon termination of this Agreement, City will pay CIT any compensation earned and unpaid up to the effective date of termination.

15.Compliance with Law. CIT must comply with all laws of the State of California and the United States, and all ordinances, rules, and regulations enacted or issued by City.

16.Discrimination. CIT may not discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, AIDS or disability.

17.Nuisance. CIT may not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.

18.Records.

18.1 CIT must maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City for any services provided where compensation is on the basis of hourly rates, subconsultant costs, or other direct costs. CIT must keep the records, together with supporting documents, separate from other documents and records and maintain them for a period of three years after receipt of final payment.

18.2 CIT must maintain records in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the Services and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. CIT must clearly identify all records and make them readily accessible to the City.

At the City’s request, CIT must provide records in an electronic format and, if necessary, access to any proprietary software to view such electronic records.

18.3 CIT must allow the City to have free access to CIT’s books and records and to inspect all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. The City has the right to examine or audit CIT’s records, and CIT agrees to cooperate with any examination or audit of its records. If a City audit discloses an error of 5% or more in information reported by CIT, CIT agrees to pay the cost of the City’s audit computed on the basis of four times the direct payroll of the audit staff completing the audit and audit report.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) - 5 -
Rev. March 2025

19.Work Product; Reports.

19.1 Any work product prepared or caused to be prepared by CIT or any subconsultant for this Agreement will be the exclusive property of City. No work product given to or prepared by CIT or any subconsultant pursuant to this Agreement may be made available to any individual or organization by CIT without prior written approval by City.

19.2 At the City’s request, CIT must furnish reports concerning the status of the Services.

20.Standard of Care. CIT agrees to provide all Services, including services performed by any subconsultant, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of CIT’s profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.

21.Subconsultants.

21.1 If CIT proposes to have any subconsultant perform any part of the Services, CIT must submit a request for approval in writing, describing the scope of work to be subcontracted, the name of the proposed subconsultant, and the total price or hourly rates used in preparing an estimated cost for the subconsultant’s services. The City, in its sole discretion, may grant or deny the request.

21.2 CIT will be responsible for the quality of any subconsultant’s work. Every subcontract or agreement of any kind entered into between CIT and any subconsultant (or between any subconsultant and others) must contain the following provision:

This agreement is consistent with all terms and conditions of the Agreement No. 4021 (CCS) entered into between the City of Santa Monica and CIT on^^____________________.

22.Governing Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to any choice of law provisions, will govern this Agreement.

23.Venue and Jurisdiction. The City and CIT agree that the Services will take place in Los Angeles County. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement may only be brought in either the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, as appropriate.

The parties agree that venue exists in either court, and each party expressly waives any right to transfer to another venue. The parties further agree that either court will have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Agreement.

24.Survival of Provisions and Obligations. Any provision of this Agreement, which by its nature must be exercised after termination of this Agreement, will survive termination and remain effective for a reasonable time. Any obligation that accrued prior to termination of this Agreement will survive termination of this Agreement.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396 12/16/2025

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) - 6 -
Rev. March 2025

25.Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts with the same effect as if both parties hereto had executed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute a single Agreement.

Any signature to this Agreement transmitted electronically through DocuSign or PDF shall be deemed an original signature and be binding upon the parties hereto (it being agreed that such electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature).

26.Exhibits. The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.

Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B Budget
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

ATTEST:
______________________________

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

LANE DILG
City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By:
______________________________

RICK COLE
City Manager
CIT Corporation
#VENDOR
By:
________________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

HEIDI VON TONGELN
Interim City Attorney
12/10/2025
President
Igal Saidian
12/11/2025
Cal Interpreting & Translations, Inc.

City Manager
12/16/2025
Oliver Chi
Nikima Newsome
City Clerk
12/16/2025

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) Exhibit A
Scope of Services
A. Provide document translation services in Spanish, Mandarin, Farsi, Russian, & Amharic. a. Short documents up to three pages must be returned within 24 hours b. Longer documents up to five pages must be returned within 48 hours c. Rush services should be offered for an additional cost B. Provide meeting simultaneous real-time interpretation services in Spanish, Mandarin, Farsi, Russian, Amharic, & ASL.
a. Meetings may be virtual or in-person in Santa Monica, CA b. Interpretation services should be guaranteed if requested at least 48 hours in advance. c. Electronic language interpretation devices should be made available upon request, allowing for simultaneous real-time interpretation.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) Exhibit B
Budget
CIT shall provide translating and interpreting services in accordance with the rates below, not to exceed $94,999.

Document translation Spanish cost per word $0.12
Document translation Mandarin cost per word $0.13
Document translation Farsi cost per word $0.13
Document translation Russian cost per word $0.13
Document translation Amharic cost per word $0.13
Meeting interpretation Spanish cost per hour $90.00
Meeting interpretation Mandarin cost per hour $110.00
Meeting interpretation Farsi cost per hour $110.00
Meeting interpretation Russian cost per hour $110.00
Meeting interpretation Amharic cost per hour $110.00
Meeting interpretation ASL cost per hour $120.00
Language interpretation device rental cost per set $200.00 List minimum fees and or other charges
not listed in comments.

Document translation minimum fee per language : $35.00.

Interpreting minimum charge per interpreter: 2 hours
Interpreting cancellation policy: 24 hours
Mileage and travel expenses shall be charged at the current CalHR rates.

ASL assignments lasting longer than 1 hour shall require 2 interpreters to avoid Repetitive Stress Injuries (RSIs)
Equipment set includes 1 portable transmitter and 10 receivers.

Additional equipment to be quoted separately.

Interpreting is consecutive. Simultaneous interpreting to be quoted separately.

Desktop publishing fees: $35.00/hour.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) Exhibit C
Insurance Requirements and Verifications
Insurance Requirements and Verifications
Professional Services Agreement Insurance Requirements – Template 1 Professional Liability Insurance Required
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (Insurance Services Office Form CG 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employers’ Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (see footnote #1).

Professional Liability: Insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim/$2,000,000 in the annual aggregate.

If the Consultant maintains broader coverage or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Santa Monica requires and shall be entitled to any broader coverage and higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Monica.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) Additional Insured Status: The City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.

CGL coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of a combination of (1) CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38 and (2) CG 20 37).

Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance shall be primary coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Offices Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation: Each insurance policy required herein shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after notice has been given to the City of Santa Monica.

Waiver of Subrogation: Consultant hereby grants to the City of Santa Monica a waiver of any right of subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City of Santa Monica by virtue of payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Santa Monica has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Self-Insured Retentions Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica may require the Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide satisfactory proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the selfinsured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City of Santa Monica.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Santa Monica.

Claims Made Policies
If the Professional Liability policy provides “claims made” coverage: The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of this Agreement or the start of work.

The insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least 5 years after completion of work. If the policy is cancelled or not renewed, and not replaced with another “claims made” policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) effective Agreement date, the Consultant
must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of 5 years after completion of work.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City of Santa Monica with original certificates and amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage provided by this clause). All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Santa Monica before work commences. However, failure to obtain required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City of Santa Monica reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including the endorsements required herein, at any time.

Failure to Maintain Insurance Coverage
1) If Consultant, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract.

The City of Santa Monica, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Consultant resulting from said breach.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. All exceptions must be approved in writing by the RiskManager.

Footnotes
# 1: Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage is not required if the Consultant does not have employees. The Consultant must, however, execute the City’s Workers’ Compensation Coverage Exemption Declaration Form.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC97C67-5172-406E-BCBD-CA0BA967E396

4.E.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Contract #4021 Executed (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
The Levine Act prohibits City Officers from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $500 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.

Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal.

Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.

A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form. https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
https://www.smgov.net/boards/
Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________ Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.

4.E.c
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.

By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.E.c
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $500 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

State law requires a party to a proceeding to disclose any contributions exceeding an aggregate $500 that the party and their agents have made to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months. The Disclosure Form is intended to assist City officials with recognizing when they have an obligation to disclose and recuse themselves, and to aid parties with their disclosure obligations.

1. To what sort of proceedings is the disclosure form applicable? The Levine Act applies to all discretionary entitlements and contracts, with the exception of labor contracts, personal employment contracts, and contracts that must be awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder. It does not apply to ministerial approvals.

For instance, the Levine Act applies to the following:
• Building and development permits
• Conditional use permits
• Contracts generally (unless an exception applies):
o Real property contracts for purchase, sale, lease
o Contract amendments
o Settlement agreements
o Contracts for goods, services, professional services that are not awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Public street abandonments
• Private development plans
• Professional license revocations
• Rezoning of specific real estate parcels
• Event permits
• Rulemaking procedures affecting a particular industry where only a small number of businesses are affected
• Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
• Tentative subdivision and parcel maps

4.E.c
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

• Zoning variances
• Vacation of a public easement across private property • Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
• Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
• Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:
• Contracts under $50,000
• Contracts where no party receives financial compensation • Contracts between two or more public agencies
• Competitively bid contracts that are required by law, agency policy, or agency rule to be awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Purely ministerial decisions
• General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
• Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
• Ballot measures
• Departmental policies
• Council rules
• Labor contracts and project labor agreements
• Personal employment contracts
• Allocation of resources in the City budget

2. Who is required to disclose?
A “party” to a proceeding is any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding. In general, a person or company who applies for a permit, license, or right to use property in a particular way, which requires the City’s discretionary approval, will qualify as a party.

Parties are also required to disclose contributions by their agents. An “agent” is someone who (1) represents a party to a proceeding for compensation; and (2) appears before or otherwise communicates with the City for the purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. This can include law firms, architects, engineers, consultants, and similar entities. Both the individual and their employer or firm are considered “agents.” A party should also disclose contributions of other entities majority owned by the party, as well as contributions of any other entity whose contributions it directs or controls.

3. What must be disclosed?
A party must disclose campaign contributions over $500 made in the prior twelve months.

A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or

4.E.c
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

other expenses coordinated with a candidate or committee, loans, tickets to political fundraisers, etc.

4. Who is considered an officer of the City?
An “officer” is anyone who may make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a decision in the proceeding or who exercises authority over officers who may do so. This includes elected officials, members of appointed boards and commissions, the City Manager, and any individual who is a candidate for elected office or who has been a candidate in the twelve months prior to the decision. This definition is included on the Disclosure Form.

5. When should the disclosure occur?
The Disclosure Form must be completed (1) by a party to a contract with the City (or that party’s agent) at the time the party submits a response to a Request for Proposal or other competitive solicitation, enters into contract negotiations with the City, or executes a contract with the City, whichever is earliest; or (2) by a party to a license, permit, or other entitlement proceeding before the City at the time the party (or their agent) submits the license, permit, or entitlement application to the City. The party (or their agent) must submit a supplemental form if they make any new reportable contributions while the same contract, license, permit, or other entitlement is being considered. The party (or their agent) must also use the form if they need to correct any previously submitted form.

Parties are solely responsible for completing the form accurately, and could face penalties for failure to do so. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the body who enforces violations of the Levine Act. If a party is uncertain about whether they are required to report or combine a contribution, they should consult with their attorney.

Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and individuals are urged to consult with their own attorney regarding the requirements of the law. To the extent there is any inconsistency, the language of the Levine Act and FPPC Regulations govern over this notice. Resources for officers, parties, participants, and agents, are available on the FPPC’s website at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

4.E.c
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.

It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after theofficial votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of SantaMonica.

All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.

Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.

In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, theCity compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any personorpersons whois seeking a “publicbenefit.” If the“public benefit” is sought by an entity, ratherthan an individual person, the information includes the nameof everyperson who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.

4.E.d
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-monthperiod;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more inany 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: Title:

Signature: Date:

Email: Phone:

Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract #

4.E.d
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM (7800 : Citywide Language Access Services) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1) John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2, LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al., LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.

City, et al., LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV08239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v.

City, et al., LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al., LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al., LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al., LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al., LASC # 25STCV24158; John Doe 71, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, et al., # 25STCV32120; John Doe 76 v. Roe 1, a public entity; et al., # 25STCV32032; John Doe 77 v. City of Santa Monica, et al., # 26STCV07769

5.A
Packet Pg. 308
2 of 2
Prepared By: Ivan Larios, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council

5.A
Packet Pg. 309
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property - 1855 Main Street (Civic Auditorium) (APN 4290-013-901); City negotiators:

Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: City of Santa Monica; parties to be negotiated with: Melissa Ormand, COO Goldenvoice, and Shawn Trell, EVP / COO & General Counsel of AEG Presents; under negotiation: price and terms of payment
Prepared By: Ivan Larios, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

5.E
Packet Pg. 310
1 David Yakobson
From: Save the Civic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Update on Civic Auditorium
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Save the Civic
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

July 13, 2026
Dear Friend of the Civic,
Last October, our City Council voted 4-3 not to extend negotiations with RPG, the group of concert promoters seeking to lease, restore and operate a new Santa Monica Civic Auditorium as a performing arts venue.

Over the last nine months, RPG has continued its due diligence but has now concluded it is not in its best interest to move forward. Accordingly, it is our understanding that it is withdrawing from further consideration.

We have noted that this Tuesday, July 14, the City Council will meet in closed session with representatives from Goldenvoice and AEG Presents, two leading concert and music festival promoters.

RPG had proposed, and drawn up plans for, a world-class concert venue that would be owned by the City, but at no cost to the City or its Item 5-E
July 14, 2026
Item 5-E
July 14, 2026

5.E.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Written Comments (7816 : 5.E. Closed Session: Real Estate Neg. AEG Presents) 2 taxpayers. We’re sorry to see them withdraw. We hope these new negotiations will prove more successful, and we will keep you updated as we learn more.

Save the Civic Steering Committee
https://www.savethecivic.org

If you haven’t already, please visit our website: savethecivic.org and register your contact information so we can notify you with updates or when action is needed.
.
[email protected] Check out our site
This email was sent from this site.

If you no longer wish to receive this email, change your email preferences here.

Item 5-E
July 14, 2026
Item 5-E
July 14, 2026

5.E.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Written Comments (7816 : 5.E. Closed Session: Real Estate Neg. AEG Presents) 3 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: Agenda item 5.E Negotiations regarding Civic Auditorium

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Closed session item 5.E is a conference for real estate negotiations regarding price and terms of payment regarding the Civic Auditorium between the City and Goldenvoice and AEG Presents.

I hope this is good news regarding revitalizing the Civic Auditorium but the promised transparency, engagement and open dialogue regarding this project is not happening.
9 months ago, the City Council voted to not extend the ENA with RPG for 6 months for a proposal for the Civic Auditorium. Right after that the City updated the Civic Auditorium Exclusive Negotiating Agreement FAQ webpage. Under “What happens now?” it says:
“The city’s next step will be to commission an updated “highest and best use” study to analyze the current market and financial data in order to help inform building and site opportunities.

Throughout this process, the city will continue to engage residents, preservation group and arts organizations in an open dialogue.”
This promised engagement and dialogue has not happened in the last 9 months. There has been no information given to residents and preservation groups. In April, the Recreation and Parks Commission, pursuant to the groups City Charter directive regarding music and entertainment, requested a city update on the Civic Auditorium. The City’s reply said “the City is not in a position to provide a meaningful update at this time. The Leadership Team will be happy to share next steps and provide a more comprehensive update once additional information is available.” Was this because not much was done during the 6 months? If the RPG ENA had been extended, we would have had a proposal by then.

With this closed session negotiation with Goldenvoice and AEG, something is going on but with no engagement or dialogue.

Please follow what was said would happen and engage and talk with the constituents regarding efforts for the Civic Auditorium instead of coming up with a backroom deal.

Thank you.

Karen Melick
Sunset Park
Item 5-E
July 14, 2026
Item 5-E
July 14, 2026

5.E.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Written Comments (7816 : 5.E. Closed Session: Real Estate Neg. AEG Presents) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Certification of Qualified an Initiative Measure Establishing a Parcel Tax Collected by the City of Santa Monica for Funding for the Santa MonicaMalibu Unified School District and Adoption of Resolution to place Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the resolution below is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act;

2. Receive and file the attached Certification of Qualification regarding an Initiative Measure Establishing a Parcel Tax Collected by the City of Santa Monica for Funding for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District by adding, Chapter

2.74 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code and establish an annual parcel tax of $495 per parcel of taxable real property located within the City of Santa Monica (“City”); and,

3. Adopt the attached resolution requesting and directing the actions necessary to place the measure on the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Ballot.

Executive Summary
On May 29, 2026, an Initiative Measure Establishing a Parcel Tax Collected by the City of Santa Monica for funding for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District was submitted to the Office of the City Clerk and forwarded to the County RegistrarRecorder (“the County) for signature verification. On June 27, 2026, the County notified the City Clerk’s Office that the measure was being certified as containing the required number of signatures for placement on the ballot.

11.A
Packet Pg. 314
2 of 4
Accordingly, staff recommends that Council receive and file the certification and adopt the attached resolution, which requests and directs the actions necessary to place the initiative on the November 3, 2026, ballot.

Discussion
California Elections Code section 9215 requires the governing body of a city to take action on a qualified proposed initiative ballot measure after certification of the petitions on the ballot. Staff recommends that the City Council submit the measure to the voters, and the measure shall be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general election occurring in not less than 88 days, on November 3, 2026. Section 9215 establishes that the action of placing the certified petition on the ballot is ministerial, not discretionary. Thus, if the County certifies the petition, the State law requires the City Council to send the measure to the voters. Although Elections Code section 9215(a) generally permits a city council to, as an alternative, adopt a qualified initiative measure without alteration, that option is not recommended here. Direct adoption could be characterized as the City Council imposing a special parcel tax without the voter approval generally required by the California Constitution for special taxes imposed by local governments. Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 2(d). Submitting the measure to the voters provides certainty and is the more appropriate course given the constitutional distinction between local-government-imposed taxes and voter-initiated taxes. Cal. Const., art. II, § 11(a); California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924.

On February 9, 2026, proponents of the measure notified the City Clerk’s Office of their intent to circulate an initiative petition. On February 11, 2026, the City Attorney prepared a ballot title and summary, as required by law, which describes the measure as an Initiative Measure Establishing a Parcel Tax Collected by the City of Santa Monica for Funding for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. Thereafter, the proponents gathered signatures and filed their signed petition with the City Clerk’s Office on May 28, 2026.

Upon submittal of the petition, the City Clerk requested the Los Angeles County Clerk/Registrar Recorder (“County Clerk”) verify the signatures submittal therein. In

11.A
Packet Pg. 315
3 of 4
order to qualify the measure for the November 2026 election, the petition needed a minimum of 10% of the registered voters of the city. The registered voter population at the time of publishing was 70,375, and based on that number, 7,038 valid signatures were needed for qualification. The County Clerk’s Office has verified that the petitions contain the minimum number of valid signatures required to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot for a public vote.

On June 27, 2026, the County notified the City Clerk that the measure had received the required number of signatures, which is 10% of the voters or 7,038. The County found that 9,083 signatures were filed, two signatures were withdrawn, 9,083 signatures were verified, 7,711 were found sufficient, 1,372 were not found sufficient, and 132 signatures were found not sufficient because the signatures were duplicates. See Exhibit to Attachment B.

The next statewide general election will occur on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. This measure could appear as an additional item on the ballot, which will include other contests, including federal, state, county, and local races and several other local measures. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to place the measure on that ballot.

Next Steps
Next steps are specified as requests and directives in the attached resolution, including a selection of Councilmember(s) who may wish to draft an argument against the measure, if any. Because this measure was submitted by voter initiative, it is subject to the Elections Code Section 9282(a), which provides that the persons filing the initiative petition may file a written argument in favor, and the legislative body may submit an argument against. In summary, once the Council adopts the resolution, arguments for and against the measure will be prepared, the City Attorney will prepare an impartial analysis, and the City Clerk will transmit the materials to the County, which will prepare the ballot. The County will prepare and distribute the voter sample ballot.

Environmental Review

11.A
Packet Pg. 316
4 of 4
The resolution for the ballot measure is not a “project” subject to CEQA. The proposed action is informative and administrative in nature. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the proposed ballot measure does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as general policy and procedure making. Therefore, the resolution for the ballot measure is not subject to CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future. Costs related to implementation of the measure are unknown at this time.

Funding is available in the FY 2026-27 Adopted Budget in account number 01110002.552010 (Professional Services) under the Elections Division of the Records & Election Services/City Clerk's Department.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Full Text for Measure
B. Proposed Resolution and Exhibit
C. Written Comments

11.A
Packet Pg. 317

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Full Text for Measure (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 1 City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _______________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ADD CHAPTER 2.74

TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A CITY COLLECTED SPECIAL PARCEL TAX OF $495 PER PARCEL OF TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY

LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA FOR FUNDING THE SANTA

MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2026, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) received a petition to submit to the voters an Initiative Measure Establishing a Parcel Tax Collected by the City of Santa Monica for funding for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District; and, WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 9215 authorizes the governing body of a city to place proposed initiative ballot measures on the ballot; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2026, the city transmitted the petition to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder for signature verification; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11763 (CCS) calling for and giving notice of a General Municipal Election on November 3, 2026; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403, on June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11764 (CCS) requesting that the County of Los Angeles consent and agree to the consolidation of all aspects of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing members of the Santa Monica City Council, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Proposed Resolution and Exhibit [Revision 4] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 2 Education, and the Santa Monica College Community College District Board of Trustees; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2026, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder completed the signature verification process and verified sufficient signatures were provided to require the measure attached as Exhibit 1 (the “Measure”) to be placed on the ballot; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica wishes to place the following initiative Measure on the ballot at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. A General Municipal Election has been called for November 3, 2026, for the purpose, among other things, of electing City Council members and submitting ballot measures to the voters.

SECTION 2. At the General Municipal Election called for November 3, 2026, the following Measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:

MEASURE “ “: Shall a measure imposing a City of
Santa Monica collected parcel tax of $495 per taxable
parcel, adjusted annually for inflation, exempting
qualifying seniors, affordable housing, non-profits,
religious organizations, and schools, providing continual funding for Santa Monica’s public schools, including
retaining teachers, assisting disadvantaged students,
supporting art, music, science, math, and early childhood education, keeping school facilities clean and safe for student and community use, generating an estimated
$12,000,000 annually until repealed by voters, with
oversight requirements, be adopted?
Yes _____
No _____

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Proposed Resolution and Exhibit [Revision 4] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 3 SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 4. The City recognizes that additional costs may be incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this Measure to the ballot and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with Elections Code Section 9280, a copy of this Measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Measure, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The Impartial Analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. In accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code section 11.04.190 and California Elections Code Section 9295, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable election materials available for public examination in the City Clerk’s Office.

SECTION 6. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments against the Measure described above and which is contained in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein:

AGAINST: ______________________________________
All written Arguments filed by any person in favor of or against any Measure, including any Rebuttal Arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the Arguments as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures, and Arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Proposed Resolution and Exhibit [Revision 4] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 4 accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall cause the Text of the Measure, which is contained in Exhibit 1, together with the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis, and any Arguments for or against the Measure, as well as any Rebuttal, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the Sample Ballot. In addition to other notices and publications required by law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal Election, shall cause the Text of the Initiative Measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or which are appropriate to conduct the election properly.

SECTION 8. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11763 (CCS) and 11764 (CCS) are referred to for particulars concerning the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, and in all respects the election shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials, and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Proposed Resolution and Exhibit [Revision 4] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 5 EXHIBIT 1

TEXT OF INITIATIVE MEASURE

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Proposed Resolution and Exhibit [Revision 4] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) Please call Tiffany Olsen, Head, Data Entry and Signature Verification at (562) 462-2376 if you have any questions regarding the signature verification of this petition.
9,083
9,083
7,711
1,372
The results of the signature verification are as follows:

Number of signatures filed
Number of signatures verified
Number of signatures found sufficient
Number of signatures found not sufficient
Not sufficient because duplicate
Number of signature withdrawal requests
Number of signatures withdrawn
132
June 25, 2026
Denise Anderson-Warren, Interim City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Dear Denise Anderson-Warren:

We have completed the signature verification submitted on May 29, 2026, for An Initiative Measure Establishing a Parcel Tax Collected By The City of Santa Monica for Funding for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. 2 2

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Proposed Resolution and Exhibit [Revision 4] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 3:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Oscar Santiago Subject: Council meeting agenda item 11.A Parcel Tax Resolution

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Housing Affordability and the Parcel Tax
Polls show that affordability is Californians #1 issue. This council has spent significant time addressing housing affordability in Santa Monica. Yet the parcel tax the City instigated last fall significantly affects housing affordability for both homeowners and renters as school taxes can be passed through on rental agreements before 2018. It also affects market rates for non-rent control rentals. A parcel tax is a regressive tax that puts a disproportional burden on lower income residents and small businesses.

Property Taxes and School Payments are Already Very High There is already a parcel tax for SMMUSD that was $530 last year. Add the SMMUSD bond payments, and a $1M condo paid the school district $1711 in 2025 in these taxes. With this new parcel tax and the future bond issuance, this would go up to about $2700 per year, an increase of $1438, 140% increase from 2024. This has a significant effect on recent firsttime homebuyers in Santa Monica who like me, stretched themselves financially to purchase their first home and makes it harder for new buyers to qualify for loans.

The high costs of owning property in Santa Monica is contributing to families with school age children not being able to afford to live here resulting in a 23% decrease in enrollment in SMMUSD the last 10 years.

Due to the high property taxes in Santa Monica, the school district is a basic aid/excess tax district. It received $20M of additional funding over the standard state entitlement from Santa Monica’s property taxes in 2025-26 and is estimating $35M in 2026-27. Santa Monica residents are already contributing more to the school district than most if not all other school districts.

City Should not be Transferring its Commitment to the School District onto Residents It’s wrong to transfer the City’s commitment for funding the School District onto the property owners who are already contributing 82% of the school districts revenues through property taxes and sales tax. The City’s contribution through the $12M JUA is only 0.5%, not even one percent.

The $18M for YY/GS that goes to the schools from the City does not come from the general fund, the City follows the voters’ direction and passes through the sales taxes paid by residents and visitors. The City leveraged this school funding to collect half of the sales tax increases for the City’s coffers.

City Surplus Last Two Years with Improving Recovery so Why Can’t the City Continue to Pay? The City had a surplus the past two years ($2.5M and $9M respectively) while paying the school district $12M from the general fund. All reports are showing continued fiscal recovery through the realignment plan so why does the City need to stop paying the $12M school district to not have a deficit? Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 2 I don’t understand why this year’s budget says that if the parcel tax doesn’t pass, the City will have a deficit this year instead of being balanced. The Joint Use Agreement doesn’t expire until June 30, 2027 so the City is obliged to make payments in the 2026-27 fiscal year. If the parcel tax passes, payments to the school district and relief for the City would not start until the 2027-28 fiscal/tax year.

Stand up for the Residents of Santa Monica and for Housing Affordability I ask that at least one of you stand up for the residents of Santa Monica and for housing affordability here and write an argument against the parcel tax. The City needs to continue their support of the schools and not pass its commitment onto the residents.

Thank you.

Karen Melick
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 5:33 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Agenda item 11-A 7/14/26 Council meeting

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Honorable Councilmembers,
We at Santa Monicans for Reliable School Funding (SMRSF) have worked hard for many months to draft a citizens initiative and to gather the required valid voter signatures to qualify for the November election. I hope it will be an easy decision for you to adopt the resolution to place the measure on the ballot.

Our reasons for undertaking this significant effort are these:

1. The Master Facilities Use Agreement (MFUA) under which the City of Santa Monica has been sending $12M annually from its General Fund is up for renewal in the spring of 2027. Those funds are essential if SMMUSD is to retain its teachers and programs.

2. The City has declared fiscal distress and will be challenged to continue this funding to our TK-12 schools. In fact, at your June budget approval hearing, when asked by Councilmember Hall about the consequences of our measure not being approved by the voters, Finance Director Santiago "confirmed that if the measure fails, the city would face difficult decisions." (https://www.smdp.com/santamonica-council-adopts-908-8m-budget-sets-stage-for-world-cupolympics/ ). I certainly wouldn't want to be on a Council with Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 2 limited resources having to choose between schools, public safety, library hours and other community priorities.

3. While you are to be applauded for making headway on restoring the City to fiscal health, there are still significant storm clouds on the horizon: a) The specter of additional payments to victims of sexual abuse by Eric Uller; b) Cash reserves that now appear to be roughly $90M, down from pre-Covid highs of several hundred millions; c) A debt to the Housing Trust Fund of $47M; d) Several hundred million dollars of capital improvement projects that remain unfunded.

4. In the meantime SMMUSD has relied on the MFUA funding to maintain the excellence of our public schools, a key component of the property taxes that are the only City revenues to show growth in recent years. Without those MFUA funds, we estimate the district would have to eliminate 73 teacher positions, roughly 5-6 per school site, or make cuts of the same magnitude elsewhere. Our funding measure would generate $11M annually to be transferred directly from City coffers to SMMUSD, largely offsetting the loss of the MFUA dollars and maintaining district revenues close to their current level -- this would not be new funding to our schools, just a replacement of existing income.

Another factor to consider is the prospect of the statewide Jarvis measure being approved by voters this fall, in which case cities and school districts will be severely challenged to generate new revenues in an era where inflationary pressures are increasing costs at a greater rate than the growth in receipts.

Finally, I should note that early objections to our measure came from the misconception that it would eliminate the need for SMMUSD to allow the public access to sports fields, playgrounds and Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 3 other district facilities. However, the SMMUSD Board voted earlier this year to continue public access regardless of the voter reaction to our measure in November and the staff report from that item noted that the state Civic Center Act has required such entry for many years prior to the negotiation of the first iteration of the MFUA. All that remains to allay these concerns is for the Council to indicate that should our measure pass it will negotiate a new arrangement with SMMUSD to govern opening and permitting of school facilities.

In conclusion, I urge you to adopt the resolution; to agendize a Council vote on endorsing the ballot measure; and to assuage public concerns that access to school facilities will be lost.

Regards,
Ted Winterer
Chair, Santa Monicans for Reliable School Funding
--
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
"Most Loved Real Estate Agent 2025," Santa Monica Daily Press DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 4 David Yakobson
From: Payal S M <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 7:00 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Public Comment for July 14 2026 Council meeting Agenda item 11-A

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
Date: July 14, 2026
Re: Agenda Item 11.A
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to respectfully ask the Council to adopt the resolution placing the Initiative Measure for SMMUSD funding on the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Ballot.

I am a Santa Monica parent and engaged community member who has had the privilege of serving on the SMMUSD Financial Oversight Committee (FOC), a Board-appointed body charged with reviewing matters that significantly impact district finances. In that role, I have a close view of SMMUSD's financial position and budget. This school funding measure is urgent and necessary because the financial risk to our schools is real.
 SMMUSD is uniquely exposed to the City's fiscal health. Unlike most California school districts, SMMUSD is a Basic Aid, or "community-funded," district so it receives little to no general apportionment from the state and depends primarily on local revenues. According to SMMUSD's 2026-27 Adopted Budget, there are three revenue streams linked to the City of Santa Monica flowing directly into the district's unrestricted general fund. These include the MFUA or Joint Use/Master Facilities Use Agreement, Measure Y & GSH, and Measure GS, totaling ~$39.8M or ~25% of SMMUSD's unrestricted general fund revenue. This revenue concentration is rare among California districts, and it means SMMUSD is disproportionately exposed to the City’s financial position.
 SMMUSD is already operating with a structural deficit. The district's own 2026-27 Adopted Budget, presented to the Board on June 23, 2026, shows structural deficit spending across the next three years. Even while maintaining the state-required 3% reserve, recurring expenditures continue to exceed recurring revenues.
 We know that the MFUA is expiring, and without a replacement revenue source, the school district will face a documented ~$11-12M annual gap, equivalent to the salaries of up to 73 teachers. That is not an abstract number to me; it impacts class sizes, program continuity, and staffing stability for my child and every child in this district.

I urge the Council to vote to formally endorse this measure so that voters understand preserving quality public education and school funding is a shared priority for both the City and the School District. This measure creates a dedicated, protected revenue source to replace the expiring MFUA, so that SMMUSD can continue to deliver quality pre-K-12 education that has made our schools among the finest in California.

Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 5 Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Payal S. Maniar
Santa Monica Resident and Parent
Member, SMMUSD Financial Oversight Committee
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 6 David Yakobson
From: Claudia Bautista-Nicholas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment, 11-A --- Adopt Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure

EXTERNAL
July 14, 2026
TO: Mayor Caroline Torosis, councilmembers Dan Hall, Lana Negrete, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell, Jesse Zwick and Natalya Zernitzkaya
FROM: Claudia Bautista-Nicholas, SMMCTA President
RE: Public Comment, 11-A, Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure Honorable Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing today on behalf of the Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association to urge you to adopt the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure and place it on the General Municipal Ballot for the November 3, 2026 election.

As a teacher in the district for 24 years, I have seen the impact of a well rounded education on all of my students and my own children who are alumni of the class of 2018 and 2022. I have seen my students acquire the skills necessary to be successful at our best public and private universities in the state and throughout the nation. My own children have also graduated with distinction from UCLA, UC Berkeley and NYU. I give credit to the amazing educators who taught them for their entire academic career in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

We have these amazing programs – Music education from 4th-12th grade, TK-12 Spanish Immersion, Project Lead the Way, Project based learning, CTE Academies, etc – precisely due to the investment the community has made in our schools. The funding the district receives from our community allows all of our students of all ethnicities, economic backgrounds, and abilities to achieve. It is for that reason that when our association learned that the Master Facilities Use Agreement would sunset in June of 2027 and take away close to $12 million dollars from SMMUSD’s general budget, we immediately looked for a way to solve that financial crisis.

Since approximately 81% of the district’s budget is spent on salaries and benefits, the loss of $12 million would undoubtedly materialize into losing five to six teachers per school for academic year 27-28. The thought of that loss is unsettling as it could possibly destroy the programs that we love most in our district and signify a loss of up to 72 jobs. SMMCTA endorsed the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure in February of 2026 and worked hard to get signatures from the citizens of Santa Monica to get this measure on the ballot. It is for this reason that I compel you to please adopt the measure and place it on the November ballot. Please do it for the wellbeing of our students, our community and our schools.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

With gratitude,
Claudia Bautista-Nicholas
Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association, President --
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 7 Claudia Bautista-Nicholas
SMMCTA President
(She / Ella)
Cell (310) 243-6390
[email protected]
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

Every moment is an organizing opportunity, every person a potential activist, every minute a chance to change the world. --Dolores Huerta
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Tikkun Olam --Heal the World
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 8 David Yakobson
From: Shawn Saunders <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure

EXTERNAL
July 14, 2026
To: Mayor Caroline Torosis, councilmembers Dan Hall, Lana Negrete, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell, Jesse Zwick and Natalya Zernitzkaya
RE: Public Comment, 11-A, Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge you to please adopt the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure and place it on the General Municipal Ballot for the November 3, 2026 election.

I am a teacher and parent at Santa Monica High School.

I learned that the Master Facilities Use Agreement is scheduled to expire in June 2027—resulting in an estimated loss of nearly $12 million from the district's general fund. The SMMCTA began working to find a solution. According to their estimates, approximately 81% of the district's budget is dedicated to salaries and benefits. This loss could, potentially, require the elimination of five to six teaching positions at every school.

This would layoff as many as 72 educators in Santa Monica and Malibu. I think these cuts would be catastrophic to the quality of education in our schools.

SMMCTA endorsed the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure in February 2026 and worked alongside community members to gather the signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Please adopt the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure and place it before Santa Monica voters this November. We need this community investment for our students and to preserve the outstanding educational programs that define our schools as well as protecting the educators who make those programs possible.

Thank you for your consideration in supporting placement of this important measure on the November ballot.

Sincerely,
Shawn Saunders
Santa Monica High School
Teacher, Parent, SMMCTA Member
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 9 David Yakobson
From: Grant Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: please support the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure Attachments: letter of support.pdf

EXTERNAL
Good Morning,
Please see the attached letter asking for your support of the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure.

Best Regards,
Grant Clark
kindergarten teacher at Franklin School and Vice President of Santa Monica Malibu Classroom Teachers Associations
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) July 14, 2026
To: Mayor Caroline Torosis, councilmembers Dan Hall, Lana Negrete, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell, Jesse Zwick and Natalya Zernitzkaya
RE: Public Comment, 11-A, Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure Honorable Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge you to adopt the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure and place it on the General Municipal Ballot for the November 3, 2026 election.

As a teacher in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, I have witnessed firsthand the life-changing impact that a high-quality public education has on our students. Every year, I see students develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed at outstanding public and private colleges and universities throughout California and across the nation. Their success is the result of years of dedication from exceptional educators and the steadfast support of our community.

Santa Monica's investment in public education has made it possible to offer outstanding programs that enrich students' lives, including music education in grades 4–12, TK–12 Spanish Immersion, Project Lead the Way, project-based learning, Career Technical Education (CTE) academies, and many other innovative opportunities. These programs ensure that students of every background, ethnicity, ability, and economic circumstance have access to an excellent education.

When the Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association learned that the Master Facilities Use Agreement is scheduled to expire in June 2027—resulting in an estimated loss of nearly $12 million from the district's general fund—we immediately began working to find a solution. Because approximately 81% of the district's budget is dedicated to salaries and benefits, a loss of this magnitude could require the elimination of an estimated five to six teaching positions at every school, affecting as many as 72 educators districtwide. Such cuts would have a devastating impact on the programs and services that make our schools exceptional.

Recognizing the importance of protecting our students' educational opportunities, SMMCTA endorsed the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure in February 2026 and worked alongside community members to gather the signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot.

I respectfully ask you to adopt the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure and place it before Santa Monica voters this November. Doing so will give our community the opportunity to invest in the future of our students, preserve the outstanding educational programs that define our schools, and protect the dedicated educators who make those programs possible.

Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your commitment to Santa Monica's public schools. I appreciate your consideration and urge you to support placing this important measure on the November ballot.

Sincerely,
Grant Clark, kindergarten teacher at Franklin School and VIce-President of Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 10 David Yakobson
From: Michelle Boskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment, 11-A, Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure

EXTERNAL
July 14, 2026
To: Mayor Caroline Torosis, councilmembers Dan Hall, Lana Negrete, Ellis Raskin, Barry Snell, Jesse Zwick and Natalya Zernitzkaya
RE: Public Comment, 11-A, Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure Honorable Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing today on behalf of all of the Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers and myself to urge you to adopt the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure and place it on the General Municipal Ballot for the November 3, 2026 election.

As a teacher in the district for 11 years, I have seen the impact of a well rounded education on all of my students, as I am a Special Education Teacher, I have seen my students acquire the skills necessary to be successful at our best public and private universities in the state and throughout the nation.

We have these amazing programs – Music education from 4th-12th grade, TK-12 Spanish Immersion, Project Lead the Way, Project based learning, CTE Academies, etc – precisely due to the investment the community has made in our schools. The funding the district receives from our community allows for all of our students of all ethnicities, economic backgrounds, and abilities to achieve. It is for that reason that when our association learned that the Master Facilities Use Agreement would sunset in June of 2027 and take away close to $12 million dollars from SMMUSD’s general budget, we immediately looked for a way to solve that financial crisis.

Since approximately 81% of the district’s budget is spent on salaries and benefits, the loss of $12 million dollars would undoubtedly materialize into losing five to six teachers per school for academic year 27-28. The thought of that loss is unsettling as it could possibly destroy the programs that we love most in our district and signify a loss of up to 72 jobs. SMMCTA endorsed the Excellent Public Schools Tax Measure in February of 2026 and worked hard to get signatures from the citizens of Santa Monica to get this measure on the ballot.

It is for this reason that I compel you to please adopt the measure and place it on the November ballot. Please do it for the wellbeing of our students, our community and our schools.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

With gratitude,
Michelle Boskin
Special Education Teacher
santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association, Elementary Executive Board Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Anastasia Foster <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 11:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: School Funding Measure support

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers and staff,
The committee has worked very hard and successfully submitted signatures for a school funding measure to support our kids, our teachers and staff and our city. Thank you in advance for putting it on the ballot.

I echo the words of our Chairperson, Ted Winterer:

1. The Master Facilities Use Agreement (MFUA) under which the City of Santa Monica has been sending $12M annually from its General Fund is up for renewal in the spring of 2027. Those funds are essential if SMMUSD is to retain its teachers and programs.

2. The City has declared fiscal distress and will be challenged to continue this funding to our TK-12 schools. In fact, at your June budget approval hearing, when asked by Councilmember Hall about the consequences of our measure not being approved by the voters, Finance Director Santiago "confirmed that if the measure fails, the city would face difficult decisions." (https://www.smdp.com/santamonica-council-adopts-908-8m-budget-sets-stage-for-world-cupolympics/ ). I certainly wouldn't want to be on a Council with limited resources having to choose between schools, public safety, library hours and other community priorities.

Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 2 3. While you are to be applauded for making headway on restoring the City to fiscal health, there are still significant storm clouds on the horizon: a) The specter of additional payments to victims of sexual abuse by Eric Uller; b) Cash reserves that now appear to be roughly $90M, down from pre-Covid highs of several hundred millions; c) A debt to the Housing Trust Fund of $47M; d) Several hundred million dollars of capital improvement projects that remain unfunded.

4. In the meantime SMMUSD has relied on the MFUA funding to maintain the excellence of our public schools, a key component of the property taxes that are the only City revenues to show growth in recent years. Without those MFUA funds, we estimate the district would have to eliminate 73 teacher positions, roughly 5-6 per school site, or make cuts of the same magnitude elsewhere. Our funding measure would generate $11M annually to be transferred directly from City coffers to SMMUSD, largely offsetting the loss of the MFUA dollars and maintaining district revenues close to their current level -- this would not be new funding to our schools, just a replacement of existing income.

Another factor to consider is the prospect of the statewide Jarvis measure being approved by voters this fall, in which case cities and school districts will be severely challenged to generate new revenues in an era where inflationary pressures are increasing costs at a greater rate than the growth in receipts.

Finally, I should note that early objections to our measure came from the misconception that it would eliminate the need for SMMUSD to allow the public access to sports fields, playgrounds and other district facilities. However, the SMMUSD Board voted earlier this year to continue public access regardless of the voter reaction to our measure in November and the staff report from that item noted Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 3 that the state Civic Center Act has required such entry for many years prior to the negotiation of the first iteration of the MFUA. All that remains to allay these concerns is for the Council to indicate that should our measure pass it will negotiate a new arrangement with SMMUSD to govern opening and permitting of school facilities.

In conclusion, I urge you to adopt the resolution; to agendize a Council vote on endorsing the ballot measure; and to assuage public concerns that access to school facilities will be lost.

Thank you!
--
Anastasia Foster
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) 4 David Yakobson
From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 4:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman
Subject: 7-14-26–AGENDA ITEM 11A: Do Not Adopt a Resolution placing the measure on the Nov. 3 general municipal ballot:It’s Taxation Without Representation

EXTERNAL
To: City Council Members
From: Jerry Bass & Stephanie Barbanell
Re: 7-14-26–AGENDA ITEM 11A: Do Not Adopt a Resolution placing A New Parcel Tax Measure on the Nov. 3 general municipal ballot:It Amounts to Taxation Without Representation Council Members:

I am a retired public school teacher and my husband and I care very much about the education of all children.

However, another Parcel Tax, by definition, a flat rate tax on local property charged per unit of land rather than according to property value, is patently unequal at its core.

That means that a small home in Santa Monica will pay the same Tax as a mansion or a business park.

That means that an owner of a mansion or business park, who will likely have an income considerably greater than the owner of small home, will pay the same amount of this new proposed tax, $495. annually.

Is that fair?
Furthermore, in Santa Monica uniquely, a Property Tax is literally Taxation Without Representation, as renters far outnumber property owners. Property tax has little or no effect on the renters of our city, even though the children of those renters will disproportionally be the greater beneficiaries of a tax that they do not pay.

Is that fair?
An annual parcel tax will unfairly impact the homeowners of Of Santa Monica, regardless of the size and value of their property. In essence, it amounts to an ongoing penalty & punishment… In a city with a majority of renters — this latest measure Is certainly going to pass… the council knows who their constituency is and it’s a constituency that won’t feel the pain—with another parcel tax, Mom and Pop property owners will…
We repeat : taxation without representation has never been fair… Item 11-A
July 14, 2026
Item 11-A
July 14, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7796 : Certification of School Parcel Tax Measure) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 23
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Placing Proposed Ballot Measures Amending Articles XVIII, Rent Control Law, and XXIII, Housing Policies, of the City Charter on the November 3, 2026 Ballot
Recommended Actions

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Per Rent Control Board recommendation and staff recommendation, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) placing a measure on the November 3, 2026, ballot that would amend Articles XVIII and XXIII of the City Charter to reaffirm the application of local just cause eviction laws, update term limit provisions for Rent Control Board Commissioners, update and clarify procedures for increasing the maximum annual rent controlled rental unit registration fee, clarify Rent Control Board authority to regulate time limits for deciding individual rent adjustment petitions, and add requirements for owners to evict tenants for non-compliance with affordable housing deed restrictions; and

3. Per Rent Control Board and staff recommendation, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B) placing a measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot that would amend Articles XVIII and XXIII of the City Charter to prohibit evictions based on non-payment of rent when the tenant owes less than a fair threshold amount of rent; and

4. Per Rent Control Board and staff recommendation, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C) placing a measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot that would amend Articles XVIII and XXIII of the City Charter to revise requirements for owners to evict tenants for breach of a rental agreement based on the addition of new occupants, revise eviction protections for certain occupants remaining in a rental unit after the original tenant vacates, add just cause eviction protections to single-unit dwellings and condominiums, and modify requirements for good faith owner move in evictions from non-rent controlled rental units; and

11.B
Packet Pg. 350
2 of 23

5. Authorize City Councilmembers to file written arguments for or against and direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for each measure.

Executive Summary
Santa Monicans have voted to enshrine eviction protections for most of the City’s renters in the City Charter. In 1979, the voters adopted Article XVIII (Rent Control), which both limits rent increases for rent controlled units and the “just cause” reasons for eviction from rent controlled units. In 2010, the voters passed Measure RR, which amended Article XVIII and adopted Article XXIII (Housing Policies) to effectively extend the just cause eviction protections that already applied to rent controlled properties, to most multi-unit rental properties exempt from Article XVIII—i.e., multi-unit properties built after Article XVIII was adopted. The just cause eviction provisions of both Article XVIII (Section 1806) and Article XXIII (Section 2304) are materially the same in that they prohibit evictions except for the same 9 reasons and Section 1806 allows evictions for one additional reason not applicable to non-rent controlled units. The result is that tenants in multi-unit housing enjoy essentially the same protections from eviction without cause, whether the tenant lives in a rent controlled or non-rent controlled unit.

On January 27, 2026, the City Council directed the City Attorney’s Office to return to council with options for ensuring that existing tenancies will not be terminated when certain close family members move into existing tenancies, and directed the City Manager and City Attorney to evaluate additional tenant-stability and anti-displacement tools used in similarly situated jurisdictions. The Council further directed this work to be done in consultation with the Rent Control Agency, understanding that the Charter respects the Rent Control Board’s ability to exercise its powers and duties independent of the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney.

Following a survey of eviction regulations in jurisdictions with strong tenant protections, on May 14, 2026, the City Attorney’s Office presented to the Rent Control Board potential amendments to both Articles XVIII and XXIII to expand just cause eviction protections to single-unit dwellings, limit certain existing grounds for eviction, and provide additional tools to ensure deed restricted affordable housing units are utilized by

11.B
Packet Pg. 351
3 of 23
low-income households who need them. The City Attorney’s Office sought feedback from the Board as to each of the proposed eviction protections.

At its June 11, 2026 meeting, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted to consider the options presented by the CAO. The Board further voted to recommend that the City Council place on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 general election other amendments to City Charter Article XVIII, as follows:
1) Amend Article XVIII, section 1803(e) to allow Board Commissioners to serve a maximum of three terms and clarify that appointed terms count toward the overall limit and that partial terms of more than two years count as one term;
2) Amend Article XVIII, section 1803(n) regarding registration fees for rent controlled units to clarify that the maximum allowable fee is a cap on the fee amount but not the actual fee, establish annual CPI-based adjustments to the maximum allowable fee beginning in 2028, subject to a five percent annual cap and no annual decreases, and otherwise preserve the Board’s discretion to set the registration fee below the cap, and to request and receive funding from other sources when necessary, and preserving landlords’ ability to pass-through a portion of the registration fee to tenants; and
3) Amend Article XVIII, section 1805(d)(12) to clarify that Board rules and regulations governing petition processing timelines shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjust petition within 120 days of filing of the petition, allowing for extensions of time for good cause. (Attachments D, E)

11.B
Packet Pg. 352
4 of 23
At its June 25, 2026 meeting, the Board voted to recommend that the City Council place additional proposed amendments to Article XVIII on the November 3, 2026 ballot, as follows:
1) Amend Article XVIII, Section 1806(a)(1), to establish a small-rental-debt threshold, based on the average of HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents for equivalent-sized units in residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City, before nonpayment of rent may serve as a basis to terminate a tenancy;
2) Amend Article XVIII, Section 1806(a)(2), to prohibit terminating a tenancy based on the addition of certain family members, dependents, minor children, and non-family household members, subject to applicable law, affordable housing deed restriction, notice and approval requirements, and occupancy limits;
3) Amend Article XVIII, Section 1806(a) to add just cause grounds for eviction and related notice provisions to address compliance with applicable affordable housing deed restrictions;
4) Amend Article XVIII, Section 1806(c), to prohibit the eviction of certain covered occupants who have resided in a rental unit for at least one year at the time a tenant vacates;
5) Amend Article XVIII, by adding new Section 1822 to include a finding that Article XVIII is more protective than California Civil Code section 1946.2, to support continued application of Section 1806 to rent-controlled tenancies.
(Attachments F, G)
Should Council choose to follow the Rent Control Board’s recommendation and adopt a resolution placing the foregoing eviction regulation amendments on the November 2026

11.B
Packet Pg. 353
5 of 23
ballot, staff recommends that the ballot measure include parallel amendments to Article XXIII, to ensure continued consistency of the City’s two just cause eviction laws. Staff further proposes that City Council place before the voters a measure to extend just cause eviction protections, including updated protections for owner move in evictions, to single-unit dwellings in keeping with many other jurisdictions around the state with strong renter protections.

Discussion
Based on the nature of the proposals that have been considered, staff recommends the adoption of 3 resolutions placing 3 separate measures on the November 2026 ballot as follows.

I. Ballot Measure 1 – Administrative Amendments
a. Preservation of Local Just Cause Requirements (Sections 1822 and 2310)
In 2019, the California legislature adopted the Tenant Protection Act (“TPA”), which implemented a version of rent control and just cause eviction protections state-wide, subject to certain exemptions. The just cause eviction provision of TPA, Civil Code section 1946.2, provides that rental units subject to a local law requiring just cause to terminate a tenancy are exempt from Civil Code 1946.2. If the local law is adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, however, the local law applies in place of the TPA only if it is more protective than the TPA.

To be “more protective,” all of the following must be satisfied: (1) the local law must include just cause reasons for terminating a tenancy consistent with the TPA; (2) the local law must further limit the reasons for terminating a tenancy, provide for higher relocation assistance amounts, or provide additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; and (3) the local government must make a binding finding

11.B
Packet Pg. 354
6 of 23
within the local just cause eviction law that the it is more protective than the TPA. Civil Code section 1946.2(i)(1)(B).

Accordingly, in order to ensure the continued application of Santa Monica’s just cause eviction laws, the Rent Control Board and the CAO recommend that Article XVIII and Article XXIII both be amended to reaffirm that the City’s just cause eviction laws are more protective and prevail over state law, consistent with Section 1946.2(i)(1)(B). b. Rent Control Board Commissioner Term Limits (Section 1803(e)) Article XVIII, Section 1803(e) currently limits Rent Control Board Commissioners to two terms and establishes four-year terms but does not expressly address whether appointed terms count toward that limit. In contrast, the City Charter allows City Councilmembers to serve up to three terms and applies term limits to both elected and appointed service.

The proposed amendment would revise Section 1803(e) to allow Rent Control Board Commissioners to serve a maximum of three terms, whether consecutive or not, and clarify that term limits apply to both elected and appointed terms. The proposed amendment retains the existing term structure while modifying the number of allowable terms and clarifying application to appointed service. Aligning Commissioner term limits promotes consistency across City governance structures and eliminates ambiguity regarding how prior service is counted. This alignment also supports continuity and institutional knowledge while maintaining reasonable limits on tenure.
c. Rent Control Unit Registration Fee Framework (Section 1803(n)) When the Rent Control Charter Amendment was adopted in 1979, it authorized the Board to finance its operations through registration fees sufficient to cover its reasonable and necessary expenses, but did not impose a specific maximum fee. In 2014, the voters approved a Charter

11.B
Packet Pg. 355
7 of 23
amendment establishing a maximum allowable annual registration fee of $288 per unit and allowing up to fifty percent (50%) of that fee to be passed through to tenants. This change was intended to provide a more stable and predictable funding framework while reducing the risk of recurring disputes over fee adjustments.

The 2014 amendment established the concept of a voter-approved maximum fee but did not provide a mechanism for adjusting that maximum over time, other than through voter approved amendments when the Board’s budgetary needs approached the established cap.

The proposed amendment would clarify and structure the Rent Control Board’s authority to establish an annual registration fee for controlled rental units, subject to a maximum allowable amount. The Board currently charges an annual registration fee of $240 per unit, below the Charter cap of $288. Key elements of the proposed amendment include:
(1) An initial maximum allowable fee of $288 per unit, which is the current registration fee limit;
(2) CPI-based annual adjustments of maximum allowable fee beginning in 2028, capped at 5% with no decreases;
(3) Clarification that the maximum allowable fee is a cap, not the fee actually charged;
(4) Preservation of landlords’ ability to pass through up to 50% of registration fees to tenants, subject to Board regulation; and (5) Preservation of Board discretion not to charge the maximum allowable fee.

11.B
Packet Pg. 356
8 of 23
The proposed amendment’s CPI-based adjustment mechanism provides a transparent, incremental approach to maintaining the real value of the maximum allowable fee over time, thereby limiting the need for periodic Charter amendments. The proposed amendment is intended to build upon the framework established in 2014 by providing greater clarity, predictability, and long-term stability. By clearly distinguishing between the maximum allowable fee and the fee actually charged, the amendment reinforces that fee-setting remains a policy decision of the Board within voter-established limits. At the same time, the cap on annual increases, the prohibition on decreases, and the preservation of Board discretion provide guardrails and flexibility.
d. Rent Control Board Petition Decision Timeline Clarification (Section 1805(d)(12))
Section 1805(d)(12) directs the Rent Control Board to adopt rules and regulations governing the processing of individual rent adjustment petitions, including provisions addressing the timing of final action.

Consistent with this directive, the Rent Control Board has adopted regulations that establish procedures for processing petitions, including timing provisions and mechanisms that allow for additional time where appropriate. These mechanisms are structured and generally tied to specific procedural requirements, including written requests, findings, or party action, and are supported by a showing of good cause. In addition, the regulations allow adjustments to the timing where necessary to accommodate procedural developments, including where parties agree to waive applicable time limits.

The amendment is intended to clarify within the Charter framework by expressly recognizing that the Board’s regulations govern both the general timeframe for resolution of petitions and the circumstances under which additional time may be appropriate. This clarification improves transparency regarding how petition timing is administered, while

11.B
Packet Pg. 357
9 of 23
preserving the Board’s authority to adopt and apply regulations governing petition procedures. The change further clarifies the Article XVIII existing structure by expressly recognizing the role of Board-adopted regulations in establishing and administering petition timelines, without altering the Board’s existing regulatory framework.
e. Preserving Affordable Housing (Sections 1806(a)(11), (12), and (b); and 2304(a)(10), (11), and (b))
Since 1979, most new affordable rental housing has taken the form of deed restricted affordable housing. However, audit and enforcement efforts by the Housing Division have shown substantial and recurring violations of deed restrictions in the City, including the renting of affordable units to over-income households, households who do not meet minimum occupancy requirements (i.e., one person in a three bedroom unit intended for a low-income household), and other kinds of prohibited tenants including family members of owners and property managers who may have circumvented lengthy affordable housing waitlists.

One recurring challenge is that landlords of deed restricted affordable housing units are generally required to include an affordable housing addendum in their standard lease agreements, which make the following material terms of the tenancy: the tenant qualifying for the unit under the terms of the applicable affordable housing deed restriction and the tenant providing proof of qualification. Despite this requirement, many landlords have failed to include such an addendum, such that over-income or otherwise unqualified households are living in affordable housing units and preventing those units from being rented by eligible moderate- or lowincome households who need them. Landlords are often left with no remedy to come into compliance with the deed restriction and provide the bargained-for benefit of the affordable housing unit to the City’s residents.

11.B
Packet Pg. 358
10 of 23
Importantly, when a tenant initially qualified for an affordable unit but subsequently has an increase in income such that they no longer qualify for the unit, the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (“AHPP”) Guidelines provide a process for making the unit available to a low- or moderate-income household who needs it without abruptly displacing the existing tenant. The AHPP Guidelines generally provide that a tenant who initially qualified for an affordable unit may remain in the unit even if their income increases to up to 140% of the income limit for the unit; once the tenant’s income exceeds 140% of the unit’s income limit, if there is another affordable unit at the property at a higher income level for which the tenant qualifies, or an available market rate unit at the property, the tenant will be offered that unit. If the tenant cannot or chooses not to relocate, the tenant will be given a one-year notice to vacate, and will have the right of first refusal to lease any market rate unit at the property that becomes available during that one-year term. The notice to vacate will also be rescinded if during the course of the year, the tenant recertifies their income and demonstrates they qualify again for their unit.

To ensure that affordable housing units remain available to and utilized by those who need them, and to ensure that any necessary displacement of tenants is consistent with applicable guidelines such as those described above, the Rent Control Board and the City Attorney’s Office recommend placing amendments to Article XVIII, Section 1806 and Article XXIII, Section 2304 on the November ballot to provide for two additional just cause grounds to terminate a tenancy in a deed restricted affordable housing unit. The amendments would allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy if the tenant does not qualify for the unit under the terms of the deed restriction and the landlord seeks to recover possession in order to comply with the deed restriction, provided the landlord complies with applicable guidelines; and would allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy when a tenant fails or refuses to provide proof of income or other relevant

11.B
Packet Pg. 359
11 of 23
qualification for an affordable housing unit, where the deed restriction requires the tenant to do so.

The recommended language would further amend Section 1806(b) and 2304(b) to clarify that a landlord’s written notice requesting proof of income shall be given a reasonable period of time prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall notify the tenant that the failure to comply (i.e., by providing the requested information) may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. This is consistent with warning notice requirements that already apply to other grounds for terminating a tenancy.

II. Ballot Measure 2: Non-Payment Eviction Regulations
a. Prohibiting Evictions Based on Relatively Small Rental Debts (Sections 1806(a)(1) and 2304(a)(1))
All just cause eviction ordinances permit eviction based on a tenant’s nonpayment of rent, though many ordinances now only prohibit evictions for relatively small rental debts. This protection helps to promote housing stability and prevent homelessness when a tenant experiences a shortterm loss of income or increase in expenses and needs time to get back on their feet.

Such short-term economic shocks are not uncommon and they directly impact renters’ ability to pay rent. According to the Federal Reserve 2025 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED), nearly one-third of renters nationwide earning less than $50,000 per year fell behind on rent at some point in the year, and more than 17% of renters earning less than $100,000 per year fell behind on rent at some point in the year.1
1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2026-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2025- housing.htm

11.B
Packet Pg. 360
12 of 23
The same study found that a majority of adults had at least one major, unexpected expense in the preceding year, such as a major vehicle repair or replacement, house or appliance repair, or medical expense,2 and over one-third said they would need to borrow money in order to pay an unexpected expense of as little as $400, which takes time.3 Likewise, when a job loss occurs, according the California Employment Development Department, it takes about three weeks to process a new application for unemployment benefits.4
If a tenant who is otherwise current on the rent but experiences such a short-term disruption in income or increase in expenses and misses any portion of a single month’s rent payment, current law provides the landlord may serve a three-day notice to pay the defaulted amount, and if the tenant fails to pay it within three business days, the landlord may proceed to evict the tenant.

Locally, approximately 75% of all unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuits provided to the CAO since 2024 pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.27.060—which requires landlords to email copies of all eviction notices and lawsuits to the CAO but for which there is significant non-compliance—were for non-payment of rent. The amount of rent alleged due in the eviction cases provided to the CAO ranged from as little as $405.67 to as much $96,937, with a median amount of rent alleged due of $6,000 (not accounting for unit size).

Approximately 1,500 additional eviction notices based on non-payment of rent were provided to the CAO from the beginning of 2024 through first 6 months of 2026, which is likely a significant under reporting. The amount 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2026-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2025- economic-hardships.htm
3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2026-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2025- savings-investments.htm
4 https://edd.ca.gov/en/unemployment/step-6-receive-your-first-payment/

11.B
Packet Pg. 361
13 of 23
of rent at issue in these notices ranged from as little as $73.87 to $165,000, with a median amount of rent at issue of approximately $3,100.

It is unknown how many of these notices may have ripened into an eviction lawsuit, or how many tenants simply moved out after receiving such a notice.

To protect tenants from becoming homeless as a result of short-term financial strain when a tenant owes a relatively small rental debt, the CAO Consumer Protection Division and Rent Control Board recommend amending City Charter Sections 1806(a)(1) and 2304(a)(1) to prohibit terminating a tenancy based on non-payment of rent unless the amount due exceeds a threshold amount.

This amendment would not cancel or waive any rent amount that is unpaid and falls below the threshold, nor would it eliminate any other remedies available to a landlord to recover such debt, such as a small claims court action if appropriate. The amendments would simply provide that a landlord lacks just cause to evict a tenant as a remedy for the tenant owing less than the threshold amount rent.

Other jurisdictions with similar limitations on the right to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent under a threshold amount include the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles (unincorporated), City of Berkeley, and City of Oakland. The City of Los Angeles’s ordinance, enacted in 2023, was upheld under state law as a lawful regulation on the substantive grounds for eviction, first by the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2024 and again by the California Court of Appeal on April 15, 2026, in the case AAGLA v. City of Los Angeles, B336071 (LA Sup. Ct. Case No. 23STCP00720).

The jurisdictions that include a similar protection generally set the threshold amount that must be owed for a landlord to have just cause to

11.B
Packet Pg. 362
14 of 23
evict a tenant at one month’s Fair Market Rent (“FMR”) for the applicable metropolitan area, as determined annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). The County of Los Angeles is the notable outlier, and has recently amended its ordinance to set the threshold at two months’ FMR for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Area, based in part on the local emergency declared by the Board of Supervisors related to federal immigration enforcement actions.

FMR refers to an estimate of the 40th percentile gross rent for standard quality units in the applicable metropolitan area. The metropolitan area applicable to Santa Monica (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale) consists of all of Los Angeles County. By contrast, the Small Area Fair Market Rents (“SAFMRs”) are also calculated annually by HUD and are based on the 40th percentile gross rent for a ZIP Code. The average of the SAFMRs for the 5 ZIP codes wholly or partially in Santa Monica are approximately 30% higher than the FMRs for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Area, as reflected in the chart below:

Studio 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed
FY26 FMR for Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Glendale Metro Area
$2,079 $2,328 $2,903 $3,681 $4,098
Average of FY 26 SAFMRs for
Santa Monica ZIP Codes
$2,708 $3,034 $3,782 $4,796 $5,338
Therefore, if the eviction threshold were set at one month of FMR for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Area, many market rate or close-to-market rate tenants in Santa Monica would still be subject to eviction for missing even less than one month’s rent.

In order to more directly respond to rental rates in Santa Monica, the Rent Control Board has recommended setting the threshold amount at one month of the average of the SAFMRs for the 5 ZIP codes wholly or partially in Santa Monica, for an equivalent sized rental unit. The City

11.B
Packet Pg. 363
15 of 23
Attorney’s Office further recommends that this figure be rounded to the nearest dollar. While the individual ZIP code SAFMRS is readily available, the average of the 5 ZIP code SAFMRS is not. If this regulation is adopted, the City would publish this information on the City’s website.

III. Proposed Resolution 3: Other Eviction Regulations
a. Prohibiting Evictions Based on the Addition of New Occupants (Sections 1806(a)(2) and 2304(a)(2))
Both Charter Sections 2304(a)(2) and 1806(a)(2) currently prohibit evictions based on a tenant subleasing the unit in violation of the tenant’s lease if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the tenant continues to reside in the unit; (2) the sublease replaces a departed tenant under the lease on a one-for-one basis; and (3) the landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant, including if the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within 14 days of receipt of the tenant’s written request.

While this provision protects tenants from eviction in some cases when new family members or roommates move into the unit, it does not squarely address what happens when a tenant has a family member, friend, or other roommate move in in violation of a provision of the lease prohibiting new occupants or more than a specific number of occupants.

Tenants with such lease provisions may want or need family members or roommates to move in to help pay the rent, or for caregiving or other personal reasons, but may be threatened with eviction for doing so.

Since 2024, approximately 20% of all eviction lawsuits emailed to the CAO that were based on an allegation that a tenant breached their lease were based on an allegation that the tenant brought in an additional occupant or sublet the unit. This figure does not include any case in which the tenant was specifically accused renting out the unit on a short term rental

11.B
Packet Pg. 364
16 of 23
platform like AirBnB, which accounts for nearly half of all lease-violation eviction lawsuits emailed to the CAO.

The Rent Control Board has recommended that Article XVIII, Section 1806(a)(2) be amended to prohibit evictions based on the occupancy of a rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the tenant’s lease in the following circumstances:
(a) when a specified family member moves in with a tenant, provided the tenant has lived in the unit for at least one year and notifies the landlord who the additional occupant is within 14 days of moving in and that they have a qualifying familial relationship;
(b) when a minor child for whom the tenant, tenant’s spouse, or tenant’s domestic partner is legally obligated to care for moves in; and
(c) when a non-family member occupant who intends to create a household with the tenant moves in, provided the tenant has lived in the unit for at least one year and gives the landlord notice of the additional non-family member occupant, and the landlord does not unreasonably withhold approval of such person.

In all of these cases, to the extent the additional occupancy is prohibited by an affordable housing deed restriction or other law, including any law limiting the number of occupants in the unit for legitimate health or safety reasons, the tenant would not qualify for the protection from eviction.

Finally, the protection from eviction for additional family members and non-family members would apply only to the tenant of the owner; these provisions would not protect a subtenant or other occupant who is not a tenant of the owner of the rental unit from eviction if the subtenant or other occupant brings in additional occupants themselves.

11.B
Packet Pg. 365
17 of 23
Other jurisdictions in California, including Pasadena, East Palo Alto, Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, and West Hollywood, have adopted regulations that prohibit evicting a tenant for moving in additional family members in a similar fashion, and Oakland and San Francisco additionally prohibit evictions based on the addition of non-family household members as is proposed here.

The Rent Control Board’s recommendations are also generally consistent with the City Council’s January 27, 2026 direction for options to ensure that existing tenancies are not terminated when close family members move into a unit. One difference is that City Council requested options for ensuring that tenancies are not terminated based on the addition of partners, parents, grandparents, children, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, or other close family members, and the Rent Control Board’s recommended language would not prohibit evictions based on the addition of aunts, uncles, nieces, or nephews. The Rent Control Board received some comments from the public noting that none of the other cited jurisdictions with similar protections specifically protected these additional family members.

The CAO recommends two other minor clarifications to the Rent Control Board’s recommended language. First, the CAO’s recommended language would provide that a tenant may cure any failure to notify the landlord of an additional family member occupant who moves in by providing that notice upon demand of the landlord. This language would ensure that tenants who failed to provide the required information within 14 days of the family member moving in, which a tenant may not know is a requirement of this law, are not permanently barred from having that family member live in the unit. Second, the added language would make clear that any non-family member additional occupant and the tenant of the owner must mutually intend to form a single household to qualify for

11.B
Packet Pg. 366
18 of 23
the protection. Finally, the CAO recommends that parallel language be adopted in Article XXIII, Section 2304(a)(2) to protect non-rent controlled tenants.
b. Prohibiting Evictions of Family Members After a Tenant Vacates (Sections 1806(c) and 2304(c))
Current law, Charter Sections 1806(c) and 2304(c), prohibits landlords from evicting certain close family members of a tenant who remain in a unit after the tenant vacates due to death or incapacitation, provided the close family member lived in the unit with the tenant for a year before the tenant died or became incapacitated. The Rent Control Board has recommended amending this provision by:
(1) Broadening the list of occupants protected from eviction to include any remaining occupant who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, any person who was authorized to reside in the unit pursuant to the provisions of Section 1806(a)(2)(B), (C), or (D) or 2304(a)(2)(B), (C), or (D) described above, any person who was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or any minor dependent of any such person;
(2) Eliminating the requirement that the tenant vacate due to death or incapacity;
(3) Limit the availability of the protection if the occupancy by the remaining occupant is prohibited by an affordable housing deed restriction.

The effect of these amendments would be that any person lawfully residing in a rental unit for at least one year at the time that the tenant of the owner vacates the unit for any reason may remain in the unit, provided

11.B
Packet Pg. 367
19 of 23
the unit is not a deed restricted affordable housing unit that prohibits the continued occupancy. The latter provision is to ensure that this protection is not a means to circumvent affordable housing waitlists. c. Extending Just Cause Eviction Protections for Single-Unit Dwellings and Updating Owner Move-In Eviction Regulations (Section 2302 and 2304(a)(8))
Article XXIII as adopted in 2010 applies to residential rental units that are not subject to rent control and are not single-unit dwellings.

In the past several years, many jurisdictions in California have extended just cause eviction protections to most single-unit dwellings, including City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles (unincorporated areas), West Hollywood, Culver City, Pasadena, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, and East Palo Alto. Notably, some jurisdictions that extend just cause eviction protections to single-unit dwellings do exempt single-unit dwellings by an owner or owner’s immediate family member who shares a bathroom or kitchen facilities in common with the tenant. The TPA similarly applies to single-unit dwellings other than those in which the owner-occupant rents no more than two units (including ADUs) or bedrooms, those owned by certain business entities, and those otherwise eligible for exemption but for which the landlord has not served the tenant with a written notice of the exemption.

Should just cause eviction protections be extended to single-unit dwellings, including or limited to condominiums, landlords of such units are much more likely to seek to evict tenants for the owner or owner’s relative to move in than are landlords of multi-unit properties that are currently subject to Article XXIII. Section 2304(a)(8) authorizes landlords to terminate tenancies for the owner or family member to move in, subject to certain guardrails to ensure that this authorization is not used to circumvent just cause requirements.

11.B
Packet Pg. 368
20 of 23
When Section 2304(a)(8) was adopted in 2010, it contained all of the same limitations on owner move-in evictions as the parallel provision of Article XVIII, Section 1806(a)(8). In particular, both provisions required that the owner or qualified relative seeking to move into the rental unit intend in good faith to move into the unit within 30 days after the tenant vacates and to occupy the unit for at least one year, and required that the landlord re-offer the unit to the tenant in the event the landlord or family member failed to move in to the unit within 30 days. These provisions of Article XVIII were amended in 2022 with the adoption of Measure RC, to require that the owner or qualified member who seeks to move into a unit intend in good faith do so within sixty days after the tenant vacates and to occupy the rental unit for at least two years, absent extenuating circumstances, and to provide that an owner must re-offer the unit if the owner or family member fails to occupy the unit for at least two years. No parallel amendment was made to Article XXIII in 2022, but if just cause eviction protections are extended to single family homes, it would be advisable to add the same protections to Article XXIII.

Should the City Council also wish to extend the just cause protections to single-unit dwellings and provide the same level of protection against bad faith owner move in evictions that rent controlled tenants have, it could do so by placing a measure on the November 2026 ballot to amend Article XXIII as set forth in the proposed resolution attached as Attachment C.

IV. Resolution Alternatives
The City Attorney’s Office presents three draft resolutions for potential adoption: one to place all Rent Control Board Administrative Items, the affirmation of local just cause eviction laws, and the affordable housing preservation items on the ballot as a single measure; one to place the small rental debt eviction protection on the ballot as a single measure; and one to place protections against eviction based on changes or additions

11.B
Packet Pg. 369
21 of 23
in occupancy and to expand and update just cause eviction protections with respect to single family homes and owner move-in evictions as a single ballot measure.

As an alternative, Council could provide direction to the City Attorney’s Office to return with revised proposed ballot measures that would group the eviction regulations as follows:

Option A
Ballot Measure 1: Eviction Regulations For Existing Occupants:
• Section 1806(a)(1)/2304(a)(1) (small rental debt eviction protection); and • Section 1806(a)(2)/2304(a)(2) (eviction protection for existing tenants for adding new household members); and
• Section 2302 and 2304(a)(8) (single-unit dwelling and owner move in eviction protections).

Ballot Measure 2: Eviction Regulations For Added Occupants:
• Section 1806(c)/2304(c) (eviction protection for new household members remaining after tenant vacates)
Option B
Ballot Measure 1: Household Sustainability Eviction Regulations • Section 1806(a)(1)/2304(a)(1) (small rental debt eviction protection); and • Section 1806(a)(2)/2304(a)(2) (eviction protection for existing tenants for adding new household members).

Ballot Measure 2: Expanded Eviction Protections for Added Occupants and Single-Unit Dwelling Tenants:
• Section 1806(c)/2304(c) (eviction protection for new household members remaining after tenant vacates); and
• Section 2302 and 2304(a)(8) (single-unit dwelling and owner move in eviction protections).

11.B
Packet Pg. 370
22 of 23
Option C
Ballot Measure 1: All Substantive Eviction Regulations
• Sections 1806(a)(1)/2304(a)(1) (small rental debt eviction protection); and • Section 1806(a)(2)/2304(a)(2) (eviction protection for existing tenants for adding new household members); and
• Section 2302 and 2304(a)(8) (single-unit dwelling and owner move in eviction protections); and
• Section 1806(c)/2304(c) (eviction protection for new household members remaining after tenant vacates).

Environmental Analysis
The proposed resolutions and/or ordinance are exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed resolutions and/or ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
Based on past practice, the Rent Control Board would reimburse the City for any additional costs incurred by the City as a result of placing the measures on the November ballot.

Prepared By: Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14

11.B
Packet Pg. 371
23 of 23
B. RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14
C. RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14
D. Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026
E. Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 F. Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026
G. Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 H. Federal Reserve 2025 SHED Survey - Housing
I. Federal Reserve 2025 SHED Survey - Economic Hardships J. Federal Reserve 2025 SHED Survey - Savings and Investments K. CA Employment Development Department - Unemployment Benefits Processing L. Written Comments
M. PowerPoint Presentation

11.B
Packet Pg. 372
1 City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO AMEND ARTICLES XXIII AND XVIII

OF THE CITY CHARTER TO REAFFIRM APPLICATION OF LOCAL JUST CAUSE

EVICTION LAWS, UPDATE TERM LIMIT PROVISIONS FOR RENT CONTROL

BOARD COMMISSIONERS, UPDATE AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES FOR

INCREASING THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL RENT CONTROLLED RENTAL UNIT

REGISTRATION FEE, CLARIFY RENT CONTROL BOARD AUTHORITY TO

REGULATE TIME LIMITS FOR DECIDING INDIVIDUAL RENT ADJUSTMENT

PETITIONS, AND ADD REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS TO EVICT TENANTS FOR

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEED RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, the City’s Rent Control Law (Article XVIII of the City Charter, also referenced as “RCCA”) provides for an elected Rent Control Board, with authority to carry out its duties of regulating rent controlled rental units independently including by financing its operations through registration fees sufficient to cover its reasonable and necessary expenses; and
WHEREAS, in 2026, a subcommittee of the Rent Control Board (“Board”) developed proposals for targeted updates to the RCCA to improve clarity, administrative efficiency, and alignment with current practices, retaining the core structure and substantive framework of the existing RCCA provisions while providing additional precision in specific areas; and
WHEREAS, City Charter Section 1803(e) currently limits Board Commissioners to two terms and establishes four-year terms but does not expressly address whether appointed terms count toward that limit; and
WHEREAS, City Charter Section 600 allows City Councilmembers to serve up to three terms and applies term limits to both elected and appointed service; and WHEREAS, aligning Board Commissioner term limits with City Council term limits

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 2 would promote consistency across City governance structures, eliminate ambiguity regarding how prior Board service is counted, and supports continuity and institutional knowledge among Board Commissioners, all while maintaining reasonable limits on tenure; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the voters approved a Charter amendment establishing a maximum allowable annual registration fee of $288 per rent controlled unit and allowing up to fifty percent (50%) of that fee to be passed through to tenants; and WHEREAS, the 2014 amendment established the concept of a voter-approved maximum fee but did not provide a mechanism for adjusting that maximum fee over time, other than through voter approved amendments when the Board’s budgetary needs approached the fee cap; and
WHEREAS, allowing for the maximum allowable fee to be increased by CPI, subject to a 5% cap, and without requiring a voter-approved charter amendment each time the maximum allowable fee is increased, while clarifying that the maximum allowable fee is a limit and not the fee actually established by the Board, would improve flexibility in setting the annual registration fees and would reinforce that fee-setting remains a policy decision of the Board within voter-established limits; and WHEREAS, the Board has adopted regulations consistent with the directive in Charter Section 1805(d)(12) to adopt rules and regulations governing the processing of individual rent adjustment petitions, by adopting regulations that establish procedures for processing petitions, including timing provisions and mechanisms that allow for additional time for petitions to be processed where appropriate; and WHEREAS amending Charter Section 1805(d)(12) to expressly recognize that the Board’s regulations shall govern both the general timeframe for resolution and the

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 3 circumstances under which additional time may be appropriate would improve transparency regarding how petition timing is administered, while preserving the Board’s authority to adopt and apply regulations governing petition procedures; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica rent control generally does not apply to residential rental units constructed after April 10, 1979; and
WHEREAS, since 1979, new affordable rental housing has primarily taken the form of deed restricted affordable housing, where developers agree to long-term maximum rent restrictions and tenant income qualifications in exchange for financial and other incentives; and
WHEREAS, many deed restricted affordable housing units have been constructed in exchange for funds and planning concessions provided by the City of Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, the City only obtains its bargained-for benefit of affordable rental housing if these deed restricted affordable housing units are actually occupied by incomequalified moderate and low-income households who are paying no more than the maximum allowable rent permitted by the affordable housing deed restriction; and WHEREAS, audit and enforcement efforts have shown substantial and recurring violations of affordable housing deed restriction requirements, including the renting of affordable units to over-income households, households who do not meet minimum occupancy requirements (such as a one-person household in a three-bedroom affordable unit), and other kinds of prohibited tenants, such as business associates and family members of owners and property managers; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Below Market Housing (BMH) Program, which oversees and administers deed restricted affordable housing units, generally requires landlords and

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 4 property managers of affordable housing units to execute affordable housing lease addenda making qualifying under the applicable deed restriction and providing income qualification documentation to show qualification substantial and material parts of the rental agreement, such that non-qualification under the deed restriction, refusal to provide income qualification documentation, or otherwise causing a violation of the deed restriction would constitute a breach of the rental agreement and would provide just cause for eviction; and
WHEREAS, despite this requirement, there have been substantial and recurring violations of this requirement such that over-income or otherwise unqualified households are living in affordable housing units and preventing these units from being used to house moderate or low-income households who need them but, because the landlord did not make compliance with the deed restriction a substantial and material term of the tenant’s rental agreement, there may not be lawful just cause to evict these unqualified tenants; and
WHEREAS, the status quo favors less scrupulous affordable housing landlords who have not executed affordable housing lease addenda by allowing them to argue that they cannot evict over-income tenants and therefore disfavors more scrupulous landlords who have enacted affordable housing lease addenda and therefore can and must take on the cost of evicting unqualified tenants in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction; and
WHEREAS, the City’s policy regarding over-income tenants in deed restricted affordable housing units as set forth in the Affordable Housing Production Program Administrative Guidelines balances the goals of housing stability and of providing affordable units to lower-income households who need them, including by allowing

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 5 tenants who initially qualify but subsequently have their income increase above the qualifying amount to remain in their unit unless and until they exceed 140% of the applicable maximum income, by giving tenants whose income increase beyond the applicable threshold priority for other available affordable units, and by requiring longer notice periods for certain over-income tenants to vacate; and WHEREAS, it is fair to give affordable housing unit tenants reasonable notice regarding the requirement to provide income qualification documentation before endeavoring to evict them but not fair to allow tenants to occupy scarce affordable housing units needed by many low-income households if they are deliberately refusing to provide income qualification documentation on an ongoing basis; and WHEREAS, state law requires an explicit finding that local eviction protections are more protective than the state law baseline under California Civil Code Section 1946.2 in order for local eviction protections to be operative and enforceable; and WHEREAS, the eviction protections in the RCCA and HPCA are more protective than the state law baseline under California Civil Code Section 1946.2 and the purpose of adopting these provisions is so they will apply locally; and WHEREAS, the Board has heard input from the public on the feasibility and desirability of the additions and amendments to the RCCA and discussed herein; and WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing recitals, the Board has recommended amendments to the RCCA as set forth in the transmittal letters dated June 16 and June 29, 2026 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and approved the Board’s recommendation because these amendments are in the public interest as they would ensure continued application of the City’s just cause eviction framework, improve clarity

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 6 of Board practices, administrative efficiency, and alignment with current Board practices; and protect the integrity of deed restricted affordable housing while not unduly infringing on affordable housing tenants’ rights; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the Board’s recommendation, the City Council desires the City Charter be amended at both Article XVIII and Article XXIII to maintain consistency of “just cause” for eviction protections that apply to both controlled and noncontrolled rental units in the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. At the General Municipal Election called for November 3, 2026, the following measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:

MEASURE " ": Shall the City Charter be amended to:
affirm the City of Santa Monica’s just cause eviction
laws; allow Rent Control Board Commissioners to
serve up to three terms, including appointed service;
annually increase the cap on rent controlled unit
registration fees; clarify Rent Control Board authority to regulate timelines for deciding rent adjustment
petitions; and permit eviction from affordable housing
units for tenants who are not eligible or do not
establish eligibility?
Yes ________
No ________
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 3. That the City of Santa Monica recognizes additional costs may be incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this measure to the ballot and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with applicable law, a copy of the proposed measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 7 impartial analysis of the measure, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The impartial analysis for the measure shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. In accordance with applicable law, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable elections materials available for public examination in the City Clerk’s office.

SECTION 5. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments for or against the measure described above and which is contained in Exhibit 2 to this Resolution, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein:

FOR: ________________
AGAINST: ___________________
All written arguments filed by any person in favor of or against the measure, including any rebuttal arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the argument as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures, and arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause the text of the measure, which is contained in Exhibit 2, together with the City Attorney impartial analysis, and any arguments for or against the measure, as well as any rebuttals, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the sample ballots. In addition to other notices and publications required by law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal Election, shall cause the text of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 8 authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or which are appropriate to conduct properly the election.

SECTION 7. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11763 and 11764 are referred to and incorporated into this resolution for more particulars concerning the conduct of the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, and in all respects the election shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

EXHIBIT
1 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Rent Control Board
1685 Main Street, Rm. 202
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-458-8751
June 16, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Commissioner Term Limits, the Registration Fee Framework, and the Petition Decision Timeline
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
At its June 11, 2026 meeting, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted to recommend that the City Council place three proposed amendments to Article XVIII of the City Charter before the voters at the November 2026 general election.

The proposed amendments would:

1. Revise the Charter’s term-limit provision for Rent Control Board Commissioners;

2. Update and clarify the Charter’s registration fee framework while preserving the Board’s discretion to set the actual annual registration fee through its regular budget and fee-setting process; and

3. Clarify that the Board’s rules and regulations may allow extensions, for good cause, of the 120- day timeline for final action on individual rent adjustment petitions.

The Board believes these amendments are in the public interest because they would improve clarity, administrative efficiency, fiscal stability, and consistency with the Board’s current operational needs while preserving the core structure and tenant protections of Article XVIII.

The attached staff report and proposed Charter amendment language explain the amendments in greater detail. If there is anything the Board or staff can do to assist the Council in its consideration of these proposals, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
cc: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Kevin Mitchell, General Counsel
Rent Control Board Commissioners

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 1 SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Monica Rent Control Board
FROM: Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
FOR MEETING OF: June 11, 2026
RE: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Commissioner Term Limits, Registration Fee Framework, and Petition Decision Timeline
Subject
The Board will conduct a continued public hearing regarding three proposed administrative amendments to Article XVIII (Rent Control) of the Santa Monica City Charter and determine whether to recommend one or more of the proposed amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Summary
At its April 9, 2026 meeting, the Board reviewed four proposed Charter amendments developed by the Charter Amendment Subcommittee and directed staff to return with the proposals for public hearing. At its May 14, 2026 meeting, the Board opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments and also heard a presentation from the City Attorney’s Office regarding separate tenant-protection proposals that may warrant parallel amendments to Article XVIII.

Following the May 14 discussion, the Board continued the public hearing and directed staff to reconvene the Charter Amendment Subcommittee to review the City Attorney’s Office proposals and related Article XVIII issues. The Subcommittee met on May 26, 2026 and agreed that the three Board-originated administrative amendments should return to the Board at the June 11 regular meeting for continued public hearing and possible recommendation to the City Council. The tenant-protection proposals will be addressed separately as an administrative item and may return for public hearing at a future Board meeting.

The three proposed administrative amendments before the Board at this meeting concern:
• Commissioner term limits;
• Registration fee framework; and
• Petition decision timeline.

These proposals are intended to provide targeted updates to improve clarity, administrative efficiency, fiscal stability, and consistency with current operational practices while preserving Item 11.C 11.B.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 2 the broader structure of Article XVIII. They do not address the separate tenant-protection proposals currently under review.

Discussion
In November 2026, the City of Santa Monica will hold a general municipal election. The Rent Control Board may recommend Charter amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement before voters. Staff’s current target is to have any Board-recommended Charter amendments ready for City Council consideration at its July 14, 2026 meeting.

The full text of each proposed administrative amendment, along with redlined versions reflecting the proposed changes to the current Charter language, are attached to this report for public review.

1. Commissioner Term Limits (Section 1803(e))
This amendment would revise Section 1803(e) to allow Commissioners to serve a maximum of three terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, and clarify that appointed terms count toward the overall limit. The proposed language would also provide that a partial term of more than two years counts as one term.

The proposal would align Board term limits more closely with broader City Charter provisions while preserving the Board’s existing four-year term structure. It would also remove obsolete transitional language related to the first Commissioners elected after the original adoption of Article XVIII.

2. Registration Fee Framework (Section 1803(n))
This amendment would revise the Board’s registration fee framework by:
• retaining the current maximum allowable fee of $288 per controlled rental unit; • clarifying that the maximum allowable fee is a cap rather than the actual fee charged; • preserving the Board’s annual discretion to set the registration fee below the cap; • maintaining the existing tenant pass-through framework; • preserving the Board’s authority to request and receive funding from other available sources when necessary; and
• establishing annual CPI-based adjustments to the maximum allowable fee beginning in 2028, subject to a five percent annual cap and no annual decreases.

The proposal is intended to preserve long-term fiscal stability and reduce the need for future Charter amendments related solely to inflationary adjustments. The amendment would not itself set the annual registration fee at the maximum amount. The Board would continue to determine the actual annual fee through its regular budget and fee-setting process.

3. Petition Decision Timeline Clarification (Section 1805(d)(12)) This amendment would clarify that Board rules and regulations govern petition processing timelines, including the general timeframe for final action and circumstances where extensions may be permitted for good cause.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 3 The amendment is intended to reflect the Board’s longstanding regulatory framework and clarify that procedural timelines are administered through Board regulations. The proposed language preserves the 120-day final-action framework while recognizing that limited extensions may be necessary for good cause.

Relationship to Tenant-Protection Proposals
The Board is also considering separate tenant-protection proposals concerning just-cause eviction protections under Article XVIII. Those proposals are being reviewed separately in light of the City Attorney’s Office presentation at the May 14 meeting and subsequent Subcommittee discussion. Those items are being considered separately for possible public hearing. Separating the administrative proposals for consideration at this meeting allows the Board to maintain progress on items that are already developed while preserving additional review time for the more substantive tenant-protection proposals.

Recommendation
Conduct the continued public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing as to the proposed amendments concerning Commissioner term limits, the registration fee framework, and petition decision timeline, and determine whether to recommend one or more of those proposed amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Attachment A: Proposed Amendment – Commissioner Term Limits (Clean) Attachment B: Proposed Amendment – Commissioner Term Limits (Redline) Attachment C: Proposed Amendment – Registration Fee Framework (Clean) Attachment D: Proposed Amendment – Registration Fee Framework (Redline) Attachment E: Proposed Amendment – Petition Decision Timeline Clarification (Clean) Attachment F: Proposed Amendment – Petition Decision Timeline Clarification (Redline)

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(e):

TERM OF OFFICE: Commissioners shall be elected to serve terms of four years, beginning on the first Tuesday following their election. No person shall serve more than three terms as a Commissioner, whether consecutive or not. For purposes of this section, a partial term of more than two years shall count as one term. These term limits shall apply to appointed terms as well as elected terms.

Attachment A
Term limits - clean

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(e):

TERM OF OFFICE: Commissioners shall be elected to serve terms of four years, beginning on the first Tuesday following their election, except that of the first five Commissioners elected in accordance with Section 1803(d), the two Commissioners receiving the most votes shall serve until April 15, 1985 and the remaining three Commissioners shall serve until April 18, 1983. Commissioners shall serve a maximum of two full terms. No person shall serve more than three terms as a Commissioner, whether consecutive or not. For purposes of this section, a partial term of more than two years shall count as one term.

These term limits shall apply to appointed terms as well as elected terms.

Attachment B
Term limits - redline

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(n):

FINANCING OF BOARD OPERATIONS. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses through annual registration fees and other available funding sources, as provided in this subsection.
(1) Registration Fee Authority. The Board may charge landlords an annual registration fee for each controlled rental unit. The amount of the registration fee shall be determined by the Board.
(2) Maximum Allowable Fee. The registration fee established by the Board shall not exceed the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection, initially set at two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288) per controlled rental unit. The maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection establishes a limit and does not itself establish the amount of the fee to be charged.
(3) Tenant Pass-Through. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the registration fee may be passed through from landlords to tenants, subject to conditions and procedures established by the Board.
(4) Additional Funding Sources. The Board may also request and receive funding, when necessary, from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses. (5) Adjustment of Maximum Allowable Fee. Beginning with the 2028 calendar year, the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles region, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. No adjustment shall result in a decrease to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection or exceed five percent (5%) in any single year.
(6) Notice of Adjustment. The Board shall announce any adjustment to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection on or before March 15 of each year in which an adjustment is made.
(7) Board Discretion. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Board to charge the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection in any year.

Attachment C
Reg fee - clean

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(n):

FINANCING: The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses by charging landlords annual registration fees in amounts deemed reasonable by the Board up to a maximum annual registration fee of $288 per controlled unit. Fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the registration fees may be passed through from landlords to tenants, and the Board may establish applicable conditions and procedures governing the pass through.

The Board is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

FINANCING OF BOARD OPERATIONS. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses through annual registration fees and other available funding sources, as provided in this subsection.
(1) Registration Fee Authority. The Board may charge landlords an annual registration fee for each controlled rental unit. The amount of the registration fee shall be determined by the Board.
(2) Maximum Allowable Fee. The registration fee established by the Board shall not exceed the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection, initially set at two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288) per controlled rental unit. The maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection establishes a limit and does not itself establish the amount of the fee to be charged.
(3) Tenant Pass-Through. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the registration fee may be passed through from landlords to tenants, subject to conditions and procedures established by the Board.
(4) Additional Funding Sources. The Board may also request and receive funding, when necessary, from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses. (5) Adjustment of Maximum Allowable Fee. Beginning with the 2028 calendar year, the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles region, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. No adjustment shall result in a decrease to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection or exceed five percent (5%) in any single year.
(6) Notice of Adjustment. The Board shall announce any adjustment to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection on or before March 15 of each year in which an adjustment is made.

Attachment D
Reg fee - redline

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection (7) Board Discretion. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Board to charge the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection in any year.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1805(d)(12):

TIME FOR DECISION: The rules and regulations adopted by the Board shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjustment petition within one-hundred and twenty (120) days, following the date of filing of the individual rent adjustment petition, allowing for extensions of the timeline for good cause.

Attachment E
Petition timeline - clean

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1805(d)(12):

TIME FOR DECISION: The rules and regulations adopted by the Board shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjustment petition within one-hundred and twenty (120) days, following the date of filing of the individual rent adjustment petition, allowing for extensions of the timeline for good cause.

Attachment F
Petition timeline - redline

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Rent Control Board
1685 Main Street, Rm. 202
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-458-8751
June 29, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Tenant-Protection and Related Just-Cause Eviction Provisions
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
At its June 25, 2026 meeting, following a public hearing, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted to recommend that the City Council place proposed amendments to Article XVIII of the City Charter before the voters at the November 2026 general election.

The proposed amendments would:

1. Establish a small-rental-debt threshold, based on the average of HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents for equivalent-sized units in residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City, before nonpayment of rent may serve as a basis to terminate a rent-controlled tenancy;

2. Expand and clarify protections against termination of tenancy based on the addition of certain family members, dependents, minor children, and non-family household members, subject to applicable law, affordable-housing deed restrictions, notice and approval requirements, and lawful occupancy limits;

3. Protect certain covered occupants who have resided in a rental unit for at least one year from being displaced solely because the tenant of the owner vacates;

4. Add just-cause grounds and related notice provisions to address compliance with applicable affordable housing deed restrictions; and

5. Add a finding that Article XVIII is more protective than California Civil Code section 1946.2, in order to support continued application of the City’s local just-cause framework to rent-controlled units.

The Board believes these amendments are in the public interest because they would strengthen tenant stability, reduce displacement based on relatively small rental debts or reasonable household changes, preserve protections for long-term occupants in appropriate circumstances, and support consistent enforcement of affordable housing eligibility requirements while maintaining safeguards for landlords, deed-restricted housing, and lawful occupancy limits.

Attachment A contains the clean Board-recommended proposed Charter amendment language.

Attachment B contains a redline showing the proposed changes to current Article XVIII through strikeout and underline formatting. These attachments incorporate the revisions approved for recommendation by the Board at the June 25 public hearing and should be treated as the Board’s recommended language.

The Board understands that final ballot structure and final measure language remain subject to City Attorney review and City Council consideration.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection If there is anything the Board or staff can do to assist the Council in its consideration of these proposals, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
cc: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Jonathan Erwin-Frank, Deputy City Attorney
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Kevin Mitchell, General Counsel
Rent Control Board Commissioners

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if a covered occupant has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the covered occupant on the ground that the covered occupant is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article., provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on: a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the
tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional
occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the
additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or
financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely
withhold approval of an additional occupant on the
grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or
federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate
grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City a covered occupant have has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates the unit due to death or incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant on the ground that the spouse, child(ren) and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant are is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), or (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 37 Exhibit 2
Section 1801(o) shall be added to Article XVIII of the City Charter as follows:
1801 Definitions.

The following words or phrases as used in this Article shall have the following meanings:
. . .
(o) Affordable housing deed restriction. A deed restriction, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document restricting a rental housing unit for use and occupancy as affordable housing for persons and families of extremely low, very low, low, or moderate income, or an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families for extremely low, very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in this code or comparable state or federal statutes.

Section 1803(e) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
1803 Permanent Rent Control Board.
(e) Term of Office. Commissioners shall be elected to serve terms of four (4) years, beginning on the first Tuesday following their election. No person shall serve more than three terms as a Commissioner, whether consecutive or not. For purposes of this section, a partial term of more than two years shall count as one term. These term limits shall apply to appointed terms as well as elected terms., except that of the first five (5) Commissioners elected in accordance with Section 1803(d), the two (2) Commissioners receiving the most votes shall serve until April 15, 1985 and the remaining three (3)

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 38 Commissioners shall serve until April 18, 1983. Commissioners shall serve a maximum of two full terms
Section 1803(n) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
1803 Permanent Rent Control Board.
(n) Financing of Board Operations. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses through annual registration fees and other available funding sources, as provided in this subsection.
(1) Registration Fee Authority. The Board may charge landlords an annual registration fee for each controlled rental unit. The amount of the registration fee shall be determined by the Board.
(2) Maximum Allowable Fee. The registration fee established by the Board shall not exceed the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection, initially set at two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288) per controlled rental unit. The maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection establishes a limit and does not itself establish the amount of the fee to be charged.
(3) Tenant Pass-Through. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the registration fee may be passed through from landlords to tenants, subject to conditions and procedures established by the Board.
(4) Additional Funding Sources. The Board may also request and receive funding, when necessary, from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses.
(5) Adjustment of Maximum Allowable Fee. Beginning with the 2028 calendar

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 39 year, the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles region, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. No adjustment shall result in a decrease to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection or exceed five percent (5%) in any single year.
(6) Notice of Adjustment. The Board shall announce any adjustment to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection on or before March 15 of each year in which an adjustment is made.
(7) Board Discretion. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Board to charge the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection in any year.

Financing. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses by charging landlords annual registration fees in amounts deemed reasonable by the Board with a maximum annual registration fee of up to two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288.00) per controlled unit. Fifty (50) percent of the amount of the registration fees may be passed through from landlords to tenants, and the Board may establish applicable conditions and procedures governing the pass through. The Board is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 40 Section 1805(d)(12) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
1805 Individual and general adjustment of ceilings on allowable rents. (d) Hearing Procedure. The Board shall enact rules and regulations governing hearings and appeals of individual adjustment of ceilings on allowable rents which shall include the following:
. . .
(12) Time for Decision. The rules and regulations adopted by the Board shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjustment petition within one hundred and twenty (120) days, following the date of filing of the individual rent adjustment petition, allowing for extensions of the timeline for good cause.

Section 1806(a)(11) and 1806(a)(12) shall be added to Article XVIII of the City Charter as follows:
1806 Eviction.
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including, but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit except on one of the following grounds:
…
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 41 the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction, regulations, or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations and guidelines.
(12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law, regulations, or guidelines require the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit.

Section 1806(b) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
1806 Eviction.
(b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), or (6), or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

Section 1822 shall be added to Article XVIII of the City Charter as follows:
1822 Tenant Protection Act Finding.

Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 42 section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

Section 2302(h) shall be added to Article XXIII of the City Charter as follows:
2302 Definitions.

The following words or phrases as used in this Article shall have the following meanings:
. . .
(h) Affordable housing deed restriction. A deed restriction, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document restricting a rental housing unit for use and occupancy as affordable housing for persons and families of extremely low, very low, low, or moderate income, or an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families for extremely low, very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in this code or comparable state or federal statutes.

Section 2304(a)(10) and 2304(a)(11) shall be added to Article XXIII of the City Charter as follows:
2304 Just cause for evictions—Notices to cease.
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy in a noncontrolled rental unit including, but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 43 action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit except on one of the following grounds:
…
(10) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction, regulations, or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations and guidelines.
(11) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law, regulations, or guidelines require the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit.

Section 2304(b) of Article XXIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
2304 Just cause for evictions—Notices to cease.
(b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), or (6), or (11) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 44 Section 2310 shall be added to Article XXIII of the City Charter as follows:
2310 Tenant Protection Act Finding.

Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: RESO - Administrative Items Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 1 City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO AMEND

ARTICLES XVIII AND XXIII OF THE CITY CHARTER TO PROHIBIT

EVICTIONS BASED ON NON-PAYMENT OF RENT WHEN THE

TENANT OWES LESS THAN A FAIR THRESHOLD AMOUNT OF RENT
WHEREAS, the City’s Rental Control Law (Article XVIII of the City Charter, also referenced as “RCCA”) and the City’s Housing Policies Law (Article XXIII of the City Charter, also references as “HPCA”) prohibit evictions of tenants except as enumerated in the law, generally excluding only tenants renting single-family homes and condominiums; and
WHEREAS, on or about November 8, 2022, Section 1805 of the City Charter was amended to allow for Annual General Adjustment to the maximum rent ceiling, based upon the CPI, with a reduced maximum increase set at 3%; and WHEREAS, the global pandemic due to COVID-19 caused unprecedented hardships, disruptions, and long-term impacts that continue to negatively affect Santa Monica’s residents; and
WHEREAS, subsequent emergencies, including the Woolsey and Palisades Fires, have caused further hardship, disruptions and long-term impacts that continue to negatively affect Santa Monica’s residents; and
WHEREAS, the eviction moratorium, rental assistance, rental housing price gouging protections, and other efforts to prevent displacement have wound down while the long-term impacts of the pandemic, fire, and other emergencies continue to be felt; and

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 2 WHEREAS, inflation rates continue to spike and rising costs are hampering residents’ ability to stay in their homes; and
WHEREAS, at least 14,660 renter households in the City are cost burdened, representing 31.6% of renter households, as further discussed in the City’s current Housing Element, adopted October 11, 2022; and
WHEREAS, according to the City’s most recent Assessment of Fair Housing, approved by the City Council on April 20, 2020, there are 10,225 households in Santa Monica experiencing severe housing cost burden, of which 2,930 of these households are families; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica rents are well above national average rents, and according to the United States Federal Reserve’s Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2025, nearly one-third of renters nationwide earning less than $50,000 fell behind on rent at some point in the year, and more than 17% of renters earning less than $100,000 fell behind on rent at some point in the year; and WHEREAS, according to the same report for the year, over one-third of adults were one $400 financial setback away from being unable to pay their bills; and WHEREAS, tenants and legal aid practitioners have reported evictions occurring over small or de minimis rental debts of hundreds of dollars or less, which evictions may be legal under existing law; and
WHEREAS, based on nonpayment eviction notices and eviction lawsuits provided to the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 4.27.060, over the past several years, tenants have received eviction notices based on rental debts as low as $73.87 and eviction lawsuits based on rental debts as low as $405.67; and

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 3 WHEREAS, tenants faced with one-off or short-term costs, such as car repairs and healthcare payments, or temporary disruptions in income, may fall behind on rent payment despite their long-term ability to afford monthly rent payments; and WHEREAS, many tenants faced with unexpected necessary expenses may be able to pay those expenses and their rent, on their own or by securing rental assistance that may take time to apply for and receive, if they have enough time; and WHEREAS, other jurisdictions, including the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Oakland, and the City of Berkeley, have enacted just cause eviction protections setting a fair threshold amount of rent that must be owed before a landlord may lawfully evict a tenant for nonpayment; and WHEREAS, Small Area Fair Market Rents as determined by HUD for ZIP codes wholly or partially in Santa Monica are on average approximately 30% higher than Fair Market Rents as determined by HUD for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (the “Board”) has heard input from the public on the feasibility and desirability of amending the RCCA to prohibit evictions based on non-payment of rent when a tenant owes less than a fair threshold amount of rent; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing recitals, the Board has recommended the City Charter be amended to modify Article XVIII to prohibit evictions based on non-payment of rent when a tenant owes less than one month of the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents as determined annually by HUD for equivalent-sized rental units in the ZIP codes wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, as set forth in the transmittal letter dated June 29, 2026 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 4 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and approved the Board’s recommendation because these amendments are in the public interest as they would strengthen tenant protections from unnecessary displacements; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the Board’s recommendation, the City Council desires the City Charter be amended at both Article XVIII and Article XXIII to maintain consistency of “just cause” for eviction protections that apply to both controlled and noncontrolled rental units in the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. At the General Municipal Election called for November 3, 2026, the following measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:

MEASURE " ": Shall the City Charter be amended to
prohibit evictions based on non-payment of rent
when a tenant owes less than one month of the
average of fair market rents, set annually by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, for
ZIP codes in Santa Monica?
Yes ________
No ________
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 3. That the City of Santa Monica recognizes additional costs may be incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this measure to the ballot and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with applicable law, a copy of the proposed measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 5 impartial analysis for each measure shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. In accordance with applicable law, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable elections materials available for public examination in the City Clerk’s office.

SECTION 5. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments for or against the measure described above and which is contained in Exhibit 2 to this Resolution, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein:

FOR: ____________
AGAINST:_______________
All written arguments filed by any person in favor of or against the measure, including any rebuttal arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the argument as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures, and arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause the text of the measure, which is contained in Exhibit 2, together with the City Attorney impartial analysis, and any arguments for or against the measure, as well as any rebuttals, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the sample ballots. In addition to other notices and publications required by law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal Election, shall cause the text of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 6 which are appropriate to conduct properly the election.

SECTION 7. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11763 and 11764 are referred to and incorporated into this resolution for more particulars concerning the conduct of General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, and in all respects the election shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

EXHIBIT
1 11.B.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Rent Control Board
1685 Main Street, Rm. 202
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-458-8751
June 29, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Tenant-Protection and Related Just-Cause Eviction Provisions
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
At its June 25, 2026 meeting, following a public hearing, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted to recommend that the City Council place proposed amendments to Article XVIII of the City Charter before the voters at the November 2026 general election.

The proposed amendments would:

1. Establish a small-rental-debt threshold, based on the average of HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents for equivalent-sized units in residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City, before nonpayment of rent may serve as a basis to terminate a rent-controlled tenancy;

2. Expand and clarify protections against termination of tenancy based on the addition of certain family members, dependents, minor children, and non-family household members, subject to applicable law, affordable-housing deed restrictions, notice and approval requirements, and lawful occupancy limits;

3. Protect certain covered occupants who have resided in a rental unit for at least one year from being displaced solely because the tenant of the owner vacates;

4. Add just-cause grounds and related notice provisions to address compliance with applicable affordable housing deed restrictions; and

5. Add a finding that Article XVIII is more protective than California Civil Code section 1946.2, in order to support continued application of the City’s local just-cause framework to rent-controlled units.

The Board believes these amendments are in the public interest because they would strengthen tenant stability, reduce displacement based on relatively small rental debts or reasonable household changes, preserve protections for long-term occupants in appropriate circumstances, and support consistent enforcement of affordable housing eligibility requirements while maintaining safeguards for landlords, deed-restricted housing, and lawful occupancy limits.

Attachment A contains the clean Board-recommended proposed Charter amendment language.

Attachment B contains a redline showing the proposed changes to current Article XVIII through strikeout and underline formatting. These attachments incorporate the revisions approved for recommendation by the Board at the June 25 public hearing and should be treated as the Board’s recommended language.

The Board understands that final ballot structure and final measure language remain subject to City Attorney review and City Council consideration.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant If there is anything the Board or staff can do to assist the Council in its consideration of these proposals, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
cc: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Jonathan Erwin-Frank, Deputy City Attorney
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Kevin Mitchell, General Counsel
Rent Control Board Commissioners

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if a covered occupant has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the covered occupant on the ground that the covered occupant is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article., provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on: a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the
tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional
occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the
additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or
financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely
withhold approval of an additional occupant on the
grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or
federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate
grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City a covered occupant have has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates the unit due to death or incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant on the ground that the spouse, child(ren) and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant are is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), or (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 24 Exhibit 2
Section 1806(a)(1) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
1806 Evictions.
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including, but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit except on one of the following grounds:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, rounded to the nearest dollar, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

Section 2304(a)(1) of Article XXIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
2304 Just cause for evictions—Notices to cease.
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate a tenancy in a nonrentcontrolled rental unit including, but not limited to, making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 25 bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of the unit except on one of the following grounds:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement, provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, rounded to the nearest dollar, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: RESO - Rental Debt Threshold Just Cause Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 1 City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO AMEND ARTICLES XVIII AND XXIII

OF THE CITY CHARTER TO REVISE REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS TO EVICT

TENANTS FOR BREACH OF A RENTAL AGREEMENT BASED ON THE ADDITION

OF NEW OCCUPANTS, REVISE PROTECTIONS FOR CERTAIN OCCUPANTS

REMAINING IN A RENTAL UNIT AFTER THE ORIGINAL TENANT VACATES,

EXPAND JUST CAUSE EVICTION PROTECTIONS TO SINGLE-UNIT DWELLINGS,

AND MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD FAITH OWNER MOVE IN EVICTIONS

FROM NON-RENT CONTROLLED RENTAL UNITS
WHEREAS, the City’s Rental Control Law (Article XVIII of the City Charter, also referenced as “RCCA”) and the City’s Housing Policies Law (Article XXIII of the City Charter, also referenced as “HPCA”) prohibit evictions of tenants except as enumerated in the law, generally excluding only tenants renting single-unit dwellings and condominiums; and
WHEREAS, landlords generally may evict tenants for substantial violations of rental agreements, except as limited by the RCCA and HPCA; and WHEREAS, the RCCA and the HCPA currently do not permit evictions for violations of provisions of rental housing agreements prohibiting subleasing, if specified conditions are met, including that the new occupant replaces a departed subtenant on a one-for-one basis (“the roommate replacement right”); and WHEREAS, even where a rental housing unit has bedrooms or space for additional occupants, existing law may permit eviction of a tenant for allowing family or other household members to move into the unit, if prohibited by the written lease agreement; and
WHEREAS, fair housing law may require landlords to allow tenants to live with

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 2 spouses, domestic partners, and minor children, but may not always or unambiguously require landlords to allow tenants to live with other family members or household members; and
WHEREAS, protecting tenants from eviction for living with family and household members within lawful and safe maximum occupancy limits would reduce homelessness and rent burden and keep families and households together without altering the character of Santa Monica’s residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, studies show that housing stability leads to better education, health, and economic outcomes for adults and children; and
WHEREAS, even where tenants may be able to afford higher rent, they may struggle to afford “first, last, and deposit” as well as moving expenses necessary to move into a new rental unit; and
WHEREAS, the death, incapacitation, departure of or separation from a family or household member may further limit tenants’ capacity to find and qualify for a new residence, as well as to afford “first, last, and deposit” payment and moving expenses to move to a new residence; and
WHEREAS, protecting family and household members who lawfully reside in a unit from being evicted after a tenant vacates would promote housing stability and prevent homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the HPCA permits owners to evict tenants based on the owner’s good faith intent to occupy the unit or have a qualified family member occupy the unit, subject to certain limitations to ensure tenants are not unfairly displaced for this reason; and WHEREAS, Article XVIII, Section 1806(a)(8) was amended by Measure RC in 2022 to further regulate owner move in evictions from rent controlled rental units to ensure

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 3 that owner move in evictions are not used to circumvent just cause requirements, but the same amendments were not made to Article XXIII, Section 2304(a)(8); and WHEREAS, owners of single-unit dwellings are significantly more likely to evict tenants for owner-occupancy than owners of multi-family properties; and WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (the “Board”) has heard input from the public on the feasibility and desirability of the additions and amendments to the RCCA discussed herein; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing recitals, the Board has recommended the City Charter be amended to modify Article XVIII as set forth in the transmittal letter dated June 29, 2026 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and approved the Board’s recommendation because these amendments are in the public interest as they would strengthen tenant protections from unnecessary displacements; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the Board’s recommendation, the City Council desires the City Charter be amended at both Article XVIII and Article XXIII to maintain consistency of “just cause” for eviction protections that apply to both controlled and noncontrolled rental units in the City; and WHEREAS, in addition to the amendments recommended by the Board and parallel corresponding amendments that would align the HPCA with the RCCA so that the same just cause protections would apply to controlled and non-controlled units, the City Council has considered expanding the HPCA to extend just cause for eviction protections to cover single-unit dwellings and condominiums; and WHEREAS, there are a growing and significant number of single-unit dwellings and condominiums being used for residential rentals in the City; and

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 4 WHEREAS, other jurisdictions, including the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Culver City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Pasadena, Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and East Palo Alto currently extend just cause for eviction protections to singleunit dwellings and condominiums, making Santa Monica an outlier with respect to comparable jurisdictions with robust tenant protections; and WHEREAS, tenants of single family homes are more likely to be evicted for owner move in than tenants in multi-unit dwellings; and
WHEREAS, to ensure tenants of non-rent controlled units have adequate protection against bad faith owner move in evictions, it is necessary to amend the HPCA to align with the 2022 amendments of the RCCA with respect to owner move-in evictions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. At the General Municipal Election called for November 3, 2026, the following measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:

MEASURE " ": Shall the City Charter be amended to
prohibit evictions when additional occupants move
into a unit, subject to legal limits; prohibit evictions of lawful occupants who remain after a tenant vacates;
extend existing eviction protections to tenants renting single-unit dwellings and condominiums; and require
for owner occupancy evictions from non-rent
controlled units, that the owner occupy the unit within 60 days after the tenant vacates and for at least 2
years thereafter?
Yes ________
No ________
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 3. That the City of Santa Monica recognizes additional costs may be

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 5 incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this measure to the ballot and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with applicable law, a copy of the proposed measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The impartial analysis for each measure shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. In accordance with applicable law, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable elections materials available for public examination in the City Clerk’s office.

SECTION 5. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments for or against the measure described above and which is contained in Exhibit 2 to this Resolution, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein:

FOR: ____________
AGAINST:_______________
All written arguments filed by any person in favor of or against the measure, including any rebuttal arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the argument as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures, and arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause the text of the measure, which is contained in Exhibit 2, together with the City Attorney impartial analysis, and any arguments for or against the measure, as well as any rebuttals, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 6 sample ballots. In addition to other notices and publications required by law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal Election, shall cause the text of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or which are appropriate to conduct properly the election.

SECTION 7. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11763 and 11764 are referred to and incorporated into this resolution for more particulars concerning the conduct of General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, and in all respects the election shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

EXHIBIT
1 11.B.c
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Rent Control Board
1685 Main Street, Rm. 202
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-458-8751
June 29, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Tenant-Protection and Related Just-Cause Eviction Provisions
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
At its June 25, 2026 meeting, following a public hearing, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted to recommend that the City Council place proposed amendments to Article XVIII of the City Charter before the voters at the November 2026 general election.

The proposed amendments would:

1. Establish a small-rental-debt threshold, based on the average of HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents for equivalent-sized units in residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City, before nonpayment of rent may serve as a basis to terminate a rent-controlled tenancy;

2. Expand and clarify protections against termination of tenancy based on the addition of certain family members, dependents, minor children, and non-family household members, subject to applicable law, affordable-housing deed restrictions, notice and approval requirements, and lawful occupancy limits;

3. Protect certain covered occupants who have resided in a rental unit for at least one year from being displaced solely because the tenant of the owner vacates;

4. Add just-cause grounds and related notice provisions to address compliance with applicable affordable housing deed restrictions; and

5. Add a finding that Article XVIII is more protective than California Civil Code section 1946.2, in order to support continued application of the City’s local just-cause framework to rent-controlled units.

The Board believes these amendments are in the public interest because they would strengthen tenant stability, reduce displacement based on relatively small rental debts or reasonable household changes, preserve protections for long-term occupants in appropriate circumstances, and support consistent enforcement of affordable housing eligibility requirements while maintaining safeguards for landlords, deed-restricted housing, and lawful occupancy limits.

Attachment A contains the clean Board-recommended proposed Charter amendment language.

Attachment B contains a redline showing the proposed changes to current Article XVIII through strikeout and underline formatting. These attachments incorporate the revisions approved for recommendation by the Board at the June 25 public hearing and should be treated as the Board’s recommended language.

The Board understands that final ballot structure and final measure language remain subject to City Attorney review and City Council consideration.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant If there is anything the Board or staff can do to assist the Council in its consideration of these proposals, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
cc: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Jonathan Erwin-Frank, Deputy City Attorney
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Kevin Mitchell, General Counsel
Rent Control Board Commissioners

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if a covered occupant has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the covered occupant on the ground that the covered occupant is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article., provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on: a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the
tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional
occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the
additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or
financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely
withhold approval of an additional occupant on the
grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or
federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate
grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City a covered occupant have has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates the unit due to death or incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant on the ground that the spouse, child(ren) and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant are is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), or (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 24 Exhibit 2
Section 1806(a)(2) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
1806 Evictions.
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including, but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit except on one of the following grounds:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on: a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(A) A tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the unit
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 25 following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord. (B) Occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit or within fourteen (14) days of a written request by the owner. The written notice shall state the name of the additional person and that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph. A landlord shall not take any action to terminate any tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy under this subsection on the basis that the tenant did not provide written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person began residing in the rental unit, unless the landlord has made a written request for the name and relation of the additional person and the tenant has unreasonably failed to respond within fourteen (14) days. (C) Occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 26 the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) Occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner and such additional person intend to create a single household together, notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), and if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and (ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 27 landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

Section 1806(c) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
1806 Evictions.
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if a covered occupant the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City have has lived in the unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates the unit due to death or incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the unit from the covered occupant tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or registered domestic partner on the ground that the covered occupant is spouse, child(ren) and/or registered domestic partner are not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 28 deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B), (C), or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

Section 2302(a) and (h) of Article XXIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
2302 Definitions.

The following words or phrases as used in this Article shall have the following meanings:
(a) Nonrentcontrolled rental units.

All residential rental units in the City of Santa Monica except those units that are subject to rent control pursuant to Article XVIII of this Charter or are single-family homes. . . .
(h) Single-family home.

A property that has been developed with only one dwelling and any lawful accessory structures, or a lawfully created condominium, stock cooperative or similar unit that is part of a larger residential structure or complex.

Section 2304(a)(2) of Article XXIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
2304 Just cause eviction—Notices to cease.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 29 (a) No landlord shall take action to terminate a tenancy in a nonrentcontrolled rental unit including, but not limited to, making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of the unit except on one of the following grounds:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on: a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(A) A tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the unit
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord. (B) Occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 30 excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit or within fourteen (14) days of a written request by the owner. The written notice shall state the name of the additional person and that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph. A landlord shall not take any action to terminate any tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy under this subsection on the basis that the tenant did not provide written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person began residing in the rental unit, unless the landlord has made a written request for the name and relation of the additional person and the tenant has unreasonably failed to respond within fourteen (14) days. (C) Occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 31 legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) Occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner and such additional person intend to create a single household together, notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), and if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and (ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant,

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 32 that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

Section 2304(a)(8)(iv) and 2304(a)(8)(v) of Article XXIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
2304 Just cause eviction—Notices to cease.
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy in a noncontrolled rental unit including, but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit except on one of the following grounds:
. . .
(8) The landlord seeks to recover possession in good faith for use and occupancy by herself or himself, or her or his children, parents, grandparents, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law. For purposes of evictions under this Subsection:
. . .
(iv) The landlord or enumerated relative must intend in good faith to move into the unit within thirty (30) sixty (60) days after the tenant vacates and to occupy the unit as a primary residence for at least one year two years, unless

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 33 extenuating circumstances exist. The City may adopt regulations governing the determination of good faith.
(v) If the landlord or relative specified on the notice terminating tenancy fails to occupy the unit within thirty (30) sixty (60) days after the tenant vacates or fails to occupy the unit as a primary residence for at least two years, unless extenuating circumstances exist, the landlord shall:

A. Offer the unit to the tenant who vacated it.

B. Pay to said tenant all reasonable expenses incurred in moving to and/or from the unit.

Section 2304(c) of Article XXIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:
2304 Just cause eviction—Notices to cease.
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if a covered occupant the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City have has lived in the unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates the unit due to death or incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the unit from the covered occupant tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or registered domestic partner on the ground that the covered occupant is spouse, child(ren) and/or registered domestic partner are not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 34 For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B), (C), or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.c
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: RESO - Other Eviction Regulations Ballot Measure (Arts. XVIII and XXIII) 2026.07.14 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant 1 SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Monica Rent Control Board
FROM: Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
FOR MEETING OF: April 9, 2026
RE: Discussion of Proposed Charter Amendments for November 2026 Ballot
Summary
The Board will discuss proposed amendments to Article XVIII (Rent Control) of the Santa Monica City Charter, developed by the Charter Amendment Subcommittee (Vice Chair Ambriz and Commissioner Gonska), and consider whether to proceed with a public hearing and potential recommendation to the City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Discussion
In November 2026, the City of Santa Monica will hold a general municipal election. The Rent Control Board may recommend that the City Council place proposed amendments to Article XVIII of the City Charter.

The proposed amendments presented in this report were developed through subcommittee discussions and are intended to provide targeted updates to improve clarity, administrative efficiency, and alignment with current practices. The amendments retain the core structure and substantive framework of the existing Charter provisions while providing additional precision in specific areas.

The proposed amendments for discussion by the full Board address four primary areas:
• Aligning Commissioner term limits with City Charter provisions • Establishing a clearer and more durable financing framework • Clarifying the regulatory framework governing petition timelines • Clarifying tenant protections related to familial occupancy The amendments are presented as discrete items for the Board’s consideration. The Board may consider each item independently and provide direction on whether to proceed with a public hearing and, if so, on a potential recommendation to the City Item 12.A 11.B.d
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 2 Council. The full text of each proposed amendment and redlined versions are attached to this report.

Proposed Amendment: Term Limits Alignment (Section 1803(e)) The proposed amendment would revise Section 1803(e) to allow Commissioners to serve a maximum of three terms, whether consecutive or not, and clarify that term limits apply to both elected and appointed terms.

Section 1803(e) currently limits Commissioners to two terms and establishes four-year terms but does not expressly address whether appointed terms count toward that limit. The proposed amendment retains the existing term structure while modifying the number of allowable terms and clarifying application to appointed service.

The City Charter allows City Councilmembers to serve up to three terms and applies term limits to both elected and appointed service. Aligning Commissioner term limits promotes consistency across City governance structures and eliminates ambiguity regarding how prior service is counted. This alignment also supports continuity and institutional knowledge while maintaining reasonable limits on tenure.

This proposed change standardizes term limits, clarifies the treatment of appointed service, and aligns the Board’s structure with broader City governance practices, while retaining the existing four-year term framework.

Proposed Amendment: Financing and Registration Fee Framework (Section 1803(n)) The proposed amendment would clarify and structure the Board’s authority to establish an annual registration fee for controlled rental units, subject to a maximum allowable amount.

Key elements include:
• Initial maximum allowable fee of $288 per unit (current limit) • Clarification that the maximum allowable fee is a cap, not the fee charged • Retains up to 50% tenant pass-through, subject to Board regulation • CPI-based annual adjustments of maximum allowable fee beginning in 2028 (capped at 5%, no decreases)
• Preservation of Board discretion not to charge the maximum allowable fee When the Rent Control Charter Amendment was adopted in 1979, it authorized the Board to finance its operations through registration fees sufficient to cover its reasonable and necessary expenses, but did not impose a specific maximum fee. In 2014, the voters approved a Charter amendment establishing a maximum allowable annual registration fee of $288 per unit and allowing up to fifty percent (50%) of that fee to be passed through to tenants. This change was intended to provide a more stable and predictable funding framework while reducing the risk of recurring disputes over fee adjustments.

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 3 The 2014 amendment established the concept of a voter-approved maximum fee but did not provide a mechanism for adjusting that maximum over time, other than through voterapproved amendments when the Board’s budgetary needs approached the established cap.

The proposed amendment’s CPI-based adjustment mechanism provides a transparent, incremental approach to maintaining the real value of the maximum allowable fee over time, thereby limiting the need for periodic Charter amendments.

The proposed amendment is intended to build upon the framework established in 2014 by providing greater clarity, predictability, and long-term stability. By clearly distinguishing between the maximum allowable fee and the fee actually charged, the amendment reinforces that fee-setting remains a policy decision of the Board within voter-established limits. At the same time, the cap on annual increases, the prohibition on decreases, and the preservation of Board discretion provide appropriate guardrails and flexibility.

In sum, the proposed amendment maintains the existing financing structure while adding a defined mechanism for adjusting the maximum allowable fee over time. It preserves the Board’s authority to set fees annually and maintains existing tenant pass-through provisions.

Proposed Amendment: Petition Decision Timeline (Section 1805(d)(12)) The proposed amendment would clarify that the Board’s rules and regulations are to provide for the timing of final action on individual rent adjustment petitions, including a general 120- day timeframe, and would expressly recognize that such regulations may allow for extensions of time for good cause.

Section 1805(d)(12) directs the Board to adopt rules and regulations governing the processing of individual rent adjustment petitions, including provisions addressing the timing of final action. Consistent with this directive, the Board has adopted regulations that establish procedures for processing petitions, including timing provisions and mechanisms that allow for additional time where appropriate. These mechanisms are structured and generally tied to specific procedural requirements, including written requests, findings, or party action, and are supported by a showing of good cause. In addition, the regulations allow adjustments to the timing where necessary to accommodate procedural developments, including where parties agree to waive applicable time limits. Taken together, these provisions reflect an established regulatory framework governing the timing of petition processing.

The amendment is intended to clarify within the Charter framework for addressing petition timing by expressly recognizing that the Board’s regulations govern both the general timeframe for resolution and the circumstances under which additional time may be appropriate. This clarification improves transparency regarding how petition timing is administered, while preserving the Board’s authority to adopt and apply regulations governing petition procedures.

This change clarifies the Charter’s existing structure by expressly recognizing the role of Board-adopted regulations in establishing and administering petition timelines, without

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 4 altering the Board’s existing regulatory framework. This clarification is intended to reflect and preserve the Board’s existing regulatory framework governing petition timelines.

Proposed Amendment: Tenant Protections – Occupancy (Section 1806(a)(2)) The proposed amendment would clarify that a landlord may not terminate a tenancy based on:
• Occupancy by specified family members beyond lease limits, including a spouse, registered domestic partner, parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or non-dependent child or grandchild (by blood or adoption) • Additional occupancy resulting from the birth, adoption, or legal custody of a minor child
These provisions remain subject to applicable legal limits on occupancy.

Section 1806(a) establishes the exclusive grounds for eviction and reflects longstanding Charter protections limiting terminations of tenancy to specified circumstances. The Charter does not expressly address certain occupancy scenarios, including the addition of family members or changes in household composition resulting from the birth, adoption, or legal custody of a minor child.

The amendment is intended to clarify that these types of changes in household composition do not, in themselves, constitute grounds for termination of tenancy. In practice, disputes may arise when landlords treat the addition of family members or minor children as a basis for eviction. The absence of explicit Charter language addressing these scenarios can lead to inconsistent outcomes.

By clarifying that such changes in occupancy are not grounds for termination, the amendment reinforces the Charter’s existing structure, which limits evictions to specified causes, and provides clearer protection for tenants in these circumstances. The approach reflected in the proposed amendment is consistent with broader policy considerations regarding tenant occupancy protections and is grounded in the Board’s existing Charter framework.

The amendment clarifies that specified changes in household composition, including the addition of family members or minor children, are not grounds for eviction, thereby strengthening the predictability and application of existing tenant protections.

Fiscal Impact
Based on prior election experience, staff anticipates that actual costs may be lower than preliminary estimates, which are intentionally conservative at this stage. Staff will refine cost projections as part of the FY 2026–27 budget process and return to the Board with updated information prior to any final action.

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 5 Conclusion
The proposed amendments represent targeted updates developed by the Charter Amendment Subcommittee that retain the core structure and substantive framework of the existing Charter while providing greater clarity, consistency, and administrative effectiveness.

Following Board discussion, the Board may direct that one or more of the proposed amendments be brought back for a public hearing and potential recommendation to the City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Recommendation
Discuss the proposed amendments developed by the Charter Amendment Subcommittee and provide direction on whether to proceed with a public hearing and potential recommendation to the City Council.

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures)

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Article XVIII Charter Amendments – November 2026 Ballot Section 1803(e):

TERM OF OFFICE: Commissioners shall be elected to serve terms of four years, beginning on the first Tuesday following their election. No person shall serve more than three terms as a Commissioner, whether consecutive or not. For purposes of this section, a partial term of more than two years shall count as one term. These term limits shall apply to appointed terms as well as elected terms.

Section 1803(n):

FINANCING OF BOARD OPERATIONS. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses through annual registration fees and other available funding sources, as provided in this subsection.
(1) Registration Fee Authority. The Board may charge landlords an annual registration fee for each controlled rental unit. The amount of the registration fee shall be determined by the Board.
(2) Maximum Allowable Fee. The registration fee established by the Board shall not exceed the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection, initially set at two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288) per controlled rental unit. The maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection establishes a limit and does not itself establish the amount of the fee to be charged.
(3) Tenant Pass-Through. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the registration fee may be passed through from landlords to tenants, subject to conditions and procedures established by the Board.
(4) Additional Funding Sources. The Board may also request and receive funding, when necessary, from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses. (5) Adjustment of Maximum Allowable Fee. Beginning with the 2028 calendar year, the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles region, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. No adjustment shall result in a decrease to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection or exceed five percent (5%) in any single year.

Item 12.A
Proposed Amendments

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) (6) Notice of Adjustment. The Board shall announce any adjustment to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection on or before March 15 of each year in which an adjustment is made.
(7) Board Discretion. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Board to charge the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection in any year.

Section 1805(d)(12):

TIME FOR DECISION: The rules and regulations adopted by the Board shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjustment petition within one-hundred and twenty (120) days, following the date of filing of the individual rent adjustment petition, allowing for extensions of the timeline for good cause.

Section 1806(a)(2):
…Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy based on the following:
(i) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(I) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(II) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(III) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(ii) occupancy of the rental unit by an additional person in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental agreement if the additional person is the spouse, registered domestic partner, parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or non-dependent child or grandchild (by blood or adoption);

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) (iii) in addition to the occupancy permitted in (ii), occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant or head of household or his or her spouse or registered domestic partner is the parent or legal guardian.

Nothing in this subsection shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures)

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Article XVIII Charter Amendments – November 2026 Ballot Section 1803(e):

TERM OF OFFICE: Commissioners shall be elected to serve terms of four years, beginning on the first Tuesday following their election, except that of the first five Commissioners elected in accordance with Section 1803(d), the two Commissioners receiving the most votes shall serve until April 15, 1985 and the remaining three Commissioners shall serve until April 18, 1983. Commissioners shall serve a maximum of two full terms. No person shall serve more than three terms as a Commissioner, whether consecutive or not. For purposes of this section, a partial term of more than two years shall count as one term.

These term limits shall apply to appointed terms as well as elected terms.

Section 1803(n):

FINANCING: The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses by charging landlords annual registration fees in amounts deemed reasonable by the Board up to a maximum annual registration fee of $288 per controlled unit. Fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the registration fees may be passed through from landlords to tenants, and the Board may establish applicable conditions and procedures governing the pass through.

The Board is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

FINANCING OF BOARD OPERATIONS. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses through annual registration fees and other available funding sources, as provided in this subsection.
(1) Registration Fee Authority. The Board may charge landlords an annual registration fee for each controlled rental unit. The amount of the registration fee shall be determined by the Board.
(2) Maximum Allowable Fee. The registration fee established by the Board shall not exceed the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection, initially set at two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288) per controlled rental unit. The maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection establishes a limit and does not itself establish the amount of the fee to be charged.
(3) Tenant Pass-Through. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the registration fee may be passed through from landlords to tenants, subject to conditions and procedures established by the Board.
(4) Additional Funding Sources. The Board may also request and receive funding, when necessary, from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

Item 12.A
Proposed Amendments - Redline

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) (5) Adjustment of Maximum Allowable Fee. Beginning with the 2028 calendar year, the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles region, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. No adjustment shall result in a decrease to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection or exceed five percent (5%) in any single year.
(6) Notice of Adjustment. The Board shall announce any adjustment to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection on or before March 15 of each year in which an adjustment is made.
(7) Board Discretion. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Board to charge the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection in any year.

Section 1805(d)(12):

TIME FOR DECISION: The rules and regulations adopted by the Board shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjustment petition within one-hundred and twenty (120) days, following the date of filing of the individual rent adjustment petition, allowing for extensions of the timeline for good cause.

Section 1806(a)(2):
…Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy based on a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(i) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) (I) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(II) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(III) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(ii) occupancy of the rental unit by an additional person in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental agreement if the additional person is the spouse, registered domestic partner, parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or non-dependent child or grandchild (by blood or adoption); (iii) in addition to the occupancy permitted in (ii), occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant or head of household or his or her spouse or registered domestic partner is the parent or legal guardian.

Nothing in this subsection shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - April 9, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Rent Control Board
1685 Main Street, Rm. 202
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-458-8751
June 16, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Commissioner Term Limits, the Registration Fee Framework, and the Petition Decision Timeline
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
At its June 11, 2026 meeting, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted to recommend that the City Council place three proposed amendments to Article XVIII of the City Charter before the voters at the November 2026 general election.

The proposed amendments would:

1. Revise the Charter’s term-limit provision for Rent Control Board Commissioners;

2. Update and clarify the Charter’s registration fee framework while preserving the Board’s discretion to set the actual annual registration fee through its regular budget and fee-setting process; and

3. Clarify that the Board’s rules and regulations may allow extensions, for good cause, of the 120- day timeline for final action on individual rent adjustment petitions.

The Board believes these amendments are in the public interest because they would improve clarity, administrative efficiency, fiscal stability, and consistency with the Board’s current operational needs while preserving the core structure and tenant protections of Article XVIII.

The attached staff report and proposed Charter amendment language explain the amendments in greater detail. If there is anything the Board or staff can do to assist the Council in its consideration of these proposals, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
cc: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Kevin Mitchell, General Counsel
Rent Control Board Commissioners

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 1 SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Monica Rent Control Board
FROM: Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
FOR MEETING OF: June 11, 2026
RE: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Commissioner Term Limits, Registration Fee Framework, and Petition Decision Timeline
Subject
The Board will conduct a continued public hearing regarding three proposed administrative amendments to Article XVIII (Rent Control) of the Santa Monica City Charter and determine whether to recommend one or more of the proposed amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Summary
At its April 9, 2026 meeting, the Board reviewed four proposed Charter amendments developed by the Charter Amendment Subcommittee and directed staff to return with the proposals for public hearing. At its May 14, 2026 meeting, the Board opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments and also heard a presentation from the City Attorney’s Office regarding separate tenant-protection proposals that may warrant parallel amendments to Article XVIII.

Following the May 14 discussion, the Board continued the public hearing and directed staff to reconvene the Charter Amendment Subcommittee to review the City Attorney’s Office proposals and related Article XVIII issues. The Subcommittee met on May 26, 2026 and agreed that the three Board-originated administrative amendments should return to the Board at the June 11 regular meeting for continued public hearing and possible recommendation to the City Council. The tenant-protection proposals will be addressed separately as an administrative item and may return for public hearing at a future Board meeting.

The three proposed administrative amendments before the Board at this meeting concern:
• Commissioner term limits;
• Registration fee framework; and
• Petition decision timeline.

These proposals are intended to provide targeted updates to improve clarity, administrative efficiency, fiscal stability, and consistency with current operational practices while preserving Item 11.C 11.B.e
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 2 the broader structure of Article XVIII. They do not address the separate tenant-protection proposals currently under review.

Discussion
In November 2026, the City of Santa Monica will hold a general municipal election. The Rent Control Board may recommend Charter amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement before voters. Staff’s current target is to have any Board-recommended Charter amendments ready for City Council consideration at its July 14, 2026 meeting.

The full text of each proposed administrative amendment, along with redlined versions reflecting the proposed changes to the current Charter language, are attached to this report for public review.

1. Commissioner Term Limits (Section 1803(e))
This amendment would revise Section 1803(e) to allow Commissioners to serve a maximum of three terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, and clarify that appointed terms count toward the overall limit. The proposed language would also provide that a partial term of more than two years counts as one term.

The proposal would align Board term limits more closely with broader City Charter provisions while preserving the Board’s existing four-year term structure. It would also remove obsolete transitional language related to the first Commissioners elected after the original adoption of Article XVIII.

2. Registration Fee Framework (Section 1803(n))
This amendment would revise the Board’s registration fee framework by:
• retaining the current maximum allowable fee of $288 per controlled rental unit; • clarifying that the maximum allowable fee is a cap rather than the actual fee charged; • preserving the Board’s annual discretion to set the registration fee below the cap; • maintaining the existing tenant pass-through framework; • preserving the Board’s authority to request and receive funding from other available sources when necessary; and
• establishing annual CPI-based adjustments to the maximum allowable fee beginning in 2028, subject to a five percent annual cap and no annual decreases.

The proposal is intended to preserve long-term fiscal stability and reduce the need for future Charter amendments related solely to inflationary adjustments. The amendment would not itself set the annual registration fee at the maximum amount. The Board would continue to determine the actual annual fee through its regular budget and fee-setting process.

3. Petition Decision Timeline Clarification (Section 1805(d)(12)) This amendment would clarify that Board rules and regulations govern petition processing timelines, including the general timeframe for final action and circumstances where extensions may be permitted for good cause.

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 3 The amendment is intended to reflect the Board’s longstanding regulatory framework and clarify that procedural timelines are administered through Board regulations. The proposed language preserves the 120-day final-action framework while recognizing that limited extensions may be necessary for good cause.

Relationship to Tenant-Protection Proposals
The Board is also considering separate tenant-protection proposals concerning just-cause eviction protections under Article XVIII. Those proposals are being reviewed separately in light of the City Attorney’s Office presentation at the May 14 meeting and subsequent Subcommittee discussion. Those items are being considered separately for possible public hearing. Separating the administrative proposals for consideration at this meeting allows the Board to maintain progress on items that are already developed while preserving additional review time for the more substantive tenant-protection proposals.

Recommendation
Conduct the continued public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing as to the proposed amendments concerning Commissioner term limits, the registration fee framework, and petition decision timeline, and determine whether to recommend one or more of those proposed amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Attachment A: Proposed Amendment – Commissioner Term Limits (Clean) Attachment B: Proposed Amendment – Commissioner Term Limits (Redline) Attachment C: Proposed Amendment – Registration Fee Framework (Clean) Attachment D: Proposed Amendment – Registration Fee Framework (Redline) Attachment E: Proposed Amendment – Petition Decision Timeline Clarification (Clean) Attachment F: Proposed Amendment – Petition Decision Timeline Clarification (Redline)

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(e):

TERM OF OFFICE: Commissioners shall be elected to serve terms of four years, beginning on the first Tuesday following their election. No person shall serve more than three terms as a Commissioner, whether consecutive or not. For purposes of this section, a partial term of more than two years shall count as one term. These term limits shall apply to appointed terms as well as elected terms.

Attachment A
Term limits - clean

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(e):

TERM OF OFFICE: Commissioners shall be elected to serve terms of four years, beginning on the first Tuesday following their election, except that of the first five Commissioners elected in accordance with Section 1803(d), the two Commissioners receiving the most votes shall serve until April 15, 1985 and the remaining three Commissioners shall serve until April 18, 1983. Commissioners shall serve a maximum of two full terms. No person shall serve more than three terms as a Commissioner, whether consecutive or not. For purposes of this section, a partial term of more than two years shall count as one term.

These term limits shall apply to appointed terms as well as elected terms.

Attachment B
Term limits - redline

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(n):

FINANCING OF BOARD OPERATIONS. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses through annual registration fees and other available funding sources, as provided in this subsection.
(1) Registration Fee Authority. The Board may charge landlords an annual registration fee for each controlled rental unit. The amount of the registration fee shall be determined by the Board.
(2) Maximum Allowable Fee. The registration fee established by the Board shall not exceed the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection, initially set at two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288) per controlled rental unit. The maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection establishes a limit and does not itself establish the amount of the fee to be charged.
(3) Tenant Pass-Through. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the registration fee may be passed through from landlords to tenants, subject to conditions and procedures established by the Board.
(4) Additional Funding Sources. The Board may also request and receive funding, when necessary, from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses. (5) Adjustment of Maximum Allowable Fee. Beginning with the 2028 calendar year, the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles region, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. No adjustment shall result in a decrease to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection or exceed five percent (5%) in any single year.
(6) Notice of Adjustment. The Board shall announce any adjustment to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection on or before March 15 of each year in which an adjustment is made.
(7) Board Discretion. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Board to charge the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection in any year.

Attachment C
Reg fee - clean

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1803(n):

FINANCING: The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses by charging landlords annual registration fees in amounts deemed reasonable by the Board up to a maximum annual registration fee of $288 per controlled unit. Fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the registration fees may be passed through from landlords to tenants, and the Board may establish applicable conditions and procedures governing the pass through.

The Board is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

FINANCING OF BOARD OPERATIONS. The Board shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses through annual registration fees and other available funding sources, as provided in this subsection.
(1) Registration Fee Authority. The Board may charge landlords an annual registration fee for each controlled rental unit. The amount of the registration fee shall be determined by the Board.
(2) Maximum Allowable Fee. The registration fee established by the Board shall not exceed the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection, initially set at two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($288) per controlled rental unit. The maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection establishes a limit and does not itself establish the amount of the fee to be charged.
(3) Tenant Pass-Through. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the registration fee may be passed through from landlords to tenants, subject to conditions and procedures established by the Board.
(4) Additional Funding Sources. The Board may also request and receive funding, when necessary, from any available source for its reasonable and necessary expenses. (5) Adjustment of Maximum Allowable Fee. Beginning with the 2028 calendar year, the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles region, as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the preceding calendar year. No adjustment shall result in a decrease to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection or exceed five percent (5%) in any single year.
(6) Notice of Adjustment. The Board shall announce any adjustment to the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection on or before March 15 of each year in which an adjustment is made.

Attachment D
Reg fee - redline

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection (7) Board Discretion. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Board to charge the maximum annual registration fee allowable under this subsection in any year.

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1805(d)(12):

TIME FOR DECISION: The rules and regulations adopted by the Board shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjustment petition within one-hundred and twenty (120) days, following the date of filing of the individual rent adjustment petition, allowing for extensions of the timeline for good cause.

Attachment E
Petition timeline - clean

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Section 1805(d)(12):

TIME FOR DECISION: The rules and regulations adopted by the Board shall provide for final action on any individual rent adjustment petition within one-hundred and twenty (120) days, following the date of filing of the individual rent adjustment petition, allowing for extensions of the timeline for good cause.

Attachment F
Petition timeline - redline

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 16, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 1 SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Monica Rent Control Board
FROM: Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
FOR MEETING OF: June 25, 2026
RE: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Tenant-Protection and Related Just-Cause Eviction Amendments to Article XVIII and Possible Recommendation to the City Council
Subject
The Board will conduct a public hearing regarding proposed tenant-protection and related just-cause eviction amendments to Article XVIII (Rent Control) of the Santa Monica City Charter and determine whether to recommend one or more of the proposed amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Summary
At its April 9, 2026 meeting, the Board reviewed four proposed Charter amendments developed by the Charter Amendment Subcommittee and directed staff to return with the proposals for public hearing. Those proposals included three administrative amendments and one tenant-occupancy amendment.

At its May 14, 2026 meeting, the Board opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments and also heard a presentation from the City Attorney’s Office regarding additional tenant-protection proposals. Because the City Attorney’s Office proposals included several concepts for Article XXIII (Housing Policies) that may warrant parallel amendments to Article XVIII, the Board continued the public hearing and directed staff to reconvene the Charter Amendment Subcommittee to review the proposals and return with recommendations regarding next steps.

The Subcommittee met on May 26, 2026. The Subcommittee agreed that the three Boardoriginated administrative amendments should return separately for continued public hearing and possible recommendation to the City Council at the June 11 regular meeting. The Subcommittee also reviewed the tenant-protection and related just-cause eviction proposals and agreed that those items should return to the Board as an administrative item for discussion and possible direction regarding a public hearing at a future Board meeting.

At its June 11, 2026 meeting, the Board approved the three administrative Article XVIII amendments for recommendation to the City Council. The Board also reviewed the proposed tenant-protection and related just-cause eviction amendments and directed staff to return with those amendments for a public hearing and possible recommendation of one or Item 11.A 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 2 more proposed amendments to the City Council at a June 25, 2026 Board meeting, including a comparison table of other jurisdictions with similar existing provisions.

The proposed tenant-protection and related just-cause eviction amendments before the Board concern:
• small rental debts;
• added family and household members;
• family-member occupancy after tenant vacancy;
• affordable housing deed-restriction compliance provisions; and • Tenant Protection Act findings.

Staff recommends that the Board conduct the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing, discuss the proposed amendments, and determine whether to recommend one or more of the proposed amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement on the November 2026 ballot.

Discussion
In November 2026, the City of Santa Monica will hold a general municipal election. The Rent Control Board may recommend Charter amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement before voters. Staff’s current target is to have any Board-recommended Charter amendments ready for City Council consideration at its July 14, 2026 meeting.

The proposals now before the Board arise from both the Board’s prior work and the City Attorney’s Office presentation at the May 14 meeting. The Board’s original tenantoccupancy proposal focused on preventing termination of tenancies based on specified changes in household composition, including the addition of listed family members and minor children. The City Attorney’s Office presentation included a broader set of tenantprotection proposals, some of which were presented primarily for Article XXIII but may also be appropriate for parallel Article XVIII amendments.

Following the May 14 meeting, staff worked with the City Attorney’s Office to develop draft Article XVIII language for the tenant-protection proposals. The drafts attached to this report reflect that work, the Subcommittee’s May 26 discussion, and the Board’s June 11 direction.

The City Attorney’s Office proposal regarding just-cause protections for single-family homes is not included in this report because it does not require parallel Article XVIII action.

Small Rental Debts (Section 1806(a)(1))
Section 1806(a)(1) currently permits a landlord to terminate a rent-controlled tenancy when the tenant has failed to pay rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and Article XVIII. The existing provision does not establish a minimum unpaidrent threshold before nonpayment may serve as a basis for termination.

The proposed amendment would retain nonpayment of rent as a just-cause basis for eviction, but would add a threshold requirement. Under the proposed language, a landlord could not terminate a rent-controlled tenancy for nonpayment unless the amount due

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 3 exceeds 150 percent of the fair market rent for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metro area, as set annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, for an equivalent-sized rental unit.

The proposed language would also require the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy to state the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and 150 percent of the fair market rent amount for an equivalent-sized rental unit. This is intended to give tenants and landlords a clear reference point for determining whether the unpaid amount exceeds the threshold required before nonpayment may serve as a basis to terminate the tenancy.

The proposed amendment is intended to prevent displacement based on relatively small rental debts while preserving the ability to terminate a tenancy for larger unpaid rent amounts.

Added Family and Household Members (Section 1806(a)(2)) Section 1806(a)(2) currently permits termination of a tenancy where the tenant continues, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of the tenancy. However, the existing provision also includes a limited protection for certain subleases. Specifically, a landlord may not terminate a tenancy based on a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the tenant continues to reside in the unit, the sublease replaces a departed tenant on a one-for-one basis, and the landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease after written request by the tenant.

The added-household-members proposal is the principal area where the Board’s prior tenant-occupancy proposal and the City Attorney’s Office proposal overlap. Staff has prepared a hybrid version that uses the City Attorney’s Office structural format while preserving key policy choices from the Board’s original proposal, including separate protection for listed family members and minor children.

The proposed amendment would retain and reorganize the existing sublease protection as a separately identified category within Section 1806(a)(2). It would continue to protect certain replacement subleases where the tenant remains in the rental unit, the sublease replaces a departed tenant on a one-for-one basis, and the landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease.

The proposal would also add new protections for occupancy by one or more listed family members or dependents of the tenant of the owner, even if the number of occupants exceeds the number permitted by the rental housing agreement. The listed family members would include the tenant’s spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent. The protection would apply so long as the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. For listed family members, the proposed language would not require landlord approval or written notice to the landlord.

In addition, the proposal would preserve a separate protection for occupancy resulting from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 4 tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian. This protection would also be subject to state or federal law and applicable affordable housing deed restrictions.

For non-family occupants, the proposal would add a separate request-and-approval framework. A landlord could not terminate a tenancy based on occupancy by an additional non-family occupant if the tenant of the owner continues to reside in the unit and the landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant after written request. The proposed language includes standards addressing when denial based on creditworthiness or financial criteria is unreasonable and preserves legitimate grounds for withholding approval, including where the landlord resides in the same rental unit, the proposed occupant is prohibited by law or deed restriction, or other legitimate grounds exist.

Finally, the proposal would provide that nothing in Section 1806(a)(2) permits occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy (Section 1806(c)) Section 1806(c) currently provides limited protection for certain family members after a tenant vacates a rent-controlled unit due to death or incapacitation. Under the existing language, a landlord may not take action to obtain possession from the tenant’s spouse, child or children, or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, if that person lived in the unit for at least one year before the tenant vacated due to death or incapacitation, on the ground that the person is not authorized to occupy the unit.

The proposed amendment would expand this protection in two ways. First, it would broaden the list of covered family members to include the tenant’s spouse, child or children, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent. The proposed language also clarifies that the covered family member or dependent must be related to the tenant of the owner. This clarification is intended to align the provision with the addedhousehold-member language in Section 1806(a)(2) and avoid uncertainty regarding whether family members of subtenants or other occupants may invoke the protection.

Second, the proposed language would no longer limit the protection to situations where the tenant vacates due to death or incapacitation. Instead, if a covered family member has lived in the unit for at least one year at the time the tenant vacates, the landlord would be prohibited from taking action to obtain possession from that covered family member on the ground that the family member is not authorized to occupy the unit.

The proposed amendment would preserve an exception where the reason the family member is unauthorized is that the family member is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. This exception is intended to ensure that the expanded family-member occupancy protection does not override eligibility requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing.

Affordable Housing Deed-Restriction Compliance Provisions (Section 1806(a)(11), 1806(a)(12), and 1806(b))

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 5 Section 1806 currently lists ten just-cause grounds for termination of a rent-controlled tenancy and does not include a specific ground addressing tenant eligibility or certification requirements for units subject to affordable housing deed restrictions. The proposed affordable-housing amendments would add two just-cause grounds related to rental units subject to applicable affordable housing deed restrictions.

First, proposed Section 1806(a)(11) would allow termination where the tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession in order to comply with the applicable deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations.

Second, proposed Section 1806(a)(12) would allow termination where the tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where the deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit.

The proposed amendment would also revise Section 1806(b) so that the written notice required under proposed Section 1806(a)(12), for failure or refusal to provide proof of income or other qualification, is subject to the same reasonable-notice framework before service of a notice to terminate tenancy. Proposed Section 1806(a)(11) separately requires the landlord to comply with all applicable regulations when seeking to recover possession in order to comply with an affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines.

These provisions are intended to preserve the ability to enforce affordable housing eligibility requirements in deed-restricted units while incorporating notice and compliance safeguards.

Tenant Protection Act Finding (New Section 1822)
The proposed new Section 1822 would add a finding that Article XVIII is more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2. The finding states that Article XVIII limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with Civil Code section 1946.2, further limits the reasons for termination to a greater degree, provides higher relocation assistance amounts in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by law.

The proposed finding is intended to support continued application of the City’s local justcause framework to units subject to Article XVIII if the Board and City Council proceed with amendments to Article XVIII eviction provisions. This proposed section would not create a separate basis for eviction or a separate tenant claim; rather, it would state the City’s finding regarding the relationship between Article XVIII and Civil Code section 1946.2.

Relationship to Administrative Charter Amendments
The three Board-originated administrative amendments concerning commissioner term limits, registration fee framework, and petition decision timeline were considered separately by the Board through a continued public hearing at the June 11, 2026 meeting. At that

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 6 meeting, the Board voted to recommend those proposed amendments to the City Council for placement before voters at the November 2026 general election.

For process purposes, staff has treated the Charter amendment proposals in two tracks:
administrative amendments and tenant-protection amendments. The final ballot structure, including whether the amendments should be submitted as one measure or more than one measure, remains subject to City Attorney guidance.

Recommendation
Conduct the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing, discuss the proposed tenant-protection and related just-cause eviction Charter amendments, and determine whether to recommend one or more of the proposed amendments to the Santa Monica City Council for placement before voters at the November 2026 general election.

Attachment A: Proposed Amendment - Small Rental Debts (Clean) Attachment B: Proposed Amendment - Small Rental Debts (Redline) Attachment C: Proposed Amendment - Added Household Members (Clean) Attachment D: Proposed Amendment - Added Household Members (Redline) Attachment E: Proposed Amendment - Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy (Clean)
Attachment F: Proposed Amendment - Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy (Redline)
Attachment G: Proposed Amendment - Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions (Clean) Attachment H: Proposed Amendment - Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions (Redline) Attachment I: Proposed Amendment - Tenant Protection Act Findings (Clean) Attachment J: Proposed Amendment - Tenant Protection Act Findings (Redline) Attachment K: Jurisdiction Comparison Table

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds 150% of fair market rent for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metro area set annually by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development for an equivalent sized rental unit as that occupied by the tenant, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and 150% of the fair market rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

Attachment A 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts (Redline) Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds 150% of fair market rent for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metro area set annually by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development for an equivalent sized rental unit as that occupied by the tenant, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and 150% of the fair market rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

Attachment B 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent of the tenant of the owner, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

Attachment C 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) (C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional
occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from
occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members (Redline) Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on: a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent of the tenant of the owner, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

Attachment D 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) (C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional
occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from
occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy
Section 1806. Eviction
. . .
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if the spouse, child(ren), domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, and/or dependent of the tenant of the owner has lived in the unit for at least one year at the time the tenant vacates, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the unit from the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), domestic partner, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent on the ground that the covered family member is not authorized to occupy the unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the family member is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an affordable housing deed restriction.

Attachment E 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy (Redline)
Section 1806. Eviction
. . .
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, and/or dependent of the tenant of the owner has have lived in the unit for at least one year at the time the tenant vacates due to death or incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the unit from the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or registered domestic partner, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent on the ground that the spouse, child(ren) and/or registered domestic partner covered family member is are not authorized to occupy the unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the family member is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an affordable housing deed restriction.

Attachment F

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings.

The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

Attachment G 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions (Redline) Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), or (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

Attachment H 11.B.f
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

Attachment I

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings (Redline) Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

Attachment J

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Attachment K – Page 1
Attachment K
Comparison of Proposed Amendments to Article XVIII of the Santa Monica Charter to Other Jurisdictions Proposed SM Amendment Similar Provisions in Other Jurisdictions (relevant excerpts)

1. Small rental debts — proposed Section 1806(a)(1)
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the
landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds 150% of fair market rent for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metro area set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for an equivalent sized rental unit as that occupied by the tenant, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and 150% of the fair market rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

City of Los Angeles
MC § 165.03.A
… the landlord’s right to evict a tenant lawfully in possession of residential housing under this subsection is limited to defaults in payment where the amount due exceeds one month of fair market rent for the Los Angeles metro area set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for an equivalent sized rental unit as that occupied by the tenant.

The written notice to the tenant required under Section 165.05 of this article shall state the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit.

County of Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Code § 8.52.090(D)(1)
…A Tenant may only be evicted for nonpayment of Rent if the Tenant's total rental debt owed exceeds a monetary threshold amount equal to two months of fair market rent for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area ("FMR"), set annually by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for 0-4 bedroom Rental Units, dependent on the type of Rental Unit occupied by the Tenant and further outlined in the Department's procedures and guidelines and this Chapter. The written notice shall be served in accordance with California Civil Code sections 1946 through 1946.5 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, and shall also state the fair market rental value of the Rental Unit and number of bedrooms in the Tenant's Fully or Partially Covered Rental Unit.

City of Berkeley
MC §13.76.130.A.1
…This subsection shall not constitute grounds where the amount of rent demanded is less than one month of fair market rent for a unit of equivalent size in the metro area OaklandFremont, CA HUD Metro FMR as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the fiscal year in which the rent is demanded.

City of Oakland
MC § 8.22.360.A.1
[No grounds for eviction]… where the amount of rent demanded is less than one (1) month of fair market rent for a unit of equivalent size in the Oakland metro area as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Attachment K – Page 2
Proposed SM Amendment Similar Provisions in Other Jurisdictions (relevant excerpts)

2. Added family members — proposed Section
1806(a)(2)(B)

3. Minor children by birth, adoption, or legal custody — proposed Section 1806(a)(2)(C)

4. Non-family additional occupants — proposed Section
1806(a)(2)(D)
1806(a)(2): The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on:
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent of the tenant of the owner, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from
the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s
spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

(D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person is City of Pasadena
Pasadena City Charter, Article XVIII § 1806(B)
…a Landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a Rental Unit as a result of the addition to the Rental Unit of a Tenant's child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister, other dependent relative, or the spouse or domestic partner (as defined in California Family Code Section 297) of such relatives, or as a result of the addition of the spouse or domestic partner of a Tenant, or as a result of the addition of the sole additional adult tenant, so long as the number of occupants does not exceed the maximum number of occupants as determined under Section 503(b) of the Uniform Housing Code as incorporated by California Health & Safety Code 17922.

City of East Palo Alto
MC § 14.04.160.A.B.2.ii(2)
The obligation to limit occupancy when the additional tenant who joins the occupants is: (A) a dependent child who joins the existing tenancy of a tenant of record or the sole adult tenant; or (B) the spouse, domestic partner, parents, children, brother or sister of the tenant of record, as long as the number of tenants in the unit does not exceed that permitted by the Uniform Housing Code. The landlord has the right to approve or disapprove a prospective additional tenant who is not a dependent child or the spouse, domestic partner, parents, children, brother or sister of the tenant of record, provided that the approval is not unreasonably withheld.

City of Oakland
MC § 8.22.360.A.2.b (relevant excerpt … note that Oakland does not specify family relationships, but governs additional occupants, generally) [No eviction if]…if the landlord has unreasonably refused a written request by the tenant to add [additional] occupant(s) to the unit, so long as the maximum number of occupants does not exceed the lesser of the amounts allowed by this Subsection 8.22.360 A.2.b. …landlord's reasonable refusal of the tenant's written request may be based on, but is not limited to, the ground that the landlord resides in the same unit as the tenant or the ground that the total number of occupants in a unit exceeds (or with the proposed additional occupant(s) would exceed) the maximum number permitted in the unit under state law and/or other local codes such as the Building, Fire, Housing and Planning Codes.

City of San Francisco
MC § 37.9.(a)(1)(F)(2)(B)
(relevant excerpt…note that the code sets forth maximum number of occupant limits in greater detail, similar to the CAO’s first proposal to the Board, those provisions not included here)
…[A] landlord shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit as a result of the addition to the unit of a tenant's child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister, or the spouse or domestic partner (as defined in Administrative Code Sections 62.1 through

62.8) of such relatives, or as a result of the addition of the spouse or domestic partner of a tenant, so long as the maximum number of occupants stated in Section 37.9(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) is not exceeded, if the landlord has unreasonably refused a written request by the tenant to add such occupant(s) to the unit.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Attachment K – Page 3
Proposed SM Amendment Similar Provisions in Other Jurisdictions (relevant excerpts) not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner continues to reside in the
rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional
occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely
withhold approval of an additional occupant on the
grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or
federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate
grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

City of West Hollywood
MC § 17.52.010.2(c) & (d)
[No eviction based on…]
(c) Occupancy of the rental unit by one additional person in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental agreement, if the additional person is the spouse, registered domestic partner, brother, sister, parent, grandparent, or non-dependent child or grandchild (by blood or adoption);
(d) In addition to any occupancy permitted under subsection (c), occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental agreement, if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children whom the tenant or head of household or his or her spouse or registered domestic partner is the parent or legal guardian. This subsection does not permit occupancy by a number of persons in a rental unit in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by the City's Housing Code…

5. Family-member occupancy after tenant vacancy —
proposed Section 1806(c)
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if the spouse, child(ren), domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, and/or dependent of the tenant of the owner has lived in the unit for at least one year at the time the tenant vacates, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the unit from the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), domestic partner, parent,
grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, or dependent on the ground that the covered family City of West Hollywood
MC § 17.52.010.3
Surviving Tenant. If the original tenant vacates the unit, an additional person who has occupied the unit pursuant to subsection (2) of this section [see above regarding occupancy] shall not be protected from eviction under this section unless the additional person lived in the unit with the tenant for at least one year and the tenant has died or become incapacitated. An individual added for medical purposes pursuant to subdivision (2)(e) of this section shall not be protected from eviction under this section.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Attachment K – Page 4
Proposed SM Amendment Similar Provisions in Other Jurisdictions (relevant excerpts) member is not authorized to occupy the unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the family member is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an affordable housing deed restriction.

6. Affordable housing deed-restriction compliance —
proposed Sections 1806(a)(11), 1806(a)(12), and 1806(b) (a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable
regulations.
(12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an
applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit.
(b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations
regarding reasonable notice.

City of West Hollywood
MC § 17.52.010.17
West Hollywood permits termination of tenancy in an inclusionary housing unit when the tenant’s income exceeds the City-determined maximum allowable income by more than 50% for at least two consecutive years, with the landlord relying on the tenant’s required income affidavit to determine income.

7. Tenant Protection Act finding — proposed Section 1822 / Article XXIII Section 2310 analogue
The proposed provision is intended to support continued application of Santa Monica’s local just-cause eviction framework by stating that Article XVIII is more protective than Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.f
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Rent Control Board Memorandum - June 25, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Rent Control Board
1685 Main Street, Rm. 202
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-458-8751
June 29, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Charter Amendments Concerning Tenant-Protection and Related Just-Cause Eviction Provisions
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
At its June 25, 2026 meeting, following a public hearing, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted to recommend that the City Council place proposed amendments to Article XVIII of the City Charter before the voters at the November 2026 general election.

The proposed amendments would:

1. Establish a small-rental-debt threshold, based on the average of HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents for equivalent-sized units in residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City, before nonpayment of rent may serve as a basis to terminate a rent-controlled tenancy;

2. Expand and clarify protections against termination of tenancy based on the addition of certain family members, dependents, minor children, and non-family household members, subject to applicable law, affordable-housing deed restrictions, notice and approval requirements, and lawful occupancy limits;

3. Protect certain covered occupants who have resided in a rental unit for at least one year from being displaced solely because the tenant of the owner vacates;

4. Add just-cause grounds and related notice provisions to address compliance with applicable affordable housing deed restrictions; and

5. Add a finding that Article XVIII is more protective than California Civil Code section 1946.2, in order to support continued application of the City’s local just-cause framework to rent-controlled units.

The Board believes these amendments are in the public interest because they would strengthen tenant stability, reduce displacement based on relatively small rental debts or reasonable household changes, preserve protections for long-term occupants in appropriate circumstances, and support consistent enforcement of affordable housing eligibility requirements while maintaining safeguards for landlords, deed-restricted housing, and lawful occupancy limits.

Attachment A contains the clean Board-recommended proposed Charter amendment language.

Attachment B contains a redline showing the proposed changes to current Article XVIII through strikeout and underline formatting. These attachments incorporate the revisions approved for recommendation by the Board at the June 25 public hearing and should be treated as the Board’s recommended language.

The Board understands that final ballot structure and final measure language remain subject to City Attorney review and City Council consideration.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection If there is anything the Board or staff can do to assist the Council in its consideration of these proposals, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Holub, Executive Director
cc: Oliver Chi, City Manager
Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Romy Ganschow, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Jonathan Erwin-Frank, Deputy City Attorney
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Kevin Mitchell, General Counsel
Rent Control Board Commissioners

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article, provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely withhold approval of an additional occupant on the grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if a covered occupant has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the covered occupant on the ground that the covered occupant is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Small Rental Debts
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
(1) The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article., provided that the amount due exceeds the average of the Small Area Fair Market Rents set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for equivalent sized rental units in the residential ZIP Codes located wholly or partially within the City of Santa Monica, and the written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy states the number of bedrooms in the tenant’s rental unit and the applicable average Small Area Fair Market Rent amount for an equivalent sized rental unit.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Added Household Members
Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(2) The tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to commit a material and substantial breach of an obligation or covenant of his or her tenancy which the landlord has not waived, either expressly or impliedly through the landlord’s conduct and which the landlord is not estopped from asserting, other than the obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section, and notwithstanding any contrary provision in the rental housing agreement, a landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy, and there shall be no grounds to take action to terminate any tenancy, based on: a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(A) a tenant’s sublease of the unit if the following requirements are met:
(i) The tenant continues to reside in the rental unit.
(ii) The sublease replaces a departed tenant(s) under the rental agreement on a one-for-one basis.
(iii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the tenant. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.
(B) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and each additional person is the spouse, domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the tenant of the owner, or minor dependent of any

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
additional person listed in this section, provided that the additional person is not prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

The tenant of the owner shall give written notice to the landlord within fourteen (14) days after the additional person begins residing in the rental unit, and stating that the additional person is a family member or dependent covered by this subparagraph.
(C) occupancy of the rental unit by any number of persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement if the excess occupancy results from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child or children for whom the tenant, or the tenant’s spouse or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City, is the parent or legal guardian, provided that the occupancy is not prohibited by state or federal law or by an applicable affordable housing deed restriction. (D) occupancy of the rental unit by one or more additional persons in excess of the number of persons permitted by the rental housing agreement and such additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner notwithstanding the fact that the additional person is not a family member or dependent of the tenant identified in subsection (B), if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The tenant of the owner has continuously resided in the rental unit for at least one year before the additional person begins residing in the rental unit and continues to reside in the rental unit; and
(ii) The landlord has unreasonably withheld approval of the additional occupant following written request by the
tenant of the owner. If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the tenant’s written request for approval, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.

A landlord’s denial of approval of an additional
occupant shall be unreasonable if it is based on the
additional occupant’s lack of creditworthiness or
financial criteria and the additional occupant will not be

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent to the landlord.

It shall not be unreasonable for a landlord to timely
withhold approval of an additional occupant on the
grounds that the landlord resides in the same rental unit as the tenant, that the proposed additional occupant is prohibited from occupying the rental unit by state or
federal law or by the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or on any other legitimate
grounds.

Nothing in this subsection (a)(2) shall permit occupancy in excess of any maximum allowable occupancy established by law.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy Section 1806. Eviction
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Section or in the rental housing agreement, if the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or domestic partner who has filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership with the City a covered occupant have has lived in the rental unit for at least one year at the time the tenant of the owner vacates the unit due to death or incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the rental unit from the tenant’s spouse, child(ren), and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant on the ground that the spouse, child(ren) and/or registered domestic partner covered occupant are is not authorized to occupy the rental unit, unless the reason for being unauthorized is that the covered occupant is not qualified or authorized to occupy the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction.

For purposes of this subsection, “covered occupant” means any remaining occupant of the rental unit who is a dependent of the tenant of the owner, was authorized to reside in the rental unit under subsection (a)(2)(B) or (D), was otherwise authorized to reside in the rental unit by law, or is the minor dependent of any such person.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Section 1806. Eviction
(a) No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy including but not limited, to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a controlled rental unit unless:
. . .
(11) The tenant does not qualify for the rental unit under the terms of an applicable affordable housing deed restriction, or is causing a violation of the affordable housing deed restriction, and the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with the applicable affordable housing deed restriction or guidelines, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. (12) The tenant of a rental unit subject to an affordable housing deed restriction has failed or refused to provide proof of income or other qualification for the rental unit, after written notice requesting such proof, where an applicable affordable housing deed restriction or applicable law requires the tenant to provide proof of income or other qualification in order to reside in the unit. (b) Any written notice as described in Subsections (a)(2), (3), or (6) or (12) shall be served by the landlord a reasonable period prior to serving a notice to terminate tenancy and shall inform the tenant that a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings. The Board may enact regulations regarding reasonable notice.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection

ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Amendment Concerning Tenant Protection Act Findings Section 1822. Tenant Protection Act Finding
Whereas this Article limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2; further limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy to a greater degree than California Civil Code section 1946.2; provides (in conjunction with implementing provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) for higher relocation assistance amounts than California Civil Code section 1946.2; and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by any other provision of law; this Article is found to be more protective than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2, such that any rental unit subject to this Article is not subject to California Civil Code section 1946.2.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Rent Control Board Letter to Council re Recommendations - June 29, 2026 (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection 1 David Yakobson
From: Jasmine Palert <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 9:49 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Please Vote No on the Proposed Rent Control Amendments

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica resident who works in rental housing, helping both tenants and landlords navigate housing issues every day, I urge you to vote NO on the proposed amendments to Santa Monica's Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

These changes go too far by allowing individuals who were never approved or added to a lease to remain indefinitely after the original tenant voluntarily moves out. This strips property owners of the ability to screen who occupies their property and effectively creates perpetual tenancies with no opportunity to reset rents to market.

The proposal also delays eviction for nonpayment until tenants fall significantly behind, making it harder for both tenants and housing providers to resolve problems before they become unmanageable.

I support fair tenant protections, but these proposals unfairly shift all risk to housing providers, especially small, local owners who are already facing rising costs. Policies like these will discourage rental housing, reduce investment in existing properties, and ultimately shrink Santa Monica's housing supply.

Please reject these amendments and pursue balanced solutions that protect both tenants and housing providers.

Thank you for your consideration.

With gratitude,
Jasmine Palert
Santa Monica Resident
Housing Professional – Assisting Both Tenants and Landlords Phone: 213-400-3169
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Ricky Hirschfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 10:00 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Vote No on the Proposed Rent Control Amendments

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I urge you to vote NO on the proposed amendments to Santa Monica's Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

As a longtime Santa Monica housing provider, I have worked hard to provide safe, well-maintained rental housing while treating my tenants fairly. I support reasonable tenant protections, but these proposed changes go far beyond protecting tenants—they remove basic property rights and create unintended consequences that will ultimately harm Santa Monica's housing market.

Allowing occupants who were never approved or added to a lease to remain after the original tenant voluntarily moves out effectively creates permanent tenancies and eliminates an owner's ability to determine who occupies their property. Delaying eviction for nonpayment until tenants are significantly behind in rent will only make financial hardship worse for both tenants and housing providers.

Policies like these will discourage small housing providers from continuing to invest in rental housing, reduce the supply of available units, and make it more difficult to maintain existing properties.

I respectfully ask that you reject these amendments and instead pursue balanced policies that protect tenants while also recognizing the rights and responsibilities of housing providers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ricky Hirschfield
Santa Monica Housing Provider
310-628-7272
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 3 David Yakobson
From: Sharon Dwyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 10:40 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Hall; [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: STOP YOUR CONTINUAL ATTEMPT TO CONTROL OUR OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES to hand over to developers

EXTERNAL
Your attempts to steal our private properties is very apparent in the eyes of the citizens. You should be helping the citizens/landlords of all smaller properties to stay in business. Where do you think the smaller properties landlords will get the funds to take all of the very apparent abuse you as representatives of the people continually throw at the landlords in LA County’s cities??? Go after the corporate businesses that are destroying the less expensive rental properties. You are making worse living conditions in the city …for everyone but the guys that are handing out the possible cash benefit to WHOM???? You are causing all kinds of problems for the small guy so the rich developers can take over the rental business. Are any of you supervisors owners of Rental Properties? Are you renters on the board that have no idea how difficult you are making our lives with your repeated abuse and it is abuse! You all should start building properties instead of taking our rights and properties away from us. Do your job! The original allowance for family members ONLY to stay in a rental was limited to when the renter on the lease either died or was incapacitated. By removing the requirement of “incapacity or death” for the renter, this creates a perpetual tenancy by individuals that are NOT on the lease and never were approved or even known by the owner. As such, the owner would NEVER be able to reset the rent to full market rate and the property would continue to deteriorate due to deferred maintenance. This policy will greatly reduce the existing supply of RSO housing in Santa Monica driving many mom-and-pop owners out of business with developers creating luxury housing instead.

This resolution is even WORSE than the draft reviewed by the Rent Control Board at its hearing in June. This resolution allows not only “family members” to stay beyond the renter on the lease, it allows NON-Family members to stay as well under the new definition of “Covered Occupant”. It even goes so far as to require that NON-Family members that are NOT creditworthy or that do NOT meet financial criteria be permitted to stay beyond the renter’s time in the unit despite the fact that they would never have qualified to be a renter Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 4 themselves. This creates an impossible situation for rental housing owners with units occupied by NonFamily members that have no ability to pay the rent that is owed when the renter voluntarily leaves the unit.

Expanding the definition of family members to include extended family, including siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren creates unnecessary ambiguity as to family relationships as there may be no common surname that is shared. Are owners now supposed to conduct DNA tests for occupants that just show up without notice at their rental property claiming to be a “family member”? Again, the original idea of a compassionate exception for a close family member to be present without being on the lease is now exploding into an unmanageable situation that is ripe for abuse and fraud.

Renters are required to sign a lease so that they know their responsibilities as well as rights. Individuals not on a lease will have no knowledge of their responsibilities that impact other renters at the property and to the property owner. Without such notice, problems will inevitably arise. It will make it far more difficult for the property owner to remove occupants causing problems for other existing renters under At-Fault causes such as nuisance, illegal conduct and other material grounds as the occupant has not signed the lease. There is nothing in the resolution requiring the new occupant to sign a lease even AFTER the original renter moves out.

Adding a new eviction threshold of 150% FMR will only allow renters to fall severely behind in rent making it far less likely that they will avoid an eviction. Once an eviction is granted, it will be much more difficult for renters to find new housing. It is better to allow a prompt process to increase the likelihood of a renter being able to work out an amicable departure with the property owner or payment plan for the rent owed. At a minimum, the resolution should use ACTUAL MONTLY RENTAL AMOUNT PAID at the time notice is given. This will also be far easier for both the renter and owner to calculate and be better able to comply with this new requirement.

As to single family residences and condominiums, it is unclear how the City intends to notify such property owners of these new Just Cause requirements or how they will be administered. It seems like a very lastminute concept that has been thrown into the mix that will likely cause more property owners to remove Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 5 their rentals from the market entirely rather than risk being unable to move-in to their property when needed. This would only further reduce the supply of available rental housing in Santa Monica.

This article is for informational purposes only. If you have any questions regarding your property or specific leasing issues and the requirements of any legal changes described herein, please consult with an attorney.

Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 6 David Yakobson
From: Anne Jaude <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 10:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO PERPETUAL TENANCY AND NO NEW EVICTION THRESHOLD

EXTERNAL
These are abusive changes that remove all control from property owners as to who they rent to, even when the renter voluntarily moves out and thereby preventing a return to fair market value.

Renters cannot be allowed to move into a unit without a credit check to verify they have the ability to pay. This will be not only very detrimental to the owners but also the current tenants who may discover the new renter disruptive to their right to live in peace and safety.

These changes will cause all the small owners to sell to developers and large corporations!

NO PERPETUAL TENANCY OR NEW EVICTION THRESHOLD
A Jaude
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 7 David Yakobson
From: J Y <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 3:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please consider Low income property owners

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Councilmembers
I have been living in Santa Monica since 1988
I read about the new parcel tax. Please remember your low income senior on fixed income. I am at 8k a year on property tax for my condo and over the year probably paid over $200,000 in taxes and I have no children. It is a struggle if you add another $500 a year. I live on barely 2880 a month and have mobility issues.

Thank you for listening!
Chris Yves
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Janet Gagnon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 12:05 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Daniel Yukelson; Joseph Ramos; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11B - Rent Control Changes & Eviction Threshold Attachments: AAGLA Letter Perpetual Tenancy by Occupants and Eviction Threshold-07132026- Clean.pdf

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Torosis and Member of the Santa Monica City Council, Attached please find a formal comment letter from the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) regarding the resolutions recommended by the Rent Control Board (RCB) as agenda item 11B. We have strong concerns regarding these draft resolutions as they contain additional changes that were not discussed during the RCB hearing. In addition, they contain many inconsistencies in language and logic that will subject these proposed revisions to extensive litigation. Our letter provides detailed analysis of the existing problems and our recommendations for resolution.

Thank you for your review and consideration.

Sincerely,
Janet M. Gagnon
Janet M. Gagnon, Esq.

Chief Corporate Affairs Officer &
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs & External Relations Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
621 South Westmoreland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90005
t: 213/384-4131 ext 309 | f: 888/384-4131 | [email protected] www.aagla.org
Twitter |Facebook | LinkedIn
The Voice of Multifamily Housing Since 1917 ©
“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” John Stuart Mill - 1867
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Janet M. Gagnon
Senior Vice President, Government
Affairs & External Relations
[email protected]
213.384.4131; Ext. 309
July 13, 2026
Via Electronic Mail
Honorable Mayor Caroline Torosis
and the Members of the Santa Monica City Council
City Hall Council Chambers
1685 Main Street, Room 250
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Rent Control Changes & Creation of Eviction Threshold – Agenda Item 11B Honorable Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) represents approximately 10,000 rental housing providers throughout Los Angeles, Ventura and San Bernardino counties, including many in Santa Monica. This letter is to express our serious concerns regarding the draft resolutions under consideration tomorrow tonight regarding substantial changes to rent control in Santa Monica.

RENT CONTROL CHANGES
We appreciate that Santa Monica wants to support existing occupants when a renter dies or is incapacitated and that has long been standard policy allowing for immediate family members to continue to remain in the unit. The resolution would extend the definition of family members to siblings, grandparents and grandchildren as well as domestic partners, spouses, children, and parents. We appreciate the Rent Control Board removing its original intent to include extended family as it would lead to a legal quagmire as to who is actually a family member and who is merely pretending to be one and is why no other city has adopted such a broad definition.

However, the removal of death or incapacitation will open a pandora’s box of false claims especially concerning NON-family members who are also included in the definition of “Covered Occupants”. Since such individuals must only claim that they had an intent to form a household with the renter, literally anyone could falsely pose as a household member creating a perpetual tenancy for anyone merely “claiming” to have any affiliation with the renter. Even San Francisco’s ordinance limits “successor in interest” to immediate family members, domestic partners, and pre-existing co-tenants that were already named on the lease.

This change will result in considerable litigation against the City for creating such a vague and ambiguous standard that will surely be ripe for abuse. It is a gross overreach in the drafting of the ordinance to include Non-Family Members in the “exclusion” from eviction and should be removed from the definition of “Covered Occupants”.

Further, it makes no logical sense for an occupant who is not a family member to remain after the renter leaves on a voluntary basis as the very definition of their occupancy relies on being part of a “household” with the renter. If the renter voluntarily vacates the rental unit, then this Non-Family Member “household” member should vacate along with the renter to maintain the household at the new location. It is unnecessary and detrimental to include a Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Non-Family member in this definition as domestic partners are already covered under the definition of Family Member.

In addition, “unreasonable rejection” by an owner of a Non-Family Member occupant specifically states, “lack of creditworthiness” or “financial criteria” and not legally obligated to pay some or all of the rent. This means that a Non-Family member occupant may not be able to pay the rent if they are allowed to stay once the renter moves out.

This creates an obvious conflict between a Non-Family Member holdover occupant and their ability to meet new financial obligations for the rental unit. Either the definition of “unreasonable rejection” must be changed to allow creditworthiness as a legitimate rejection or Non-Family Members must be removed from the definition of “Covered Occupants”.

Also, the current draft makes it ambiguous at best as to whether the owner can raise the rent on the occupant that is staying after the renter voluntarily leaves and is likely in conflict with state law under the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (CA Civil Code Section 1950.54). San Franciso’s ordinance makes clear that any occupant claiming “successor in interest” must sign a new lease at current market rate. If Santa Monica is to move forward with any such revisions, then it must add a clear requirement that the continuing occupant must sign a lease and is subject to paying rent at current market rate.

EVICTION THRESHOLD
We understand that Santa Monica wants to help renters; however, an eviction threshold will do the exact opposite by allowing renters to dig themselves into a deeper hole of rental debt that they can never pay back. Current RSO rents in Santa Monica are far below Small Area Fair Market Rent (SAFMR) as set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a result, allowing renters to fall behind by 150% of SAFMR means that they will be behind in rent by several months making it impossible for them to avoid eviction and reach an amicable resolution.

They will carry the debt for years and ruin their credit in the process making finding new housing even more difficult and precluding certain types of employment.

A far better solution would be for Santa Monica to apply for Measure A funding from Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA) to create a direct rental assistance program for renters in need.

If Santa Monica insists on allowing renters to fall further behind in debt, then the resolution should at least be changed to reflect actual rent paid at time of notice. This will limit the degree of debt renters would accrue as well as making the calculation far easier for both renters and rental housing providers in order to follow this new policy.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to reach out to me directly by telephone at (213) 384- 4131; Ext. 309 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Janet M. Gagnon
Janet M. Gagnon, Esq.

CC: Daniel Yukelson, Executive Director, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Neighbors <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Important - July 16 6:30pm a Town Hall on Homeless Services in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Neighbors,
The City is proposing changes to homeless services in the Pico and Sunset Park Neighborhoods and we want your voice in the room. Join the Pico Neighborhood Association and Friends of Sunset Park Neighborhood Association for a Community Town Hall. This is a pressing topic for most people living in Santa Monica.
궁궂궃궄궅궆궇권궈궉궊궋July 16, 2026 | 꿮꿯꿰꾬꿱6:30–9:00 PM | 궼궾궽Santa Monica College, HSS Building, Room 165 We'll be asking the hard questions:

Should homeless services move from downtown into residential neighborhoods? What's the real impact of concentrating services in a neighborhood? What is the City actually building, and who is it for?
RSVP here.

Please log on to the website to educate your self about the origins and definitions of housing first policies.

Website: https://smhousingfirstconcerns.netlify.app/
Click here to unsubscribe
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Pandro Sokolow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:05 PM
To: Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; [email protected]; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Tomorrow Night's Vote

EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon All,
I’m writing as a SM homeowner and small income property owner encouraging you all to vote against any laws that could lead to PERPETUAL TENANCY. There are so many reasons that this is a bad idea, primarily opening up so much potential for fraud. It is completely one-sided, in addition to likely overstepping some legal boundaries.

Please think of the long-term eƯects that this could have and try voting for what’s best for Santa Monica, not for your image or next possible career move.

Thank you,
Pandro Sokolow
President
Pandro Sokolow Construction Inc.
1946 14th Street
Santa Monica CA 90404
OƯice 310-264-3862
www.psci-la.com
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Bill Dawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 6:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete
Subject: CIty Council Agenda Item NO. 11-B 7-14-2026

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I have been a property owner and property manager of apartments in Santa Monica for over thirtyfive years. I am very concerned and strongly disagree with two provisions of the proposed amendments to the City rent control charter you are considering placing on the November 2026 ballot.

Specifically,
Small Rental Debts (Section 1806(a)(1)). If the proposed amendment to increase a rental debt to 150% of the FMV before a notice to pay rent or quit can be served is adopted it would significantly hurt small property operators who must pay all their operating expenses promptly (within 30 days). Due to legacy low rent tenancies a tenant could delay payments 2-3 months before reaching the 150% threshold just to serve a notice. Also, potentially a section 8 assisted tenant might not reach the 150% FMV threshold for their "family" portion for six plus months. This is unfair and unnecessary. There are several agencies that can provide tenants in need with rental assistance payments . This is unfair and unnecessary. Please reject.

Family-Member Occupancy After Tenant Vacancy (Section 1806(c)) This is a blatant attempt to circumvent the vacany decontrol recontrol state law (Costa Hawkins) that provides for raising a rent to market rate once the orinignal tenant(s) have vacated. To allow a far reaching family member or even a dependent that is not related to inherit a legacy low rent control unit is most likely a "taking" and / or a violation of the state law and would be challenged. This is not fair to property owners who currently abide by all rent control laws and wouldh have to suffer for life and maybe generations is outragious. Please reject.

I recommend that you consider both of these proposals while well intended, unfair, unnessary and potentially illegal thus reject both.

Thank you.

Bill Dawson, Pres.

Sullivan Dituri Co.

Santa Monica, CA
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 11B - support

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I’m writing in support of all the amendments in item 11B being added to the ballot for this November. I especially want to speak up for 11B.3.

I don’t expect the council to have any trouble putting these on the ballot. But I wanted to voice my support anyway, because 11B.3 in particular will be of great value to our tenants and our city as a whole. 11B.3 would stop a tenant from being evicted for nonpayment when they owe less than a defined fair threshold. That threshold is actually pretty modest, but for the tenants it could end up protecting, the stakes are very high.

I can see a world where the optics appear to some that this is a way for people to get out of paying their rent.

But that’s really not what it is. One of the most valuable things about this threshold is that it may give the city time to connect with people who are struggling with their rent— who, critically, we actually have the resources to protect in many cases, if we can find out in time that they need them.

We already have funding to help these tenants — Measure GS funded the soon to be launched Renters Aid, which can pay off a tenant’s rental debt up to a modest amount when they hit a rough patch. It’s going to be a phenomenal program when it’s fully operating. But in many cases when eviction proceedings are happening rapidly (as soon as there is a small non-payment), the city would have a hard time connecting with the tenants to get them the rental relief quickly enough to make a difference. And that could very well be mean someone having a roof over their head and being without a home.

I’ve gotten a sense of some of the people this amendment could help this week, in particular, when I’ve been working the SMRR hotline. I talked to people who were right on the verge of not being able to make rent. One, a senior tenant of over 40 years with a disability, was already packing up his apartment because he thought he wouldn’t be able to pay his rent and he believed his landlord would evict him immediately; he planned to move to a trailer out of state. These are Santa Monica residents who will find relief in this amendment, most likely be some of our longer term, older, higher-risk residents. This could be the difference between someone staying in Santa Monica and being a part of our diverse community, or possibly being forced out of the state entirely.

Our longest-residing tenants - who this charter amendment would help most of all - have the fewest options if they lose their home, and they’re a big part of why Santa Monica is still a place where more than just wealthy, young people get to live. When we keep them here and keep them housed, we keep the city we actually want.

Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 3 Thank you for taking up these amendments. I hope you’ll put all of 11B on the ballot, and I’m especially grateful to see 11B.3 among them. This is exactly the kind of law that is going to help our whole city thrive.

Thank you to the people who worked on bringing it this far.

Respectfully,
Heather Thomason
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Marie Iding <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on Proposed RSO Changes

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I have reviewed the proposed RSO changes and note that their authors attempt to bolster their arguments by referring to incidents involving "unscrupulous landlords" and "substantial and recurring violations," but they provide no data to support these claims. It is clearly likely that the vast majority of rent-controlled property owners work hard to maintain their properties and do not fit this description.

As Professor Emerita, I taught research methods and would NEVER advocate for making decisions based on alleged incidents rather than examining actual data.

Those of us who own rent-controlled units and take good care of them would be unfairly punished.

These proposals are NOT well-thought-out; they only stand to benefit a very few while further degrading SM with unkempt units, resulting declines in property values, and tenants whose relationships to original leaseholders are questionable.

Please support safety and fairness for all in SM, including long-time rental property owners of few units.

Thank you,
Dr. Marie Iding, PhD
--
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 2 David Yakobson
From: Haya Handel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:26 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; councilmtgitems Subject: RE: July 14 Meeting Agenda Items || Opposition to the Expansion of Eviction Protections to Excessive Range of Covered Occupants

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Your expansion of the definition of covered occupants would likely cause me to sell my Santa Monica properties, and I don’t think that would benefit my tenants or the city.

I am the kind of landlord the city wants to keep. Many of my tenants have been in their units for multiple decades and pay well below market rent — in some cases less than half of market rent. Despite that, I maintain my buildings extremely well, handle repairs in a timely and high level manner, am understanding when rents are late (I have never charged a late fee or bounced check fee), and treat all my tenants respectfully. I often end up paying for repairs for damage that tenants have caused.

Due to the reduction in the cap on rent increases, along with the rapid increase in the costs of everything from utilities to basic repairs, the net income from our properties goes down every year — we are losing the battle against inflation. The only way to increase these returns is the possibility that at some point the units occupied by the legacy tenants will become available and I can then reset the available units to market rents. This doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it helps offset the very low rents paid by tenants who have been there for 20-30+ years.

If your proposed expansion of the definition of covered occupant goes through, I will likely sell my properties, and the current tenants will lose an excellent housing provider. The money is not the only issue — the stress of possibly having to deal with tenants whom we have not vetted and have no written lease with would be just too much to handle. It is stressful enough trying to enforce basic rules with tenants who have signed on to them.

I am a housing provider who has no problem with reasonable rent control, as I understand the negative societal implications on individual tenants and all of society of huge rent increases. But there has to be a balance between tenant protection and supporting the people who provide the housing. This proposal goes way to far in one direction.

I appreciate your consideration of my perspective.

Sincerely,
Haya Handel
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 3 David Yakobson
From: Marie Iding <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 8:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO ON RSO CHANGES!!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Supporting these measures will further degrade Santa Monica by in effect legalizing squatters without leases, causing protracted evictions and financial losses for property owners, removing incentives for landlords to maintain buildings, and causing property values to tank. It will also further reduce available rentals for potentially qualifying tenants.

Please DO NOT harm rental owners and further degrade Santa Monica, as has recently been documented in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/on-the-california-coast-apicture-perfect-city-falls-on-hard-times-b9df39c1?mod=Searchresults&pos=3&page=1 Thank you for your support.

Dr. Marie Iding, PhD
--
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) 1 David Yakobson
From: Victoria Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: Meeting 7-14-2026
Attachments: Oppose Just Cause Expansion Condo SFH 07-14-2026.pdf

EXTERNAL
To City Council and its members:

I have been a condo owner since the TORCA law was passed in the 1980’s and the latest burden you are attempting to place on property owners is unfair and doesn’t solve any problem. Please give voters and property owners a reasonable amount of time to understand what you are trying to accomplish. Please focus on the bigger problems of the homeless population and not on putting $20,000 into the pocket of a renter paying $$5-$20,000+++ per month.

Thank you
Vee Gray
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures)

OPPOSE THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
Extending Just Cause Eviction Controls to Santa Monica Condominiums and Single-Family Homes
City Council Meeting: Tuesday, July 14, 2026, 5:30 p.m. — Council Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main Street (2nd Floor)
What is proposed. Tonight the Council decides whether to send voters a permanent charter amendment1 extending the City’s just cause eviction regime — with relocation fees currently $16,500 to $33,650 per household2 — to the one category of housing that every level of California law has deliberately left free of it: individually owned condominiums and single-family homes. Under this measure, moving into your own home would cost you $20,000 to $33,000. Wanting to sell it would not be cause at all: the tenant stays through the sale, and your home sells at a tenant-occupied discount brokers put at 10–25% — $150,000 to $375,000 on a $1.5 million condo.3
Six reasons not to place this on the ballot:
1 Santa Monica Daily Press, “Santa Monica City Council Meeting July 14: Ballot Measures, Downtown Zoning” (July 2026); Hoodline, “Santa Monica Council Weighs $495 Parcel Tax and Downtown Plan” (July 11, 2026). The proposal would “add just-cause protections to single-unit homes and condominiums, and change requirements for owner move-in evictions from units not subject to rent control,” for the November 3, 2026 ballot. Because it amends the City Charter, subsequent correction requires another citywide election — the Council cannot amend it by ordinance.
2 SMMC Chapter 4.36; santamonica.gov/housing-tenant-relocation-fee. The current schedule for covered units runs approximately $16,500 to $33,650 per displaced household depending on unit size and whether any occupant is a senior, disabled, or a minor; amounts are indexed annually and only increase. An owner (or qualifying relative) who recovers possession must occupy the unit as a principal residence for three consecutive years — meaning a job transfer, illness, or family emergency within that window creates legal exposure.
3 Tenant-occupied listings routinely sell at broker-estimated discounts of 10–25% relative to vacant comparables, and more where the tenant does not cooperate with showings. The discount is structural, not speculative: most condo and house buyers are owner-occupants who need vacant possession at close for financing and insurance; if vacant delivery is impossible, the buyer pool shrinks to investors, who bid less. A seller who cannot terminate the tenancy also cannot control timing — showings, inspections, and appraisals all depend on tenant cooperation.

Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures)

1. The minimal notice appears deliberate — and it disrespects the City’s own taxpayers. This measure was not improvised last week. The City has been methodically building toward it for some time: it required every single-family home and condominium to register with the City effective January 2026, and the Rent Control Board spent months this year publicly developing charter amendments — a package that did not include this extension. Yet the single-family/condo provision surfaced only as a late addition to the July 14 agenda, on roughly the Brown Act’s 72-hour minimum.4 Seventy-two hours may be lawful; it is not legitimate notice for a permanent charter change to thousands of residents’ property rights, from a City that plainly had months to give it. The predictable effect of minimum notice — and a fair inference as to its purpose — is to keep affected owners from organizing to be heard, as condo owners famously did over TORCA. These are the same homeowners who pay the bulk of the residential property taxes that fund the City. Treating them as an obstacle to be managed rather than constituents to be consulted is, by itself, reason to continue the item.

The measure fails to provide participants with the usual reams of staff economic analysis, legal risk assessment, or fiscal impact statement that would ordinarily accompany an item that proposes to amend the City charter. “Democracy dies in darkness” this failure to properly inform constituents is disrespectful and unprofessional and could be argued to be duplicitous.

2. The tenants it protects are not rent-burdened — and the owners it taxes may be.

Condos and houses are the top of the Santa Monica rental market: two- and three-bedroom condos rent for $4,500–$5,400+ per month; four-bedroom houses average about $14,500 — $54,000 to $174,000 per year.5 By the federal definition of rent burden, a tenant 4 Timeline: November 18, 2025 — Council votes to require registration of all rental units, explicitly including single-family homes, condominiums, and ADUs, effective January 1, 2026 (AAGLA; Davidovich Stone Law Group) — the administrative predicate for regulating these units. April 2026 — the Rent Control Board’s subcommittee publicly advances four charter amendments (household-composition evictions, registration-fee cap, commissioner term limits, petition timelines); the single-family/condo just cause extension is not among them (SMDP, Apr. 20, 2026). May 2026 — public hearing on that package. July 2026 — the extension appears for the first time as what local press called “a late addition to the agenda” for July 14 (Hoodline, July 11, 2026). The Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54954.2) requires only 72 hours’ agenda posting — a floor designed for routine business. Charter language of this consequence takes weeks to draft; someone chose to withhold it from every earlier public process and post it at the statutory minimum. Fair questions for the Council: who requested the addition, when was it drafted, why was it excluded from the Rent Board’s public package, and what outreach — any at all — was made to the owners it affects?
5 Zillow Rental Market Trends, Santa Monica (mid-2026): median asking rent all property types approx. $3,900/month; four-bedroom single-family homes average approx. $14,500/month with listings to $21,750. RentCafe (June 2026): average apartment rent Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) comfortably paying $5,000 a month earns over $200,000 a year.6 The measure has no means test on either side: it charges a retiree who owns one condo a five-figure fee to live in it, to subsidize a tenant who may earn several times what she does. Every other housing protection the City administers is income-qualified. If any version goes to the ballot, it must at minimum exempt units renting above a luxury threshold (e.g., $5,000/month) — a tenant who is not rent-burdened does not need a $30,000 payment to move.

3. State law already decided this question — deliberately. AB 1482 gives every Santa Monica tenant of a corporate- or investor-owned condo or house just cause protection today. The Legislature expressly exempted homes owned by individuals — it targeted institutional investors while preserving flexibility for the retiree, the family posted overseas, the owner of a single unit.7 Costa-Hawkins embodies the same statewide policy, and California voters have refused to repeal it three times, most recently in 2024.8 This measure erases, at the city level, a line the State drew on purpose. $3,759; two-bedroom $4,502; three-bedroom $5,372. Condos and single-family homes rent above same-size apartments.
6 HUD defines households paying more than 30% of gross income for housing as “costburdened.” A tenant for whom $5,000/month is at or below 30% of income earns at least $200,000/year — roughly the top 5% of U.S. households. Landlord screening standards (income of 2.5–3x rent) imply the same: qualifying incomes of $150,000–$500,000+ across this segment. Precedent for a luxury carve-out exists: New York’s former high-rent decontrol, and the means-tested design of every subsidy program the City itself administers (Section 8, below-market-rate units, preservation programs). A protection that is not means-tested on the tenant’s side but is wealth-blind on the owner’s side is regressive by construction.
7 Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2 (AB 1482, 2019, as strengthened by SB 567, 2024): statewide just cause protection and relocation assistance (one month’s rent), with an express exemption for single-family homes and condominiums that are (a) not owned by a corporation, REIT, or LLC with a corporate member, and (b) accompanied by statutory notice to the tenant.

The exemption was a deliberate legislative compromise distinguishing institutional landlords from individual owners; the City’s measure would nullify it locally for the very owners the Legislature chose to protect.
8 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1954.50 et seq. Strictly, Costa-Hawkins preempts local rent price control on single-family homes and condominiums; courts have allowed local eviction controls on such units (Los Angeles’s Just Cause Ordinance is an example), so this measure is likely not a direct CostaHawkins violation — and opponents gain credibility by not overclaiming. The force of the point is legislative policy: the State decided single units owned by individuals are not the proper target of rent regulation, and statewide voters rejected repeal of that judgment by wide margins three times — Prop 10 (2018, 59–41), Prop 21 (2020, 60–40), Prop 33 (2024, 60–40) — including in Los Angeles County. A local measure that burdens the same units the State shields invites both litigation over its outer edges and political backlash.

Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures)

4. It is constitutionally suspect to make one private citizen buy back possession of her own home. A mandatory five-figure payment as the price of occupying your own property — imposed without regard to the owner’s ability to pay or the tenant’s need — creates, in effect, a property right in the tenant funded directly from the owner’s pocket. Federal courts have struck down exactly this kind of untethered relocation payment as an unconstitutional exaction, and recent Supreme Court decisions have sharpened the doctrine.9

5. A legally vulnerable charter amendment is a taxpayer liability. Because it is a charter provision, no court loss, drafting defect, or unintended consequence can be fixed by the Council — only by another citywide election. Placing a measure with this much litigation exposure on the ballot, with no staff analysis of its legal risk, supply effects, or property-value impacts, commits residents to years of defense costs for a law that duplicates state protections.10

6. It will shrink the rental supply it regulates — leaving no housing in the city outside eviction control. Individually owned condos and houses enter the rental market by choice, and they leave it the same way: faced with a $20,000–$33,000 exit fee and the risk of never recovering possession, owners will sell or leave units empty, and every withdrawn unit raises rents on what remains.11 And this measure closes the final gap — after it, essentially every rental in Santa Monica, down to a single condo rented by its owner, is under eviction control.12 9 In Levin v. City & County of San Francisco, 71 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2014), the court struck down San Francisco’s requirement that owners exiting the rental business pay tenants a lump sum tied to market-rent differentials, holding it an unconstitutional exaction: the payment was not proportionate to any impact caused by the owner’s decision to reclaim the property. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024), holds that legislatively imposed monetary conditions get the same Nollan/Dolan scrutiny (essential nexus and rough proportionality) as ad hoc ones — removing the City’s best defense. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021), treats government-compelled physical occupation of private property as a per se taking. A flat $20,000–$33,000 fee owed regardless of the tenant’s actual moving costs, the tenant’s income, or the owner’s ability to pay is precisely the kind of untethered exaction these cases condemn. 10 No staff economic analysis, legal risk assessment, or fiscal impact statement accompanies the item. Cities that adopted aggressive tenant-protection measures have spent years and substantial sums in defense (San Francisco’s Levin litigation among them). Knowingly placing a measure with identified constitutional vulnerabilities into the Charter — where it cannot be repaired without another election — converts a policy experiment into a standing taxpayer liability.
11 Diamond, McQuade & Qian, “The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality:

Evidence from San Francisco,” American Economic Review 109(9) (2019): rent control reduced affected rental supply by 15% as owners sold to owner-occupants or redeveloped, raising citywide rents about 5% — the losses borne by future renters. The mechanism applies with more force here: individually owned condos and houses are the most elastic rental stock in the city, supplied by owners (families abroad for work, retirees, heirs) who can and will simply stop renting.
12 Coverage after this measure: pre-1979 apartments — City Charter rent control and eviction control; post1979 apartments over 15 years old — AB 1482 just cause; corporate/investor-owned condos and houses — this measure. The only rentals outside eviction control would be buildings under 15 years old (a temporary, rolling exemption) and limited categories like owner-shared housing. In practical terms: no home in Santa Monica could be rented, even briefly, with a reliable right to reclaim it.

Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Measures) Proposed Ballot Measures to
Amend City Charter
Articles XVIII and XXIII
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection City Charter Articles XVIII and XXIII
 Article XVIII (Rent Control)
 Governs role, authority, and structure of Rent Control Board  Regulates Maximum Allowable Rents for rent controlled units  Regulates grounds for eviction for rent controlled units  Article XXIII (Housing Policies)
 Regulates grounds for eviction for “non-rent controlled units”  Section 1806 and 2304 are nearly identical
 Article XXIII applies to “All residential rental units in the City of Santa Monica except those units that are subject to rent control pursuant to Article XVIII of this Charter or are single-family homes.” Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Charter Amendments - Process
 January 27, 2026
 Council provided direction to propose additional tenant protections and tenant stability measures, including tools used in similarly-situated jurisdictions  April 9, 2026
 Rent Control Board considered Article XVIII administrative amendments  May 14, 2026
 Rent Control Board held public hearing on Article XVIII administrative amendments
 CAO presented potential just cause eviction amendments to Rent Control Board  June 11, 2026
 Rent Control Board voted to recommend placing Article XVIII administrative amendments on November 2026 Ballot
 June 25, 2026
 Rent Control Board held public hearing on just cause eviction amendments and voted to recommended placing just cause eviction amendments on November 2026 ballot Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Resolutions
 Resolution 1:
 Affirming of local just cause eviction regulations
 Rent Control Board administrative amendments
 Preserving affordable housing
 Resolution 2:
 Rent threshold eviction regulation
 Resolution 3:
 Limiting evictions based on the addition of new occupants  Limiting evictions of remaining household members after tenant vacates
 Extending just cause eviction protections to single unit dwellings and updating owner move-in eviction regulations
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Resolution 1
 Affirming local just cause eviction regulations (Articles XVIII and XXIII)  Finding that local just cause eviction laws are more protective than state just cause eviction law
 Rent Control Board administrative amendments (Article XVIII Only)  Clarifies Commissioner term limits (3 terms, appointed service and terms more than 2 years count)
 Clarifies maximum allowable registration fee is a ceiling, allows annual upward adjustments of ceiling based on CPI
 Clarifies Board authority to set and extend timelines for issuing decisions on rent adjustment petitions for good cause
 Preserving affordable housing (Articles XVIII and XXIII)  Adds two just cause grounds for eviction from deed restricted affordable unit:
 Tenant does not qualify for deed restricted unit under the terms of the deed restriction and landlord complies with applicable guidelines  Tenant fails to provide proof of qualification for the unit as required by the deed restriction, after written warning
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection AHPP Guidelines for Over Income Tenants
 Tenant who was income eligible at move-in remains eligible for unit if income increases modestly above the income limit for the unit
 If tenant's income increases to more than 140% above the income limit for the unit, certain procedures apply:
 If there is an available affordable unit at a higher income level at the property for which the tenant qualifies, or an available market rate unit at the property, the tenant will be offered that unit
 If the tenant cannot or chooses not to relocate, the tenant will be given a one-year notice to vacate
 Tenant still has right of first refusal to lease any market rate unit at the property that becomes available during that one-year term  Notice to vacate will also be rescinded if during the course of the year, the tenant recertifies their income and demonstrates they qualify again for their unit Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Resolution 2
 Rent threshold eviction regulation (Articles XVIII and XXIII)  Prohibits eviction for non-payment of rent if tenant owes less than the average of one month’s Small Area Fair Market Rents (“SAFMR”) for 5 Santa Monica Zip Codes for equivalent sized unit
 According to CAO data
 Approximately 75% of eviction cases provided to CAO are for non- payment of rent  Eviction cases filed for as little as $405.67
 Eviction notices have been given to Santa Monica tenants for as little as $73.87
 Landlord would still have ability to collect rent owed below threshold through non-eviction means
 Similar regulations adopted by City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles (Unincorporated), City of Berkeley, City of Oakland Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Resolution 3
 Limiting eviction based on additional occupants (Articles XVIII and XXIII)
 Prohibits evictions for having more occupants than expressly allowed by written lease if
 Additional occupant is minor child for whom tenant, tenant’s spouse, or tenant’s partner is legally obligated to care
 Additional occupant is specified family member, provided tenant has lived in the unit for a year, and tenant notifies landlord of the additional occupant and familial relationship
 Additional occupant and tenant intend to create a household, provided tenant has lived in the unit for a year, tenant notifies landlord of the additional occupant, and landlord does not unreasonably withhold approval
 According to CAO data:
 20% of non-nonpayment eviction cases provided to CAO were for violating additional or maximum occupant restrictions in leases  Similar to regulations adopted in San Francisco, Oakland, East Palo Alto
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Resolution 3
 Limiting evictions of lawful remaining household members (Articles XVIII and XXIII)
 Prohibits eviction of a lawful occupant who remains in a unit after the tenant of the owner vacates, provided the lawful occupant lived in the unit for one year before the tenant of the owner vacated and continued occupancy does not violate any affordable housing deed restriction
 Expands on existing protections for children, spouses, and partners who remain in a unit after a tenant vacates due to death or incapacity
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Resolution 3
 Extending just cause eviction protections to single unit dwellings and condominiums and updating owner move-in eviction
regulations (Article XXIII only)
 Removes Article XXIII exemption for single unit dwellings and condominiums
 For owner move-in evictions from Article XXIII units, requires owner occupy unit within 60 days after tenant vacating and for at least 2 years, otherwise displaced tenant is offered right to return
 Just cause eviction protections for single unit dwellings adopted in recent years by City of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Culver City, Pasadena, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, East Palo Alto
 Aligns Article XXIII owner move-in eviction regulations with existing Article XVIII owner move-in eviction regulations Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection Proposed Resolution 1 – Administrative Items
Affirmation of
Local Just Cause
Eviction Law
Rent Control
Board Term
Limits
Rent Control
Maximum Unit
Registration Fee
Amendment
Rent Control Board
Petition Decision
Timeline
Preserving Affordable
Housing
Article XVIII X X X X X
Article XXIII X X
Proposed Resolution 2
Non-Payment Eviction Threshold
Non-Payment Eviction
Threshold
Article XVIII X
Article XXIII X
Proposed Resolution 3 – Additional Tenant Protections
Limiting Evictions
Based on New
Occupants
Limiting Evictions of
Remaining Household
Members
Extending Just Cause
Protections to Single Unit
Dwellings
Updating Owner-Move In
Regulations
Article XVIII X X
Article XXIII X X X X
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026
Item 11-B
July 14, 2026

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7777 : Ballot Measure - Three Tenant Protection City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 13
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Text of the Downtown Community Plan and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Implement the City’s Realignment Plan by Increasing the Development Potential of City-Owned Sites in the Downtown and Sites Located Within the Gateway Master Plan Area
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the potential environmental effects of the Ordinances have been previously analyzed as part of the certified Downtown Community Plan Environmental Impact Report, the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report and subsequent addendum, and a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;

2. Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Text of the Downtown Community Plan to Effectuate the Goals of the Realignment Plan by Increasing the Potential of CityOwned Sites in the Downtown Community Plan Area and Sites Located Within the Gateway Master Plan Area; and

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Effectuate the Goals of the Realignment Plan by Increasing the Potential of City-Owned Sites in the Downtown Community Plan Area.

Summary
Pursuant to the City’s Realignment Plan, the proposed recommended amendments to the Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and text of the Zoning Ordinance will implement the key strategic goals of strengthening economic opportunity in the Downtown by unlocking potential of City-owned property and Gateway sites. Specifically, the amendments include (1) exempting City-owned property from the regulatory framework of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the City to evaluate proposals based on economic

12.A
Packet Pg. 572
2 of 13
opportunities and public benefits, and (2) increasing development standards and providing flexibility in the entitlement process for Gateway sites to better encourage and support transformative projects around one of the main entrances into the city’s Downtown. In addition to the proposed amendments, a policy question and potential options are included regarding the appropriate entitlement process for Gateway sites.

Further, two additional policy questions are posed for the Gateway sites regarding whether land use limitations should be applied to the entitlement processes and how best to structure community benefits.

The proposed amendments do not include implementation of a boulevard low-scale incentive program, Downtown housing incentive program, or general upzoning for housing projects in the Downtown. These programs were not recommended by the Planning Commission at this time in the interest of ensuring that the City can plan holistically and more comprehensively consider these proposals within the context of a future Senate Bill (SB) 79 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan and the 7 th Cycle Housing Element.

Background
On October 28, 2025, City Council adopted the Realignment Plan, a guiding framework for public safety renewal, revitalization of key public spaces, and achievement of organizational stability and fiscal balance. This framework consists of a series of interconnected programs, projects, and strategies to effectuate the Council’s established priorities of achieving (1) safe neighborhoods and clean streets, (2) activating economic opportunity and growth, and (3) developing affordable, livable, and secure housing.

Of the implementation efforts, the following two fell under the purview of City Planning staff and the Planning Commission to initiate and were authorized through the adoption of two Resolutions of Intention (ROI):

1. Authorize staff to explore opportunities to update development standards, land uses, and processes for City-owned sites in the Downtown Community Plan area

12.A
Packet Pg. 573
3 of 13
and public and private sites within the former Gateway Master Plan area to provide more flexibility to unlock land value and redevelopment potential, and

2. Authorize staff to focus City housing development efforts in the Downtown core, and concurrently direct that staff initiate studies to identify policy options that do not jeopardize Housing Element certification and ensure that future development on boulevards achieves compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods.

Both of these strategies aim to focus and expand future growth and opportunities within the Downtown, where proximity to employment, transit, services, and amenities can support sustainable development patterns to continue to address the city’s housing needs, while also stimulating economic activity and generating public benefits.

Planning Commission Study Session
To initiate implementation of these Realignment Plan strategies, the Planning Commission held a study session on May 6, 2026, to discuss the following concepts:

1. Boulevard Low-Scale Housing Incentive Program

2. Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program

3. Driving Downtown Economic Opportunity, which included:
• Regulatory Adjustments to City-Owned Sites to Maximize Community Benefit
• Facilitation of Economic Opportunity on Downtown Gateway Sites – Development Standards, Land Uses, and Process
After discussion of the above concepts, the Commission voted and adopted new ROIs to only move forward with potential amendments regarding a Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program, City-owned sites in the Downtown, and Gateway sites. The Commission voted to not include language regarding a Boulevard Low-Scale Housing Incentive program in the ROI and therefore amendments to implement this concept did not move forward. Future consideration of this program would need to be initiated through an ROI that may be adopted by the Commission or City Council.

12.A
Packet Pg. 574
4 of 13
Planning Commission Recommendation
On June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to review and discuss a formal recommendation on the proposed amendments to the text of the DCP and Zoning Ordinance based on their discussion and direction during the May 6 study session. While more detail is provided below on their recommendation to City Council, the Commission voted to not recommend amendments to effectuate a Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program, stating that this Realignment Plan strategy would be better suited to be incorporated into future work efforts such as the 7th Cycle Housing Element and/or a future SB 79 TOD Alternative Plan. The Commission specified that a Downtown incentive program should be reviewed holistically with development citywide and therefore wanted to reserve potential implementation concepts such as increased development standards and affordable housing compliance flexibility for the future.

Discussion – Driving Downtown Economic Opportunity
Below is an overview of the proposed amendments to the DCP and Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission.

Regulatory Adjustments to City-Owned Sites to Maximize Community Benefit Pursuant to the Realignment Plan, it is vital that the City takes a more strategic approach to our real estate assets to expand economic opportunities and growth through an intentional development program for City property specifically targeting Downtown. Several City-owned properties within Downtown represent significant public assets that can accommodate future housing, civic, commercial, institutional, or mixeduse development. In particular, these properties include:
• Downtown E-Line Station (“Kiss and Ride”) Lot
• Parking Structure 1 – 1234 4th Street
• Former Fire Station No. 1 Site – 1444 7th Street
• 4th/5th Street and Arizona Avenue Site – 1301 4th Street

12.A
Packet Pg. 575
5 of 13
Currently, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.01.040, only projects that include affordable housing on City-owned sites are exempt from the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, which was established through Program 2.E of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element. As such, non-housing projects on City-owned properties are subject to the same zoning standards applicable to private property, including limitations related to height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), setbacks, and other development requirements. Therefore, in order to be able to solicit innovative proposals ensuring that public property is maximized not only for land residual revenues, but for community benefit and to be a catalyst for driving reinvestment in the Downtown through redevelopment or joint venture opportunities, the proposed amendments include a provision that would exempt all project types on City-owned properties in the Downtown from the development standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Exempting the City-owned sites from zoning regulations would provide flexibility to evaluate a broad range of projects based on their ability to provide public benefits, including:
• A variety of housing types;
• Economic development opportunities;
• Civic and community-serving uses;
• Public open space and amenities; and
• Revenue generating uses to support City services
As these sites are publicly owned and represent some of the City’s most valuable land assets, a more flexible regulatory framework is appropriate. The proposed amendment to SMMC Section 9.01.040(A)(1) would allow the City to evaluate site-specific opportunities and community benefits without being constrained by standards designed primarily for developments on private property.

Facilitate Economic Opportunity on Downtown Gateway Sites – Development Standards, Land Uses, and Process
The DCP identifies several “Gateway Master Plan” sites as locations of unique strategic importance due to their visibility, proximity to transit, and potential to accommodate significant investments. Gateway sites include:

12.A
Packet Pg. 576
6 of 13
A. 402 Colorado Avenue
(Downtown Station Site)
B. 302 Colorado Avenue
(Sears Property)
C. 120 Colorado Avenue
(Pierside Hotel)
Under existing regulations, these properties are subject to the development standards of the underlying zone district (i.e., Transit Adjacent), including a maximum height of 84 feet and FAR of 4.0 for housing projects or 84 feet and FAR of 3.5 for Tier 3 nonhousing projects.

Similar to City-owned sites in the Downtown, the Realignment Plan envisions considerations for this Gateway area to allow for creative proposals on private property leading up to major global events such as the Olympics while also providing certainty for housing projects at a key entrance to the Downtown. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the DCP, consisting of a maximum height of 130 feet and 5.0 FAR as shown below. Given that housing projects can use State Density Bonus Law to increase height and FAR, the proposed height of 130 feet would provide parity between housing and non-housing projects and aligns with the height permitted in the DCP’s Large Sites Overlay (DCP Section 9.10.080). The proposed 5.0 FAR is based on recently approved projects to correspond to the increased height. The proposed FAR also accounts for the A
B
C

12.A
Packet Pg. 577
7 of 13
size of parcels in the Gateway area and the standards necessary to achieve the 130 feet height limit.

Table 1 Gateway Sites – Development Standards
Current Standards
for Housing Projects
Current Standards
for Non-Housing
Projects
Proposed
Standards for ALL
Projects
Max Height 84 feet 84 feet (Tier 3)* 130 feet
Max FAR 4.0 3.5 (Tier 3)* 5.0
*Tier 3 requires the provision of community benefits and a Development Agreement process
The proposed standards would apply to all project types, including residential, commercial, hotel, office, institutional, and mixed-use development providing parity in development potential regardless of project type.

The DCP has long recognized Gateway sites as locations capable of accommodating development of greater scale and intensity. The proposed amendments would better align regulatory standards with the original vision of the Gateway Master Plan and create valuable opportunities for transformative projects that contribute to housing production, economic development, job creation, and fiscal sustainability. The proposed standards would also improve the economic feasibility of redevelopment on these sites and allow future projects to better capitalize on their strategic locations at key Downtown entry points.

Processing Thresholds for Gateway Sites
The DCP currently establishes the following processing thresholds for non-housing projects:
• Administrative Approval (no public hearing) – less than 10,000 SF • Development Review Permit (Planning Commission public hearing – 10,000 – 30,000 SF
• Negotiated Development Agreement – greater than 30,000 SF

12.A
Packet Pg. 578
8 of 13
In the years since the adoption of the DCP, no Development Agreement applications for non-housing projects have been received largely because new development in the Downtown has focused on housing projects, which have a streamlined approval process. Within the Gateway sites, proposals for non-housing projects have not been received.

As part of the Realignment Plan, Council endorsed exploring opportunities, including process flexibility, to activate the Gateway sites in order to unlock land value and redevelopment potential. Therefore, within the Gateway sites Council may wish to consider whether, instead of Development Agreements, non-housing projects should have a more streamlined and predictable entitlement process similar to housing projects.

The Planning Commission recommended:
• Administrative Approval (no public hearing) – up to 30,000 SF • Negotiated Development Agreement – greater than 30,000 SF The Commission’s recommendation was made in order to retain discretion over nonhousing projects in the Gateway area (which could be significantly larger) and to allow the City to negotiate community benefits.

However, staff has identified a policy question for Council to confirm whether there is agreement with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. In response to Council’s direction to explore process flexibility in the Gateway sites, staff separately recommends that the Council consider options that provide a more predictable process and that is based on the DCP’s existing development standards tier system instead of arbitrary project square footage. The table below shows the potential options and a summary of what each option would mean.

Policy Question 1:

What entitlement process should non-housing projects on Gateway sites be processed under?

12.A
Packet Pg. 579
9 of 13
➢ Planning Commission Recommendation: Administrative Approval ministerial entitlement for projects up to 30,000 SF / Development Agreement for projects greater than 30,000 SF
➢ Alternative Options:

Option Description Type of Entitlement Size Threshold
1 Administrative
Approval provides
maximum
process certainty
for non-housing
projects
Administrative
Approval (no public
hearing)
No size limit
2 Permit process
connected to
existing DCP tier
system and FAR
limits
Administrative
Approval for Tier 1
FAR (no public
hearing)
Up to 1.75 FAR
Ex: 50,000 SF site x 1.75
FAR = 87,500 SF project
(current process for nonhousing projects less than
10,000 SF)
Development Review
Permit for Tier 2 FAR
(Planning Commission
public hearing)
Greater than 1.75 FAR and
up to 3.0 FAR
(current process for nonhousing projects between
10,000-30,000 SF)
Development
Agreement for Tier 3
FAR (City Council
public hearing)
Greater than 3.0 FAR and up
to 5.0 FAR
Ex: 50,000 SF site x 3.5 FAR
= 175,000 SF project
(current process for nonhousing projects greater than
30,000 SF)
Interrelated to the policy question above regarding what entitlement process nonhousing projects on Gateway sites should be reviewed and approved under, staff has the following policy questions regarding land use limitations and implementation of community benefits.

12.A
Packet Pg. 580
10 of 13
Potential Land Use Limitations for Gateway Sites Process Streamlining The proposed increased height and FAR development standards would apply to all project types, including residential, commercial, hotel, office, institutional, and mixeduse development. Procedural modifications are also proposed to streamline review of non-housing projects on the Gateway sites. However, staff would like to confirm with the Council if there are uses that they would not want to be eligible for a potential ministerial entitlement process, such as hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, given past policy direction to exclude even housing projects that include these uses from the Administrative Approval process.

Policy Question 2:

On Gateway sites, should certain land uses exclude a project from a potential ministerial entitlement process regardless of size? For example, past policy direction has been to exclude projects that include hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging uses from the Administrative Approval process (i.e.: would be required to go through a discretionary process).
➢ YES, exclude projects that contain certain uses from being processed through a ministerial process on Gateway sites. (Council to provide excluded uses) ➢ NO, allow ALL uses to be eligible for a ministerial entitlement process.

Implementation of Community Benefits for Gateway Sites
During Planning Commission’s discussion regarding Gateway sites, one of the main reasons the Commission recommended a Development Agreement be required for nonhousing projects greater than 30,000 SF was in order to ensure adequate community benefits are provided in exchange for the proposed increased development standards.

However, given the uncertainty and extensive process of a Development Agreement, an alternative approach staff would like to present to Council is to use the DCP’s existing structured community benefits system that is based on tiers. The current system requires a 23% increase in impacts fees above the base fee for the portion of the development exceeding Tier 1 standards (1.75 FAR/32’) to be paid in return for increases in permitted height and FAR. Additional Transportation Demand Management measures are also required.

12.A
Packet Pg. 581
11 of 13
Policy Question 3:

To ensure proportionate community benefits are provided, should a tiered community benefits system similar to what is currently in place in the DCP be implemented in order for non-housing projects to be granted the proposed increases in height and FAR?
➢ YES, implement a tiered community benefits system for projects that exceed Tier 1 base standards (1.75 FAR/32’) similar to the current structure in the DCP in order for projects to access the proposed increased standards. ➢ NO, increased community benefits should not be required to access increased development standards.

Environmental Review
The amendment to exempt City-owned sites from the Zoning Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This amendment is a procedural change and therefore, no adverse environmental impacts would occur. Projects on a City-owned site would be subject to future review at the time they are proposed to determine the appropriate environmental documentation necessary for compliance with CEQA.

The proposed amendments regarding Gateway sites have already been subject to CEQA review and are within the scope of the previously prepared EIRs and Addendum.

The proposed amendment to increase the current standards for the Gateway sites to

5.0 FAR and a height of 130 feet for all projects have been previously analyzed in the certified DCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2013091056) and the 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020100575). Specifically, the DCP EIR analyzed up to 3,024 residential units and 1.71 million net new square feet of commercial development. A review of the City’s records indicates that development in the Downtown for residential and commercial development remains below what was analyzed in the DCP EIR. Therefore, increasing the standards for the three Gateway sites would not significantly increase forecasted commercial growth over what was analyzed in the DCP EIR. Anticipated increases in housing development at these Gateway sites have also been previously reviewed in the 6 th Cycle Housing Element EIR and subsequent Addendum, which analyzed up to the

12.A
Packet Pg. 582
12 of 13
development of 13,600 units in the City through 2030. Therefore, there are no impacts that were not analyzed in a prior EIR and there are no more severe impacts than those discussed in prior EIRs. Furthermore, the amendment to establish a new entitlement procedure for Gateway sites is administrative in nature and exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) 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 change in entitlement process is procedural. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
October 28, 2025 Santa Monica Realignment Plan
March 24, 2026 Santa Monica Realignment Plan Update
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Ross Fehrman, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026
B. CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan

07.14.2026_COMBINED
C. Written Comments

12.A
Packet Pg. 583
13 of 13
D. PowerPoint Presentation

12.A
Packet Pg. 584
1 City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO

EFFECTUATE THE GOALS OF THE REALIGNMENT PLAN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, AMENDMENTS TO MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF CITY-OWNED

SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN
WHEREAS, Downtown Santa Monica (“Downtown”) is one of Los Angeles County’s most recognizable city centers; and
WHEREAS, framed by the Santa Monica Bay and mountains, the Downtown is located centrally at the western edge of the city, providing convenient retail, entertainment, and employee destinations for all the City’s neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, with its unique location, the Downtown serves as the heart of the local community, making it a destination not only for locals and Angelenos who see a vibrant, exciting, and urban-scale ambiance, but also for world travelers who come here to enjoy easy access to beaches, hotel accommodations, culture, shopping, and the larger region; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (“City Council”) adopted the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) which sets forth the City’s vision of Downtown as a high quality, mixed-use district offering opportunities as a major public space framed by a mix of retail, restaurants, services, and housing that form unique experiences enjoyable to both residents and visitors; and

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 2 WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance includes land use regulations governing the Downtown Plan area, that respond to the DCP’s vision and principals, and that direct future development within the Downtown Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the DCP identifies the area adjacent to the 1-10 freeway as a “Gateway” possessing conditions that necessitate special considerations regarding development standards and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the DCP identifies a future effort, the Gateway Master Plan, which would identify critical improvements, provide a framework for orderly development of currently vacant or underutilized areas, and explore various funding models for implementation, which would potentially include participation by properties within the Gateway Master Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Gateway Master Plan area is generally bound by 5th Street, Colorado Avenue, and the I-10 Freeway; and
WHEREAS, the Gateway Master Plan planning process was initially scheduled to be completed in 2021, but was delayed due to the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) and other City emergencies and priorities; and
WHEREAS, with the City Council’s adoption of the Fiscal Year 2025-2027 Operating Biennial Budget in June 2025, the City Council affirmed its commitment to various Strategic Priorities, including, but not limited to promoting economic opportunity and growth; endorsing affordable, livable, and secure housing for all; using the City’s real estate strategically; developing distinct business attraction and retention strategies; and activating our public spaces with signature events; and

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 3 WHEREAS, in line with these goals, City Council adopted its Realignment Plan on October 28, 2025, which prioritizes: (1) developing affordable, livable, and secure housing by, among other things: (a) focusing housing development in the Downtown; and (b) incentivizing future development along the Boulevards that remains compatible with existing neighborhoods through local incentives and without jeopardizing Housing Element compliance; and (2) strategic use of City’s land assets and removing artificial land value constraints, which includes, but is not limited to: (a) reassessing development standards, land uses and processes for City-owned parcels in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites; (b) regulatory adjustments for City-owned parcels and for Gateway Master Plan sites; and (c) providing more flexibility to maximize community benefit from City-owned sites and support economic opportunity and growth and developing housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, as the commercial and economic landscape evolves, Downtown’s economic recovery and competitive advantage will depend on its ability to deliver on a diverse range of uses and access to a broad range of housing options; and WHEREAS, the City’s Strategic Priority regarding developing affordable, livable, and secure housing for all includes expanding affordable housing options, stabilizing the Housing Trust Fund, and pursuing equity-based housing initiatives; and WHEREAS, consistent with these Strategic Priorities, the Realignment Plan, and important government interests, the City seeks to revive the “Gateway” concepts in the DCP while also allowing the City to be more strategic regarding the use of City-owned parcels that meet the goals for housing production and also provides flexibility for other uses; and

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 4 WHEREAS, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include, but are not limited to, providing flexibility in development standards, land uses, and processes for the City to manage its real estate assets in the Downtown area in alignment with the strategic objective of economic opportunity and growth; and
WHEREAS, the amendments will allow the City to maximize land residual revenues through redevelopment or joint-venture opportunities at all City-owned parcels; and
WHEREAS, in line with the goals for maximizing economic potential of City-owned Downtown sites; amendments include exempting City-owned Downtown sites from the Zoning Ordinance and providing added flexibility to maximize community benefits of these valued sites; and
WHEREAS, the amendments also include other minor changes, corrections, and clarifications as necessary; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2026, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(B), the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 26-006 (PCS), declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance consistent with the City’s Realignment Plan including, but, not limited to, amendments necessary to provide for (1) focusing housing development in the downtown; and (2) maximizing the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance; and

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 5 WHEREAS, at the June 17, 2026, hearing, after considering all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 26-010, recommending to the City Council that the Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown as noted herein, and the Planning Commission continued discussion for additional amendments regarding Downtown housing developments to allow for additional discussion; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. City Council hereby amends the text of the Zoning Ordinance to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown. In amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby finds and declares that, for the reasons articulated above, and in the staff report dated July 14, 2026:

1. The amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the downtown is the economic center for the City and is envisioned by the Downtown Community Plan as a high quality, mixed-use district offering opportunities for housing, jobs, arts and culture, local-serving retail, innovative businesses, and gathering spaces. As City-owned land represents significant public assets and place making opportunities, the amendments to remove constraints on these sites will allow for the greatest level of flexibility to ensure that public land can be strategically maximized for

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 6 creative proposals, reinvestment, and community benefit within the downtown. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

2. The amendments are consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the amendments allow for the greatest level of flexibility in how best to utilize City-owned sites in the Downtown in order to generate public benefits, increase economic opportunities, and create transformative place making redevelopment projects. Therefore, the proposed amendments maintain and facilitate the existing polices, standards, and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that promote public health, safety, and welfare.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.01.040 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 9.01.040 Applicability.

A. General Rules for Applicability of Zoning Regulations.

1. Applicability.
a. This Zoning Ordinance shall apply, to the extent permitted by law, to all property within the corporate limits of the City and to property for which applications for annexation and/or subdivisions are submitted to the City, including all uses, structures and land owned by any private person, firm, corporation or organization, or the City or other local, State, or Federal agencies, except as provided below.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 7 b. Governmental Agencies. Any governmental agency shall be exempt from the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance only to the extent that such property may not be lawfully regulated by the City.
c. City Government Uses. City government uses, including, without limitation, fire stations, police stations, and public safety facilities, may be permitted in any district subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. d. Projects that Include Affordable Housing on City-Owned Property. In accordance with Program 2.E of the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, this Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to property owned by the City when used for projects that include housing affordable to 80% area median income (AMI) households, subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council, and upon a determination that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Any such exemption shall apply only for the life of the project approved in accordance with this paragraph.
e. Projects on City-Owned Property in the Downtown. Notwithstanding the provisions in subdivision (a) above, projects on City-owned property within the Downtown Community Plan Area shall be exempt from the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council. Any such exemption shall apply only for the life of the project approved in accordance with this paragraph.
fe. Relocation of School and Child Care and Early Education Facilities Impacted by the 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire ("Palisades Fire"). Notwithstanding the land use regulations of Division 2, Base and Overlay Districts, of Article 9 of

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 8 the Zoning Ordinance, schools, as that term is defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030.A.11, and child care and early education facilities, as that term is defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030.A.3 that were displaced by the Palisades Fire or expansions to existing schools to accommodate students displaced by the Palisades Fire may operate within the City's nonresidential zones without obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Schools with existing Conditional Use Permits in residential zones that are subject to occupancy limitations may expand to accommodate students from other campuses operated by the existing school displaced by the Palisades Fire. Prior to occupancy and upon request by the City, schools or child care and early education facilities operating or expanding under this Section shall submit a Parking and Loading Operations Plan to the Director of the Community Development Department, or designee, for review and approval, which may be amended from time to time.

2. Compliance with Regulations. Except as provided in this Zoning Ordinance, land or buildings may be used and structures may be erected or altered only in accordance with the following provisions:
a. No new building shall be erected and no existing building shall be moved, altered, or enlarged, nor shall any land, building or premises be used, designed, or attempted to be used or designed for any purpose or in any manner other than a use listed in this Chapter, as permitted in the district in which the land, building, or premises is located. The lawful use or uses of all buildings, improvements, and premises existing in any district at the time of the adoption of

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 9 the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be continued except as provided by this Chapter.
b. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, reconstructed, or structurally altered to exceed in height or floor area the limit established by this Chapter for the district in which such building is located. c. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, altered, enlarged, or rebuilt, nor shall any open spaces surrounding any buildings be encroached upon or reduced in any manner except in conformity with the property development standards for each district in which such building is located. d. No yard or open space provided adjacent to any building for the purpose of complying with the regulations of this Chapter shall be considered as providing a yard or open space for any other building or structure. e. No parcel or building shall be separated in ownership, or reduced in size in any manner, so that:
i. Any separate portion shall contain a parcel area or parcel dimension less than the minimum required for the district in which the property is located;
ii. Any yard area is reduced below the minimum required for the district in which the project is located;
iii. The parcel fails to comply with any other requirement of this Chapter;

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 10 iv. Any portion of a parcel that is necessary to provide the required area per dwelling unit is separated from the portion of the parcel on which the building is located.
f. No lot or parcel of land held under common ownership which does not meet the requirements of the district in which it is located shall be separated in ownership or further reduced in size in any manner.
g. A building or use may cross property lines only if:
i. The building site shall be subject to all requirements of this Chapter as though the total area comprised in the site were a single parcel; ii. A covenant by the owner(s) of the parcels shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder's office before any use or combination of parcels occurs. The covenant shall state the intention of the owner(s) to develop the parcels as a single building site and shall be in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. h. A legally-created parcel of land existing prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance having less area, frontage, or dimensions than required by this Zoning Ordinance in the zoning district in which the parcel is located, shall be considered a legal conforming parcel.

B. Relation to Other Regulations.

1. General. Where conflict occurs between the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance and any other regulations, City ordinance, chapter, resolution, guideline, or regulation, the more restrictive provisions shall control, unless otherwise specified. See,

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 11 e.g., Section 9.56.270.F (the State Historic Building Code applies to alterations to historic resources and properties on the Historic Resources Inventory).

2. Permit Streamlining Act. All actions taken by the decision-making body pursuant to this Zoning Ordinance shall be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section65920 et seq. (the Permit Streamlining Act), to the extent applicable.

3. Relation to Private Agreements. Where this Zoning Ordinance imposes greater restriction than imposed by an easement, covenant, or agreement, this Zoning Ordinance shall control.

4. Relation to Prior Ordinance. The provisions of this Zoning Ordinance supersede all prior Zoning Ordinances codified in Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and all prior amendments. No provision of this Zoning Ordinance shall validate any land use or structure established, constructed, or maintained in violation of the prior Zoning Ordinance, unless such validation is specifically authorized by this Zoning Ordinance.

5. Application During Local Emergency. The City Council may authorize a deviation from a provision of this Zoning Ordinance during a local emergency declared and ratified under the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

C. Consistency with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance and any amendment thereto shall be consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan.

D. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects in Progress. The following projects shall have a vested right to proceed without complying with this Zoning Ordinance:

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 12 1. Previously Approved Development. The erection, construction, enlargement, demolition, moving, conversion of, and excavation and grading for any building or structure for which a valid permit or building permit was issued prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance and which does not subsequently expire. A permit that does not contain an express limit on the time for exercising the permit shall be deemed valid only if a building permit is obtained within one year of the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance;

2. Development Agreement. Development in accordance with the terms and conditions of a development agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Chapter

9.60 of the Municipal Code prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance;

3. Vesting Tentative Maps. Any residential project for which a vesting tentative map application was determined complete prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance; and

4. Applications for Projects in Progress. Any application fora Planning entitlement, except a Development Agreement application, determined complete on or before April 15, 2015.

SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 13 portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: CDD-Ord-City-Owned Sites 07.14.2026 (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway 1 City Council Meeting: July 14, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN

TO EFFECTUATE THE GOALS OF THE REALIGNMENT PLAN, INCLUDING, BUT

NOT LIMITED TO, AMENDMENTS TO MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF CITY-OWNED

SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN AND GATEWAY MASTER PLAN AREAS
WHEREAS, Downtown Santa Monica (“Downtown”) is one of Los Angeles County’s most recognizable city centers; and
WHEREAS, framed by the Santa Monica Bay and mountains, the Downtown is located centrally at the western edge of the city, providing convenient retail, entertainment, and employee destinations for all the City’s neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, with its unique location, the Downtown serves as the heart of the local community, making it a destination not only for locals and Angelenos who see a vibrant, exciting, and urban-scale ambiance, but also for world travelers who come here to enjoy easy access to beaches, hotel accommodations, culture, shopping, and the larger region; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (“City Council”) adopted the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) which sets forth the City’s vision of Downtown as a high quality, mixed-use district offering opportunities as a major public space framed by a mix of retail, restaurants, services, and housing that form unique experiences enjoyable to both residents and visitors; and

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:
2 WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance includes land use regulations governing the Downtown Plan area, that respond to the DCP’s vision and principals, and that direct future development within the Downtown Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the DCP identifies the area adjacent to the 1-10 freeway as a “Gateway” possessing conditions that necessitate special considerations regarding development standards and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the DCP identifies a future effort, the Gateway Master Plan, which would identify critical improvements, provide a framework for orderly development of currently vacant or underutilized areas, and explore various funding models for implementation, which would potentially include participation by properties within the Gateway Master Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Gateway Master Plan area is generally bound by 5th Street, Colorado Avenue, and the I-10 Freeway; and
WHEREAS, the Gateway Master Plan planning process was initially scheduled to be completed in 2021, but was delayed due to the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) and other City emergencies and priorities; and
WHEREAS, with the City Council’s adoption of the Fiscal Year 2025-2027 Operating Biennial Budget in June 2025, the City Council affirmed its commitment to various Strategic Priorities, including, but not limited to promoting economic opportunity and growth; endorsing affordable, livable, and secure housing for all; using the City’s real estate strategically; developing distinct business attraction and retention strategies; and activating our public spaces with signature events; and

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:
3 WHEREAS, in line with these goals, City Council adopted its Realignment Plan on October 28, 2025, which prioritizes: (1) developing affordable, livable, and secure housing by, among other things: (a) focusing housing development in the Downtown; and (b) incentivizing future development along the Boulevards that remains compatible with existing neighborhoods through local incentives and without jeopardizing Housing Element compliance; and (2) strategic use of City’s land assets and removing artificial land value constraints, which includes, but is not limited to: (a) reassessing development standards, land uses and processes for City-owned parcels in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites; (b) regulatory adjustments for City-owned parcels and for Gateway Master Plan sites; and (c) providing more flexibility to maximize community benefit from City-owned sites and support economic opportunity and growth and developing housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, as the commercial and economic landscape evolves, Downtown’s economic recovery and competitive advantage will depend on its ability to deliver on a diverse range of uses and access to a broad range of housing options; and WHEREAS, the City’s Strategic Priority regarding developing affordable, livable, and secure housing for all includes expanding affordable housing options, stabilizing the Housing Trust Fund, and pursuing equity-based housing initiatives; and WHEREAS, consistent with these Strategic Priorities, the Realignment Plan, and important government interests, the City seeks to revive the “Gateway” concepts in the DCP while also allowing the City to be more strategic regarding the use of City-owned parcels that meet the goals for housing production and also provides flexibility for other uses; and

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:
4 WHEREAS, amendments to the DCP include, but are not limited to, providing flexibility in development standards, land uses, and processes for the City to manage its real estate assets in the Downtown area in alignment with the strategic objective of economic opportunity and growth; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the DCP also provide more flexibility in development standards, including, but not limited to, height and floor area ratio, and uses for public and private parcels within the former Gateway Master Plan area in order to support the strategic objectives of economic opportunity and growth and developing housing opportunities for all; and
WHEREAS, the amendments will allow the City to maximize land residual revenues through redevelopment or joint-venture opportunities at all City-owned parcels; and
WHEREAS, in line with the goals for maximizing economic potential of City-owned Downtown sites; amendments include exempting some or all City-owned Downtown sites from the Zoning Ordinance and providing added flexibility to maximize community benefits of these valued sites; and
WHEREAS, the amendments also include other minor changes, corrections, and clarifications as necessary; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2026, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.45.060(A), the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 26-007 (PCS), declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the DCP consistent with the City’s Realignment Plan including, but, not limited to, amendments necessary to provide for (1)

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:
5 focusing housing development in the downtown; and (2) maximizing the potential of cityowned sites in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of DCP; and
WHEREAS, at the June 17, 2026 hearing, after considering all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 26-009 (PCS), recommending to the City Council that the Council amend the text of the DCP to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites as noted herein, and the Planning Commission continued discussion for additional amendments regarding Downtown housing developments to allow for additional discussion; and WHEREAS, City Council now desires to amend the text of the DCP to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown and Gateway Master Plan sites.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. City Council hereby amends the text of the Downtown Community Plan to maximize the potential of city-owned sites in the Downtown and to make other minor changes, corrections, and clarifications as necessary, as set forth in Exhibit A. In amending the Downtown Community Plan, the City Council hereby finds and declares that, for the reasons articulated above, and in the staff report dated July 14, 2026:

The amendments to the text of the Downtown Community Plan are consistent with the General Plan in that the removal of constraints on City-owned land and expansion of development potential on Gateway sites allows for increased economic and

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:
6 redevelopment opportunities, as well as the ability to maximize community benefits, as these sites represent significant public assets and place making opportunities on strategic locations in the Downtown. Specifically, the Downtown Community Plan envisions the downtown core as a high quality, mixed-use district offering opportunities for housing, jobs, arts and culture, local-serving retail, innovative businesses, and gathering spaces, as well as the economic center for the City. Amendments pertaining to City-owned sites provide the greatest level of flexibility to ensure that public land can be strategically maximized for creative proposals, reinvestment, and community benefit. Amendments related to Gateway sites, which serve as an important entry point into the heart of downtown, provide increased opportunity for transformative projects due to their visibility, size, proximity to transit, and potential to accommodate significant investments that align with the vision identified for this area in the Downtown Community Plan. Therefore, as the amendments aim to focus and expand future growth within the downtown, where proximity to employment, transit, services, and amenities can support sustainable development patterns to continue to address the city’s housing goals and economic advancement, they are consistent the existing goals, policies, standards, and regulations in the General Plan that promote public health, safety, and welfare.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:
7 EXHIBIT A

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:
1 Chapter 2, Section 2A.2, Page 25
Table 2A.1 Gateway Master Plan Sites

GATEWAY SITES
120 Colorado Avenue (Wyndham)
302 Colorado Avenue (Sears)
402 Colorado Avenue/1640 5th Street (Downtown Station Site 1334 5th Street (Big Blue Bus Site)
Chapter 2, Section 2A.4, Page 29
Projects on Gateway Sites
Projects on Gateway Sites provide unique opportunities for economic growth. Therefore, non-housing projects up to 30,000 SF and housing projects on these sites shall be processed through an Administrative Approval. Non-housing projects greater than 30,000 SF shall be processed through a Development Agreement.

Chapter 4, Section 9.10.030, Page 176

9.10.030 Applicability and Relationship to Santa Monica Municipal Code and Other Regulations A. Applicability. The Downtown Community Plan establishes the area’s regulations and standards and shall guide all land use and development and circulation-related decision-making processes for the Plan area.

B. Relationship to Santa Monica Municipal Code and Other Regulations.

1. General. If provisions in the Downtown Community Plan and Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”) are in conflict, the provisions in the Downtown Community Plan shall be applied. Where land use regulations, development standards, administrative regulations, and general terms and definitions are not specifically addressed by the Downtown Community Plan, Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”) shall be applied. Land use regulations for DCP land use districts may be found in Chapter 9.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 :
2 a. Projects that include affordable housing on City-Owned properties shall be exempted from the Downtown Community Plan and Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 9.01.040(A)(1)(d) and (e).

Chapter 4, Section 9.10.50 , Page 177

9.10.050 Application Thresholds Table
Housing Project All Other Projects Projects on Gateway Sites Administrative
Approval
Subject to Chapter 9.39,
Administrative Approval Less than 10,000 sf
Non-housing projects up to
30,000 sf and housing
projects subject to Chapter

9.39, Administrative
Approval
Development
Review Permit
Subject to Chapter 9.40,
Development Review Permit 10,000 - 30,000 sf ---
Development
Agreement N/A Greater than 30,000 sf --- Non-housing projects greater than 30,000 sf Chapter 4, Section 9.10.060, Page 178
Table 4.2 Development Standards – Downtown Districts
Standard LT
(East)
LT
(West) NV BC(Promenade)
BC
(2nd & 4th
Streets)
TA OT WT Additional Regulations
Parcel and Intensity Standards
Minimum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 :
3 Maximum FAR SMMC Section

9.04.080,
Determining FAR
Housing Projects 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.25 SMMC Section

9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
100% Affordable
Housing Projects 3.50 3.50 4.50 3.50 4.0 4.50 3.5 3.75
Projects on Gateway
Sites
----- 5.0--
Tier 1 1.25 1.25 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.5
Tier 2

1.75 2.25 2.75 2.75 3.0 3.0 2.25 1.75
SMMC Section

9.10.070, Project
Requirements for Tier2
and Tier 3 Projects
Tier 3
----- 3.5--
SMMC Section

9.10.070, Project
Requirements for Tier2
and Tier 3 Projects
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
SMMC Section 9.04.050,
Measuring Height
Housing Projects 65’ 65’ 84’ 65’ 65’ 84’ 65’ 70’
100% Affordable
Housing Projects 75’ 75
’ 94’ 75’ 75’ 94’ 75’ 80’
Projects on Gateway
Sites
----- 130’--
Tier 1
32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ SMMC Section

9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Tier 2 40’ 50’ 60’ 60’ 60’ 60’ 50’ 40’
Tier 3----- 84’--

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 :
4 Chapter 4, Section 9.10.060(C), Page 184-185
C. Building Modulation Standards

2. Minimum Required Stepbacks Above Ground Floor
b. Districts with 84 Feet Maximum Allowable Height Limit and Projects on Gateway Sites. Minimum required stepbacks from the building frontage line are established above the ground floor. The Minimum Required Stepback Above the Ground Floor and below 60 feet shall be 15% of the front façade area.

Stepbacks shall be a minimum of 5 feet and are not required to be open to the sky. Projections into the required stepbacks are permitted pursuant to 9.10.120(A).

3. Minimum Upper Level Stepbacks
b. Districts with 84 Feet Maximum Allowable Height Limit and Projects on Gateway Sites. Minimum required stepbacks from the building frontage line are established for the upper levels of proposed buildings.

The Minimum Upper Level Stepback above 60 feet shall be 35% of the front façade area. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of 5 feet and are not required to be open to the sky. Projections into the required stepbacks are permitted pursuant to 9.10.120(A).

Height Transitions
to Residential
Districts
See (A)
(1)
See (A)
(1) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See (A)(1)
SMMC Section 9.21.060,
Height Exceptions
Minimum Ground Floor
Height
11’

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 :
5 Chapter 4, Section 9.10.100, Page 196-197

9.10.100 RESERVED GATEWAY MASTER PLAN INTERIM STANDARDS All projects on parcels within the Gateway Master Plan area may request Tier 2 development standards until the completion of the Gateway Master Plan, or until January 1, 2021, whichever comes first.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: CDD-RESO-DCP-City-Owned Sites and Gateway Master Plan 07.14.2026_COMBINED (7694 :
1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 5:11 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox Cc: Bradley Ewing; Sam Shapiro-Kline
Subject: Support Item 12.A with Amendments

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward supports Item 12.A, facilitating development in the Downtown Community Plan area. Council should go further to maximize the value of city owned land and the development potential of the Gateway area sites.

Specifically, council should:

1. The Gateway sites maximum height and FAR should be increased further. There is no reason to limit FAR to 5.0 in particular, as these sites are adjacent to the highway and transit, and would not impose burdens on adjacent neighbors. Council should consider both making FAR & Height unlimited, as well as adjusting affordable housing requirements for these sites to be consistent with the Offsite Affordable Housing Pilot Program. Otherwise, if council increases FAR it could result in affordable housing requirements greater than under state density bonus, hindering projects infeasible.

2. Policy Question 1: Choose Option 1, for administrative approval. Administrative approval increases certainty for project applicants, and makes it significantly more likely that projects will be proposed.

3. Question 3: Choose No - Requiring additional community benefits could make projects infeasible.

Thank you,
Sam Shapiro-Kline & Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 2 David Yakobson
From: Diana Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 7:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall Subject: Council Item 12-A, reject ministerial approval of Gateway or Downtown sites of up to 130’/5.0FAR and uphold Planning Commission recommendations

EXTERNAL
Good morning,
Please vote to uphold the Planning Commission recommendations as to these Downtown sites.

The staff report feels hastily written. It is short on substance for rejecting the Planning Commission’s recommendations for revising the DCP and increasing the heights and densities for key sites in the Downtown.

It’s a fundamental abdication of city planning to propose rezoning these mega sites for any use developers can finance and build. How, for example, would this affect the 4th/5th/Arizona site that has been earmarked for housing as part of the City’s Suitable Sites Inventory? How does including the parking structure conflict with Coastal Commission authority over it?
Similarly, to claim that a program EIR for the DCP is sufficient to cover the magnitude of this rezoning is to not understand what a program EIR does (and does not) analyze.

The DCP process was helmed by a planning director who believed in community engagement. Both public surveys and a robust community process established that residents did NOT want heights and densities above 84 feet in the Downtown. Residents successfully fought against the developer community then, and the Planning Commission recommendations for changes to the DCP now are reasonable in our current climate.

Please either affirm the Planning Commission recommendations or require a broader public process with sufficient facts and analysis, including an economic analysis before supporting a zoning change that would dramatically transform the Downtown.

Thank you for your consideration,
Diana Gordon
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 1 David Yakobson
From: Gina Jonas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 8:20 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Tonight's Hearing – Please Don't Shelve the Proposed Upzoning Changes to the DCP (Agenda Item 12A)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing about tonight's hearing on the downtown zoning changes. I'm glad to see the City moving forward on the Cityowned sites and the Gateway properties, but I was really disappointed that the Planning Commission dropped the part that would have made it easier to build downtown - the taller height limits, increased FAR, and the local bonus program.

From what I understand, the City has approved plenty of housing projects, but hardly any of them are actually getting built because the numbers don't work for builders right now. If that's the problem, then approving projects on paper isn't enough.

The rules need to change so that projects can actually pencil out and get financed. Allowing a bit more height and floor area downtown does exactly that.

The Commission said we should wait and deal with this later, as part of bigger planning efforts down the road. But waiting has a cost. Every year that goes by, construction gets more expensive and fewer homes get built. And downtown is the one place almost everyone agrees new housing makes sense. It's right next to the Expo line, jobs, shops, and restaurants, and it doesn't touch our residential neighborhoods. Just a couple of months ago, the Commission itself seemed supportive of these very ideas at its study session, so it's hard to understand why they're now on the shelf.

Please don't let this piece of the plan quietly disappear. I'm asking the Council to direct staff to come back with the downtown housing changes, including the increased height limits and FAR, and the bonus program, as soon as possible.

Downtown needs more residents, and Santa Monica needs more homes.

Thank you for your time and your service.

Gina Jonas
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 2 David Yakobson
From: DG Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell
Subject: Item 12A – Downtown Realignment Amendments: Restore the Housing Incentive Program and Upzoning

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers:

I write in support of the amendments before you tonight concerning City-owned sites and the Gateway Master Plan area, and to register concern with what has been omitted: the Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program and associated upzoning of the Downtown core that staff presented to the Planning Commission on June 17.

The Commission's decision to defer these amendments to the 7th Cycle Housing Element or a future SB 79 alternative plan warrants closer scrutiny by this Council, for three reasons.

First, the deferral misdiagnoses the moment. Santa Monica's constraint on housing production is no longer entitlement - it is feasibility. Staff acknowledged as much at the June 17 hearing, noting the volume of approved projects that remain unbuilt because they cannot attract construction financing under current cost and rate conditions. Height and FAR are the two levers most directly tied to residual land value and project returns. Modest increases to baseline standards downtown are precisely the kind of intervention that converts an entitled pipeline into occupied units, at no fiscal cost to the City.

Second, the proposed sequencing is internally inconsistent. The rationale for deferral (that these tools belong within future SB 79 implementation) sits uneasily beside the City's concurrent pursuit of a temporary exclusion ordinance that would postpone SB 79's applicability until a year after adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element. Taken together, these positions defer meaningful downtown housing incentives to the end of the decade. If the City intends to chart its own course rather than rely on state minimums, it should demonstrate that intent by acting on its own downtown program now.

Third, the policy work is substantially complete. These concepts were vetted at the Commission's May 6 study session, where they enjoyed broad support and were advanced through Resolutions of Intention.

The environmental framework of the certified DCP and Housing Element EIRs provides a foundation for review. Deferral does not improve the work product; it simply idles it.

The Realignment Plan's economic and housing objectives depend on activating the Downtown as a whole, not solely a handful of public parcels and three Gateway sites. I respectfully request that, in addition to adopting tonight's recommended actions, the Council direct staff to return with the downtown housing incentive program and upzoning amendments in the near future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 3 Respectfully,
D.G. Brown
North of Montana Resident
Retired Real Estate Developer
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Polhemus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 12-A — heed Planning Commission’s logic and recommendations

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I urge you to scrutinize carefully the staff arguments for negating the Planning Commission's recommendations, especially regarding building heights. The anrguments are not convincing and undermine the Commission’s logic and role.

I urge you to follow the recommendations of the commission whose purpose is to advise the Council! Jennifer Polhemus
Longtime Santa Monica resident & small business owner
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:49 AM
To: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 7/14/26 item 12-A -- OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
July 14, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and Council members

From: Zina Josephs

RE: 7/14/26 agenda item 12-A

1) I oppose allowing projects in downtown of up to 130 feet in height and up to 5.0 FAR with only ministerial approval.

I can still remember when the maximum building height was 3 stories, and driving west on Wilshire Blvd. from West Los Angeles into Santa Monica was like a breath of fresh air.

Now, the boulevards in our Sunset Park neighborhood will soon have multiple 8-story buildings, and this agenda item intends to completely reshape the skyline in downtown Santa Monica, with no public input.

2) I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendations.

Again, I oppose agenda item 12-A.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 3 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Council July 14, 2026 - Item 12A Upzoning Downtown - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Oliver Chi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 at 11:59:08 AM PDT
Subject: City Council July 14, 2026 - Item 12A Upzoning Downtown - OPPOSE Dear City Council –
I ask you to oppose 12A for the following reasons.

1. The staff report exceeds the Planning Commission recommendation. Again. This is becoming a disturbing trend. Who on council is speaking with staff to encourage this, and based on what expertise or data? There sure isn’t anything supporting this excess in the staff report. This is governance by ideology, not evidence-based decision-making.

2. It’s procedurally inappropriate for staff to introduce, and you to consider, changing our zoning with a first reading of a new ordinance when those changes weren’t advised by the Planning Commission and have not been discussed in a public hearing previously. It confirms what we all know, that you don’t care what the residents think. You are doing this anyway.

3. There is no lowering of heights on the boulevards, which is part of the Realignment Plan and was supposed to be done in exchange for increasing heights downtown to shield us from the disingenuous argument that restoring boulevards to their appropriate heights somehow conflicts with our Housing Element. Neighborhood Commercial used to be 32’, and it was erroneously increased to 55’ in the Housing Element, which becomes 85’ with state bonuses. This is wildly inappropriate for neighborhood-serving uses immediately adjacent to 1-3 story single family homes and low-density, multi-family buildings. Furthermore, there is no evidence that our infrastructure can support the density on the boulevards, and we have been denied the opportunity to obtain legitimate environmental and evacuation reviews to ensure our health and safety. The one prong of the Realignment Plan that was meant to help residents will now be the only prong you don’t do. What a surprise.

These decisions, once made, cannot be undone. You are about to gift wealthy property owners and investors even more largess instantly with this upzoning. You also further incentivize demolition and displacement of existing residents and the destruction of community. Such a path puts your developer benefactors first, and the people whom you are supposed to represent last.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) 4 Please reject this staff report and require a broader public process with sufficient facts and analysis, including an economic analysis, before supporting a zoning change that would dramatically transform the Downtown and ignoring the plight of the neighborhoods that have been erroneously upzoned.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.c
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written Comments (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation: Downtown City-Owned Property and Gateway Sites) Realignment Plan
Implementation
City Council
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Purpose
• Overview of Realignment Plan objectives
• Overview of proposed amendments based on Planning Commission Recommendation
• Policy questions for City Council regarding how to process non-residential projects in Gateway sites
• Adopt a Resolution and Ordinance effectuating the goals of the Realignment Plan regarding Gateway sites and City-owned sites in the Downtown Anticipated Timeline of Implementation:
• May 6 – PC Study Session
• June 17 – PC Recommendation to Council
• July 14 – Council adoption
• August 27 – Effective date of amendments (if adopted on July 14) Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Realignment Plan Objectives
Realignment Plan Adopted October 28, 2025
“Developing Affordable, Livable, and Secure Housing for All” • “Authorize staff to focus City housing development efforts in the Downtown core, and concurrently direct that staff initiate studies to identify policy options that do not jeopardize Housing Element certification and also ensure that future development on boulevards achieves compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods”
“Strategic Use of City’s Land Assets & Removing Artificial Land Value Constraints” • “Authorize staff to explore opportunities to update development standards, land uses, and processes for City-owned sites in the Downtown Community Plan area and public and private sites within the former Gateway Master Plan area to provide more flexibility to unlock land value and redevelopment potential” Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Planning Commission
May 6, 2026 Planning Commission Study Session
• Discussed preliminary concepts:
 Boulevard Low-Scale Housing Incentive Program
 Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program
 Driving Downtown Economic Opportunity, which included:
o Regulatory Adjustments to City-Owned Sites to Maximize Community Benefit o Facilitate Economic Opportunity on Downtown Gateway Sites – Development Standards, Land Uses, and Process
• Adopted Resolutions of Intention (ROIs) to only move forward with potential amendments regarding:
• Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program
• City-owned sites in the Downtown
• Gateway sites
• The Commission voted to NOT move forward with Boulevard Low-Scale Housing Incentive program in the ROI and therefore amendments to implement this concept did not move forward
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Planning Commission
June 17 Planning Commission Public Hearing
• Recommended that Council adopt proposed amendments to exempt City-owned sites from DCP and Zoning Ordinance and upzone Gateway sites • The Commission voted to NOT recommend amendments to effectuate a Downtown Housing Local Bonus Incentive Program
• Should be considered together with boulevard low-scale incentive program as part of forthcoming comprehensive planning efforts including:
• LUCE update
• 7th Cycle Housing Element
• SB 79 TOD Alternative Plan
• The Commission specified that a Downtown incentive program should be reviewed holistically with development citywide and therefore wanted to reserve potential implementation concepts such as increased development standards and affordable housing compliance flexibility for the future.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Downtown City-Owned Sites
Regulatory Adjustments to City-Owned Sites to Maximize
Community Benefit
• City-owned land represents some of our most valuable assets. • Realignment Plan envisions taking a strategic approach to expand economic opportunities and growth specifically in the Downtown
• Objectives:
• Provide a more flexible framework to solicit innovative proposals ensuring that public property is maximized not only forland residual revenues, but for community benefit • Catalyst for driving reinvestment in the Downtown through redevelopment or joint venture opportunities
• Sites include: Downtown Expo Station site, Parking Structure 1, Old Fire Station 1, 4th/5th Arizona
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Downtown City-Owned Sites
Proposed Amendments:

Existing Limitations Proposed Flexibility
• Only projects that include affordable housing on
City-owned sites are exempt from the standards
of the Zoning Ordinance (Housing Element
Program 2.E).
• Non-housing projects on City-owned properties
are subject to the same standards applicable to
private property, including limitations on land
use, height, and FAR.
• Exempt ALL City-owned sites in the Downtown
from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
• While there will be no regulatory entitlement
process, a proposed development will still be
subject to a public process and approval of
Disposition and Development Agreement
(“DDA”) by City Council.
• Allows the City to evaluate site-specific
opportunities and community benefits without
being constrained by standards designed
primarily for developments on private property.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Gateway Sites
Facilitate Economic Opportunity on Downtown Gateway Sites The Pierside Hotel
Sears
Downtown Station
“Kiss n Ride”
• The DCP identifies “Gateway Master Plan” sites as locations of unique strategic importance due to their visibility, proximity to transit, and potential to accommodate significant investments. • Gateway sites include:

A. 402 Colorado Avenue (Downtown Station Site ~80,000 SF) B. 302 Colorado Avenue (Sears Property ~136,000 SF)
C. 120 Colorado Avenue (Pierside Hotel ~30,000 SF)
• Realignment Plan envisions considerations for this Gateway area to allow for creative proposals on private property while also providing certainty for housing projects at a key entrance to the Downtown.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Gateway Sites
The Pierside Hotel
Sears
Downtown Station
“Kiss n Ride”
Development
Standard
Current Standards
for Housing
Projects
Current Standards
for Non-Housing
Projects
Proposed
Standards for ALL
Projects
Max Height 84 feet 84 feet (Tier 3)* 130 feet
Max FAR 4.0 3.5 (Tier 3)* 5.0
*Tier 3 requires the provision of community benefits and a Development Agreement process Proposed Amendments:
 Current vs Proposed Standards
• Consistent standards for ALL projects types would provide parity between housing and non-housing projects
• Proposed height aligns with established limitation in the DCP’s Large Site Overlay • Proposed FAR based on recently approved projects to correspond to increased height and accounts for size of parcels in the Gateway area Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Gateway Sites – Processing Thresholds
The Pierside Hotel
Sears
Downtown Station
“Kiss n Ride”
 Background
• Current DCP processing thresholds for non-housing projects:
• Administrative Approval (no public hearing) – less than 10,000 SF • Development Review Permit (Planning Commission public hearing – 10,000 – 30,000 SF • Negotiated Development Agreement – greater than 30,000 SF • Since adoption of the DCP, no Development Agreements for non-housing projects have been received and no proposals for non-housing projects on a Gateway site has been submitted.
• As part of the Realignment Plan, Council endorsed exploring opportunities, including process flexibility, to activate the Gateway sites in order to unlock land value and redevelopment potential.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Gateway Sites – Processing Thresholds
The Pierside Hotel
Sears
Downtown Station
“Kiss n Ride”
 Planning Commission Recommendation
• Planning Commission recommended:
• Administrative Approval (no public hearing) – up to 30,000 SF • Negotiated Development Agreement – greater than 30,000 SF • Commission considered whether, instead of Development Agreements, non-housing projects should have a more streamlined and predictable entitlement process similar to housing projects.
• Commission wanted to retain discretion over non-housing projects in the Gateway area and to allow the City to negotiate community benefits.

Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

What entitlement process should
non-housing projects on Gateway
sites be processed under?
 Planning Commission
Recommendation: Administrative
Approval ministerial entitlement
for projects up to 30,000 SF /
Development Agreement for
projects greater than 30,000 SF
 Alternative Options:

Gateway Sites – Processing Thresholds
Policy Question 1 Option Description Type of
Entitlement Size Threshold
1 Provides
maximum
process
certainty for
non-housing
projects
Administrative
Approval (no public
hearing)
No size limit
2 Permit
process
connected
to existing
DCP tier
system and
FAR limits
Administrative
Approval for Tier 1
FAR (no public
hearing)
Up to 1.75 FAR
Ex: 50,000 SF site x 1.75 FAR = 87,500 SF
(current process for non-housing
projects less than 10,000 SF)
Development
Review Permit for
Tier 2 FAR (PC
public hearing)
Greater than 1.75 FAR and up to 3.0 FAR
(current process for non-housing
projects between 10,000-30,000 SF)
Development
Agreement for Tier
3 FAR (CC public
hearing)
Greater than 3.0 FAR and up to 5.0 FAR
Ex: 50,000 SF site x 3.5 FAR = 175,000 SF
(current process for non-housing projects
greater than 30,000 SF)
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026

12.A.d
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7694 : Realignment Plan Implementation:

Gateway Sites – Land Use Limitations
The Pierside Hotel
Sears
Downtown Station
“Kiss n Ride”
 Background
• Proposed increased height and FAR would apply to ALL project types, including residential, commercial, hotel, office, institutional, and mixed-use development • Procedural modifications are also proposed to streamline review of nonhousing projects on the Gateway sites • Council has previously excluded certain uses from streamlined ministerial processes such as hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging Item 12-A
July 14, 2026
Item 12-A
July 14, 2026