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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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