City Council - Regular Meeting

The June 25th, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board is called to order. Will the secretary please take the role?

Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

Here.

Commissioner Gonska?

Here.

Commissioner Leslie?

Here.

Vice Chair Ambriz?

Here.

And Chair Ivanov? Here.

Please join me in the salute to our flag.

to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

If anyone wishes to address the board either on a specific item on tonight's agenda or during public comment, please see the secretary to fill in a speaker slip. Does the executive director have anything to report to the board?

Thank you, Chair. I just have one brief announcement before we move on. Tonight is Kevin Mitchell's first meeting on the dais as the board's new general counsel, and I wanted to formally welcome him in that role. Kevin has already stepped into a very active period for the agency, and we are very glad to have him here. I also want to thank Rebecca Sherman, who also joins us tonight, for her outstanding work during this transition. REBECCA SERVED AS ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL DURING AN ESPECIALLY BUSY AND IMPORTANT PERIOD, AND SHE MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT WORK BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT. SO I WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK REBECCA FOR HER LEADERSHIP AND STEADY WORK DURING THE TRANSITION, AND TO WELCOME KEVIN TO HIS FIRST MEETING AS GENERAL COUNSEL. THAT CONCLUDES MY ANNOUNCEMENTS.

OKAY. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS THE TIME SET ASIDE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON MATTERS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA BUT THAT ARE WITHIN THE BOARD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Please note that the Board cannot take official action at tonight's meeting on any matter not included on the agenda. I believe we don't have any speaker slips for general public comment, correct? Okay. Okay, in that case, we will be moving on to our public hearings. which item 11a is a public hearing on possible board action concerning proposed tenant protection and related just cause eviction amendments to article 18 of the charter may we have the staff report please yes thank you chair as you noted 11a is a public hearing and possible board action concerning proposed tenant protection and related just cause eviction amendments to article 18 of the city charter

These amendments returned to the Board following several prior meetings. On April 9, the Board reviewed proposed Charter Amendment concepts developed by the Charter Amendment Subcommittee. On May 14, the Board opened the public hearing on the original Charter Amendment proposals and also heard a presentation from the City Attorney's Office concerning additional tenant protection proposals. The Board then directed staff to reconvene the Subcommittee to review the proposals and return with recommendations regarding next steps. The subcommittee met on May 26. Following that discussion, the administrative charter amendments moved forward separately, and the tenant protection and related just cause eviction amendments returned to the Board on June 11 as an administrative item for discussion and direction. At the June 11 meeting, the Board directed staff to return tonight with the proposed tenant protection and related just cause eviction amendments for public hearing and possible recommendation of City Council. The City Council would ultimately determine whether to place any proposed charter amendments before the voters at the November 2026 general election. The proposed amendments before the Board concern several related areas. First, the small rental debt provision would retain nonpayment of rent as a just cause basis for eviction, but would establish a threshold amount before nonpayment may be used as a basis to terminate a tenancy. Second, the added household member provisions would address when a landlord may not terminate a tenancy based on additional occupants in the unit, including certain family members, minor children added by birth, adoption, or legal custody, and certain non-family additional occupants. Third, the occupancy after vacancy provision would address when certain occupants who have already been residing in the unit for at least one year may remain after the tenant of the owner vacates, subject to applicable limitations, including affordable housing deed restrictions. Fourth, the affordable housing deed restriction provisions would add just cause grounds and related notice language intended to allow landlords of deed-restricted affordable units to comply with applicable income, qualification, and occupancy requirements. Fifth, the proposed Tenant Protection Act finding would state that Article 18 provides tenant protections that are more protective than Civil Code Section 1946.2, supporting continued application of the City's local just cause framework. Staff has also included attachment K, which compares the proposed amendments with similar provisions in other jurisdictions as requested by the board. If the board wishes to consider revisions to any of the proposed language tonight, staff and council are available to help restate the language clearly before any action is taken. Staff recommends that the board conduct the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing, discuss the proposed amendments by topic, and determine whether to recommend one or more of the proposed tenant protection and related just cause eviction amendments to the City Council for placement before the voters at the November 26th general election, either as presented in the staff report or as revised by the Board tonight. And that concludes my report. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we open the public hearing, I want to note that this item includes several separate proposed charter amendments. To keep the item organized, Board questions and deliberation will be taken up after the public hearing. The public hearing is now open. If anyone wishes to address the Board on this item and has not yet filled out a speaker slip, please see our Board Secretary now. I will call speakers who have submitted slips first, and then we'll ask if there are any other speakers on this item. And the first speaker that I have is Jay Johnson. And whenever you're ready, you will have up to five minutes to address the board.

Thank you, but no, I would not need five minutes. But thank you. As I understand it, you're hearing each item. In other words, I wanted to say something on item 11.3 as well as 11.1. So I can say a minute or two on 11.1.

As long as the grand total is five minutes, that's acceptable.

Okay. First of all, welcome, Kevin Mitchell. Welcome to the club, as they say. You have your work plan, Ms. Sherman. It's a challenge and can be very challenging. Jay Johnson, 1134 Euclid, progressive landlord. On 11-1, this is the eviction item. I recommend deleting the reference to the HUD market levels and use 150% of existing rent of the unit. I don't quite understand why we're using the HUD market levels on this. In a typical situation, the tenant has a rental amount, and I'm thinking of the undermarket tenants. So if the tenant's rent is $1,000 a month, The HUD standard is, let's say, $2,000 for lack of a better, and then 150%. So that means it's going to be roughly three or four months before any eviction process could start. It's not as if it was a market rent unit and we're going 150%. You're playing around with the numbers so much that it's illogical. Either the... rent amount is a rent amount. We have, what, roughly 27% of the tenants in this city are legacy tenants who are generally significantly below the market rent, as an example. And the idea of using the HUD market rents just totally inflates what the rent level would be for a legacy tenant, and it just doesn't make sense. Either the rent's due or it's not, and if it's 150%, fine, it just gives them roughly a couple of months, but it could be more. As I understood it, there was only roughly six evictions for nonpayment of rent last year, similar to the year before. So do we have a solution looking for a problem here? Does it really make a difference? It doesn't make sense. So if anyone can explain a little more clearly why we're using the HUD rent levels, I'd appreciate it, because I don't see how it works for the market rent. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Millman. You will also have up to five minutes whenever you're ready.

Good evening. Michael Millman, M-I-L-L-M-A-N. I'd like to take us back, and I'm sure your exceptional, outstanding, and terrific litigation lawyers have walked you through Colonial Manor versus Reyes, but why don't we take another look at it from the landlord's point of view? Filma Reyes was neither a lawful subtenant nor an assignee. The landlords in this city will not make that mistake again. Thank you for briefing us on that. I looked at that opinion and I was almost rendered sick the way the judge, who I respect, seduced the lawyers to stipulate the facts that they had no lawful basis to do it. We're not in the eviction business. People can stay in their apartments after the original initial occupant, as described under Costa-Hawkins, has departed permanently. The question becomes, Mr. Chairman, at what sum of money do they pay? Do they pay $660 for an Ocean View apartment on Pico, or do they pay what should be appropriate for the market rate? We got our breakfast handed to us in that case. Fortunately, it's only an L.A. County case It's not a statewide case. But Costa-Hawkins provides that the owner may set both the initial and subsequent rental rates. That preempts anything we do here or in West Hollywood or Berkeley. We're going to set the rates in our rental agreement. for the contingency that someone may be a roommate, a family member, or otherwise. And we're going to tell them on the day they sign their rental agreement what the rate will be for that person who stays on after the initial occupant surrenders. We're not that stupid. We're stupid, but not that stupid. This is a big deal case. and we're gonna fight it. And we're not gonna let tenants come in there who are not vetted and evaluated because there were cases where someone in San Francisco let a son in, then he committed heinous crimes in the building and the landlord was sued, okay? We need to vet them and they can stay They can stay. They never have to leave, but they have to pay the rent that is provided by Costa-Hawkins. So I tip my hat to the lawyers. You won this case, maybe, but we're not asleep. We're going to stand up and we're going to fight it till it's fair. You're not going to get ocean view apartments for $600. That's not fair. That's not right. That's not justice. Costa-Hawkins preempts it, and the judge seduced him to stipulate the facts that were not true. All of these family roommates will be at-will tenants and lawful, lawful subtenants, and that'll be in the rental agreement so that the benefits of Costa-Hawkins will attach. We read the cases. We're going to defend ourselves. We're going to defend ourselves. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Terry Massalero. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.

Thank you.

And you will have five minutes, up to five minutes, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Yes, Terry Massalero. I am here opposing what you're proposing. I am one of the small mom and pop landlords here in Santa Monica, probably one of the few here who remember what it was like when the laws went too far trying with good intent to protect tenants, but what happened is we wound up living in a horrific city that was very beaten up and as a small landlord i can tell you exactly what happens we love our tenants we we do right by them we want them to stay there as long as they're happy there but once they move on we are in favor of the law that says that's when we go to market with our rent and that's how we're able to do it We work hard on weekends and evenings, and this is our retirement, and we need to have protections. We need to be compassionate as a city, but it really isn't fair if you put all the burden on the landlords who are mom and pop landlords just trying to survive like everybody else. So I strongly support the current law that says if a tenant is there and has a family member move in to take care of them and the tenant dies, that person probably gave up their place to take care of them. That's a good law. But to extend it and say that a tenant can voluntarily move and before that get somebody who they say is a cousin 27 times removed and then I don't know anything about that person. I've been in situations where people have come in and as a result, they violated the rights of my other tenants and it's a nightmare and it's not fair to anybody. So I ask you to reject this and just keep doing what you're doing with fair laws, but please consider that We all are here. It's all of our city. We all want it to be vibrant and healthy and safe. And we're not the problem. We're doing the best we can. And we're not evicting people. We don't want to evict people. But we want to make sure that the people that are in our homes, that is the result of our hard work for literally decades, are people who can afford it and who will take care of the property and be respectful to all of the neighbors. And we do that with the current law. So please, we urge you on behalf of small mom and pops, please do the right thing and don't enact this law.

Thank you. Joseph Ramos. And whenever you're ready, you'll have up to five minutes.

Good evening. Joseph Ramos for the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. We strongly oppose removing the requirement that a family member can only remain in a rental unit when the renter leaves due to death or incapacitation. The current law was intended as a narrow and compassionate exception for extraordinary circumstances. This proposal would transform that limited exception into a perpetual tenancy by occupants, allowing individuals who are not on the lease to remain indefinitely, even after the renter voluntarily leaves the property. That is not what successor occupancy was designed to do. The Rent Control Board's own research identified only five cities in all of California with anything similar to these provisions, and only two of those cities are in Southern California. More importantly, only one of those cities allow family members to continue occupying a unit after renter voluntarily moves out, and that city required the death or incapacitation of the renter. This proposal goes far beyond every city identified by your own staff. The result will be that housing providers will never be able to return these units to full market rent. These are rent control units built before April 10th, 1979. All are nearly 50 years old or older. Preventing owners from ever resetting rents to market levels will make it increasingly difficult to maintain and reinvest in these aging properties and will ultimately encourage their sale and demolition, reducing the very affordable housing stock that this board claims to protect. Also, we strongly oppose expanding the definition of family members to include aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. None of the comparison cities go this far, and for good reason. Allowing extended family makes it impossible to determine who is actually related by blood or adoption to the renter and who is falsely claiming family status. This proposal creates uncertainty and rampant opportunities for abuse that will lead to additional litigation as well as hampering enforcement. Lastly, we strongly oppose a proposed eviction threshold. Allowing renters to fall behind by 150% of fair market rent before an eviction can even be filed does not help renters. FMR will result in several months of unpaid rent, as many of the RSO units are far below market rate. As such, it will enable renters to dig themselves into a very deep debt hole, making it highly unlikely that they will ever catch up and avoid eviction or be able to reach a reasonable settlement with the owner to leave amicably. Early intervention gives both parties the best opportunity to resolve problems before they become unmanageable. For all these reasons, we urge the Board to reject these proposed changes tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Jesse Fernandez? And same thing, you'll have up to five minutes.

I think pretty much the sentiments... Many of these people already said, as I agree with, you need to reject this. A lot of you guys don't look like you're old enough to remember 1979. So you turned our city into a slum, and I'd like that not to happen again. So please reject it. And again, I'm not going to take the time because they've already said what I want to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Heather Thomason. And you will also have up to five minutes.

Thank you. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Heather Thomason. Thank you for all the hard work you've put into these amendments. Of everything before you tonight, I wanted to just focus in particular on supporting the proposed occupancy amendment that would allow for eviction protections when a family member moves in, because I've personally seen how common and necessary that situation can be in the course of so many people's lives. As this board has recognized, family across most cultures and most of human history has never meant just legally recognized couples or parents and their kids under one roof. Households have always stretched to make room for the people who needed it, grandparents, cousins, in-laws, sometimes people who aren't related by blood at all, but who are family in every way that matters. I've watched this in my own family. My stepmother came to this country from Vietnam, and she understands what it means to need a safe place to land. Over the years, she and my father have opened their home to her relatives from sisters to nieces and nephews simply because someone needed a place while getting their footing, often when they had just arrived in this country, beginning a new life and other times when life just required it when they needed shelter and someone they could trust. And that stability is part of what allowed them to build their lives here. In fact, just today, one of her family members arrived in this country for the first time. His name is B. He's 42, and he finally made it here after years of trying For now, he'll live with his parents, but I wouldn't be surprised if six months from now he's staying with my dad and stepmother instead. That's just how our family works and how a lot of families work. These amendments recognize that reality. Letting a tenant take in a parent, a grandchild, and niece doesn't threaten anyone. It keeps families together and keeps people out of crisis. This is good policy, and it's the humane thing to do. Thank you for doing the work to consider how to make our rent control laws the strongest and best that they can be for real people leading real lives here in Santa Monica. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this item? Okay, seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. Because this item includes several separate proposed charter amendments, I would like to handle the board's discussion in an organized way. We will take the proposals one topic at a time so that the board, staff, council, and the public are clear about what is being discussed. As we go through each topic, board members should identify whether they support including that provision in the board's recommendation to the city council, either as presented in the staff report or with revisions. For any proposed revision, I will ask the board member proposing it to state their basis for the change, and if possible, the specific language being proposed. If the language is not clear enough, I may ask staff and council to restate the proposed language, or we may take a brief recess so that the language can be prepared before the Board completes its deliberation. My goal is to make sure that any final action is based on specific language and that the record is clear about what the Board is recommending and why. As we go through each topic, I will try to determine whether there appears to be Board direction on that provision. If there is disagreement about whether a particular provision should be included, or if a board member wants to support some provisions but not others, we can take a separate motion on that provision before moving on. Otherwise, we will reserve formal action for a final motion at the end. We will proceed in the following order. First, the small rental debt provision. Second, the added household member provisions including the proposed language concerning additional family members. Third, the proposed language concerning non-family household members. fourth the family member occupancy after vacancy provision fifth the affordable housing deed restriction provisions including the proposed new just cause grounds and related notice language sixth the proposed tenant protection act finding after we have gone through each of those topics the board can consider a final motion recommending the package of amendments approved or supported during this item to the city council Are there any questions, concerns, or clarification as to how we will handle deliberation? Okay. We will begin with the small rental debt provision. Is there board discussion on whether to include the small rental debt provision in the board's recommendation to the city council, either as presented in the staff report or as revised? Vice Chair Ambres.

I would like to propose a different variation that deviates from what is in the current staff report. So I have some changes that I can pass out, or if someone else wants to, well, I'll just say what I propose. So I have copies of that, and we can go through what that is. Okay, so this goes back to what we had talked about when the city attorney's office had come to discuss this topic originally when there was debate about what formulation to utilize for the small rental debts. Essentially, what I'm proposing here is to still utilize the HUD data, but What I think we should be using is a calculation that is more accurate in that we will be using an average of the zip codes that are in the city of Santa Monica. And actually, why don't we look at the language first?

OK.

Okay.

Vice Chair Ambriz, can I make just a simple suggestion? Would it be possible just to highlight or underline what the difference, different languages here compared to what we have?

Yeah. So we're still using the hud data. we're not using 150%. we're using 100% or just the average and we're utilizing zip codes that are tied to the city of Santa Monica. And maybe I can have staff jump in and explain it better than myself.

So the difference between the fair market numbers that were in the original proposal that's attached to the agenda and this one is that the small area FMRs are done by zip code. So rather than taking a fair market rent from the entire metro area, these focus solely on the residential zip codes only here, and they take an average. There's an average for each zip code. and then there's a price per the size of the unit. So this suggestion would, for example, if you had a one bedroom, you would take the average of the small area rents for the five zip codes, and you'd have an average for the one bedroom units. That would be the threshold. And it would correspond to the size of the unit that would relate to the tenant property in question. So rather than the metro area, these are solely zip codes here in Santa Monica.

And this proposal using the average of the zip codes, we're now doing 100% instead of 150%? Yes.

As I recall, the thinking in the 150% was that the metro area encompasses a much broader range of housing across across the county that's not specific to the higher rents here. So there was a thought to use one and a half times to account for the rents here. Under this proposal, you arguably wouldn't have to do that because it's only looking at the five zip codes here, not the entire metro area.

And is there a particular reason why we're doing 100 instead of 150? Was there some sort of rationale

I'll let the commissioners speak to that only to say that as I said the 150 was inflating a less specific number so arguably the rents would have a higher floor here here in Santa Monica versus other places in the metro area so I believe the thought was that you wouldn't have to inflate the number to match the region because it's already focused on these zip codes only But that's for you to decide.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Gonsko.

Yeah, I think that that is an accurate representation, I think, of what we're trying to get at here. The idea was that instead of using something that was so broad-based outside of our community and trying to essentially use some sort of formula to get it to better match the prices that residents in Santa Monica are dealing with, we said, why not just look at the data for here in Santa Monica? And so this proposal from the Vice Chair does that. It looks at zip codes just in Santa Monica. It creates an average from those. And so because the price more closely represents what the tenant who's obviously in Santa Monica is paying, there's no need to multiply it or change it to be more accurate. And I think that as I've talked to community members as I've talked to city council members, as I've heard here tonight even from some public comment, I think this definitely gets at what we're trying to achieve, which is being specific to what's happening here in Santa Monica. So I support this change, and I'm happy to answer any other questions that folks might have for me or

Yeah, I just have a point of clarification, I guess, for both of the subcommittee members. Because in some of the proposals that we see from the other jurisdictions on this amendment, LA City, LA County, Berkeley, Oakland, they seem to, instead of use a percentage, they seem to, if they have some sort of similar proposal to this, they seem to just use like one month rent or two month rent. If you're using 100% of the average of the zip codes, is that essentially the same thing? Was that essentially the equivalent of one month's rent?

Yes, that would be one month.

If that's what we're doing, why not just use that same, mirror that same language? Why not just use, why not just say we're doing, if we do recommend this to the council, why not just write the language to be one month's rent instead of playing with percentages and averages, if that's what it comes out to anyway?

Well, I believe the proposal as written doesn't have a percentage. It simply says the average of the rents. So if you would like to add the one month to clarify that's what you're talking about, certainly we could do that. But that's why I think it doesn't have a percentage here so as not to confuse what's 100 percent of what.

Okay. And just to comment on that, that was actually something that we discussed specifically because the only reason there was percentage At other times, because we're talking about more than one month and we're talking about one and a half times. So now that we're we're not doing that, there wasn't a need to put to put a numerical definition.

Well, I mean, is there any appetite to add that kind of language just to get rid of any ambiguity and make it clear? Or do we all just feel that it's not necessary and that the way it's written comes off clearly enough?

I would suggest that we add some language that is actually more clarifying because it's a little confusing as it's written. And I'm sorry for the confusion, but I'm in the queue, and it says Matty Dob.

Oh, no, I was wondering what that was. No worries.

I guess I'm Matty Dob tonight. So just to be clear so that it's not any confusion, so the regular layman could understand exactly what this means, so they can do the calculations easily.

And just to be clear, what you're proposing, are you agreeing with what I'm suggesting in terms of specifically adding language that says one month, or are you proposing to be different?

Maybe two.

Well, that's a separate, I mean, that's a fair point to make, but it's kind of separate. You're talking about the amount.

Yeah, exactly.

The language. A question I have on this, just for clarification, how does that relate to specifying whatever the number is specifically including the word month as it relates to the small area fair market rents like is that duplicative language or does it make sense do you get what I'm asking is that clear I don't know if I'm

I think I get it. So all of the, if you go to the HUD website and look these up, they're all listed by monthly rent. I don't know that it says one month, but that's how it's listed. So I don't know that it would be duplicative of the information that's available. And certainly if you'd like to further describe to be clear that it's only one month and not a month and a half or something else, I don't think it would conflict with any of the information that's currently available.

Okay. Commissioner Dudek.

Yes, I would like to just go back to basics for a minute here. So why are we using HUD instead of just the person's actual rent? I mean, what is the basis of that? I'd like to understand that a little bit better.

Well, I can't speak to the policy aspect of it. I would suggest to you that, obviously, different tenancies have different rents and are applied differently to different folks and different families in different places. And if that's a policy that the board chooses to pursue, then they can. But I think the stated goal from prior meetings and from prior reports was to create a consistent threshold. That's my understanding of the goal here. Beyond that, I will let the board discuss the policy aspects.

Vice Chair Ambrose.

Yeah, I'd just like to refer back to Attachment K from our staff report. Looking at some of the other jurisdictions and what is currently in place, Am I correct to note that some of the other jurisdictions utilize HUD data in their calculations, even though they arrive at different forms of calculations, whether it's percentage or some other mechanism that they are relying on a metro area utilizing HUD data? Sorry, that's a question for staff. My question was, looking at Attachment K, am I correct that in other jurisdictions that have some sort of provision like this, that they have utilized HUD data?

Yes. In fact, I believe they all do.

Thank you.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, I know they do, but I want to know why they do instead of a person's individual. I just want to know the basis or the rationale because I don't really understand that. I mean, I'd like to understand it better. Why is that used versus the individual's actual rent? The rationale for that. And I know, I read that they're using it in That's what they're using. I'd just like a better understanding of it.

I'm going to invite my colleagues to maybe add to what I've said since this is my first meeting.

Going back to the earlier discussions, and we can't speak to everything that every other jurisdiction did or the reasons for doing it, but the discussions about this and the way it's even framed is to provide for a small debt Rental threshold. Our small rental debt threshold and it's not about an individual's rent it's about creating a buffer for tenants at a small relatively small amount. some tenants have much larger rents, some have small rents. This is a way of averaging it out and creating what would be considered a relatively small debt. And it would be applicable across the board. It would be a completely different policy direction to adopt something different that involves individual rental amounts, which may or may not be small rental debts. So that's the context that you're considering this under.

And what constitutes, is there a cap on what constitutes a small rental debt?

There's no definition for it, but this provision, if adopted, would define it by the number that is provided by HUD or the average if you adopt what's being proposed right now.

And how would that apply to someone who does have a higher rent? Let's say $4,000 a month or something.

Well, then if they didn't pay their rent that month, then arguably, not arguably, they would hit the threshold more quickly.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Commissioner Gonsko? Yeah, so just to add an example to what our executive director was explaining, you know, thinking about the small debt amount, like you said, there isn't any defined way to determine what specific dollar amount that is. But if you're thinking about it relative and you're looking at the HUD numbers, for example, I don't have the exact number here for the average in Santa Monica, but it would be somewhere in between $2,000 and $3,000. And so there are some Even rent-controlled units in Santa Monica, it's not common, but there are some that may have $8,000 or $9,000 or $10,000 a month rents. We know of a building in San Vicente where you live, not in your building, but on your block where I used to live in that building, for example. And so if you're thinking about that, that would not be considered, in my opinion, a small debt compared to the average, which is closer to two or 3000. Right. So the objective here is to give people a buffer, like was stated, and to be a relatively small debt amount. And in some cases, if you made it specific to each tenant, those who live in very expensive units would arguably not have a small debt if they didn't pay their rent, but they would have a very large debt that could be five figures. So that's the logic here. Also, from a legal perspective, the likelihood to withstand legal challenge.

And how would it be implemented at one month, behind one month? How would that be implemented as far as payment?

Well, I'm not sure I exactly understand the question, but it would need to exceed one month based upon the HUD requirements. the average of the zip codes in Santa Monica. So whatever that number is, the amount that was owed would need to exceed that number. It wouldn't need to, it can't be equal. If it's equal or less than that, then the tenant would have time to repay it.

How much time?

Well, I mean, until they crossed that, until their amount owed went above that threshold. So presumably the next month, when the next month's rent was due.

OK, so we're not voting on a final motion yet. But correct me if I'm wrong. In terms of where I sense the conversation is going, I sense that there's somewhat broad agreement to use, to change what's in the staff report to use this zip code data that's more applicable to Santa Monica as a city specifically than the HUD Metro region. Am I correct in that, that there's broad agreement to use that sort of language than what's currently within the staff report?

If we could change how it's written so it's more clear.

So my next point was going to be, okay, so we agree on that. So for staff purposes, we agree to include this language that Vice Chair Ambry's proposed. Is there any, would anyone like to make a motion or would anyone want to add anything specific language, something along the lines of not to exceed one month rent specifically? Or is there a preference to just keep it the way it is, it's clear enough, and there's no reason to add that? Or before we move on to the next one, I want to hear if there's any thoughts on that. Commissioner Gonska.

So I mean I'm not I guess I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it but I would say I don't think it's necessary because the language I mean I guess it would potentially help people understand it but it wouldn't I don't think have any impact on what the amendment is actually doing.

Well but I but I would but I would say that if you if you do think that it would help our community understand it, whether it's landlords or tenants, even if it doesn't change the function of what it's doing, if we provide more clarity for the community on how this is going to be implemented, then maybe it's worth looking at adding. Yeah, that's fair. Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, I agree with that. Okay, so I would like to know a little bit more about how about the payment for the

landlord how long this would This could go on So if I can jump in I think it's hard to say because it would depend so if the making up a number if the HUD number the average is called 2500 if somebody's rents was 2400 then they would be okay after missing that first payment But once they missed the second payment, then they would have crossed that threshold, right? So in their case, it would be just one month But in somebody else's case, if their rent was only $1,000, it would take until the third month before they cross that $2,500 threshold. So depending on what the actual rent is of that particular tenant, the time could be different. The trigger is when you cross that dollar amount threshold of how much you owe. So in many cases, I think in many cases, it would be just one month for many people. But for those who have very low rents, it could be longer. And for those who have high rents, it could be shorter.

MR. Commissioner Leslie?

MR. I would be in agreement with this. I just want it to be written in a way that would be easier to understand for the average person.

would you want to make a motion to add language that says specifically not to exceed one month rent?

That would be amicable.

Just to clarify, I think, and tell me if you, I think it would be that it would need to, it must exceed one month's rent, not to exceed.

Correct.

Yeah.

Correct.

Yeah.

If it would, be helpful to the board if the consensus is to add this language we we could take a few minutes to work on that and then present it back to the board to either vote or read into the record for you know vote later on like you had said at the beginning okay we can appreciate that yeah we can do that at the end when we do the final motion vote then

No.

Do you want to do a recess now? I was suggesting that we give you the language now.

Oh, sure.

Yeah, if that's OK. And that way, this component will be complete.

To clarify, you'll provide the language now, but we don't necessarily need to make a motion now or vote on it now?

No, not necessarily, based on the Chair's earlier description of how he wants to proceed.

OK, but do you need to take a recess of 10 minutes, 15 minutes, or whatever it is? We can do 10, if that's okay with you. Okay. We'll take a 10-minute recess then. Do we need a motion to do that formally? No. Okay. Okay, we're going to gavel back in. Do we have the proposed language changed from staff as to that amendment? Yes, we do, Chair.

And as the council can see on the screen, but I'll read into the record, it's an attempt to... Sorry. This was an attempt to make this more readable and more clear. So the... Subsection 1 would read, 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 one month of fair market rent. For purposes of this subsection, the fair market rent is determined by calculating the average of the monthly small area fair market rents set annually by the US 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. The written notice to the tenant terminating tenancy shall state the number of bedrooms in the tenant's rental unit and the applicable fair market rent for an equivalently sized rental unit. Does that satisfy the demands of the council members that wanted it, the board members, excuse me, more clearly written?

Commissioner Leslie.

Yes, thank you. That very much clarifies for the average working person. I appreciate that.

Commissioner Gonsko. I definitely understand and agree with the sentiment of putting this as much as possible in the layman's terms so people can understand it. But I do want to be very, very careful that we're not actually changing the intent here in any way. And whether it's in opening it up to legal challenge or actually changing what it does, because as I stated earlier before the recess, I think that the intention here is not to change what's actually being It's just to clarify. So are we 100% certain that this isn't going to jeopardize in an attempt to clarify the intent?

Well, from what I read here and in comparing it to the jurisdictions that we provided in the attachment, many of our neighboring cities use the one month language. So this would be in line with the laws that are already in place elsewhere, which I think is only a good thing. And the rest of it simply clarifies the calculation of the number. It doesn't change the application or the intent of the law. So I don't see that it would affect. Yeah.

My one concern is that because fair market rent is a term of art that is used by HUD, like I understand that you could use fair market rent here and then define it in the way that you have, but I almost feel like you could use a different term like Santa Monica fair rent or something like that. Because my concern is one month of fair market rent, when people think of that, people who are interacting with the voucher program or thinking about, you know, interact with fair market rents regularly, that already has its own meaning, which would tend to, people would think about the regional fair market rent, the Los Angeles, Long Beach regional area. And so if you're kind of doing a definition, like one month of Santa Monica fair rent, and for purposes of this section that's calculated that way, I think that might create less confusion with respect to people who are used to dealing with those HUD-published amounts and have a pre-existing idea of what the term fair market rent means.

We can certainly change what the term is. I think more importantly that it's a chosen term, that it's clearly defined for both sides of the relationship when there's a failure to pay rent.

Commissioner Gonsko? Sorry, I just didn't clear out. Commissioner Dubik?

Well, whatever threshold is set, then the rental debt has to be more than the threshold. So if your rental debt is the same as or less than the Santa Monica market rent or the fair market rent or whatever term we use, if it's the same or less than the threshold, then you are not at risk. If it's even $1 more, if it exceeds, you would receive a three-day notice at the purview of the landlord, and they would see it as they see fit because you are across the threshold and you face eviction.

Commissioner Gonsko?

Yeah, just because of my concern about the fact that this isn't language that is changing the application or the end result here, I'm going to move that we actually do not include that language that was written during the recess and stick to the language that was proposed by Vice Chair by the Vice Chair to be voted on later in this meeting?

I share those concerns, so I'm gonna second that motion. And just to be clear, this is not, what we're voting on right now is not a final up or down vote to recommend this to Council. We're simply voting on what the language is that we're gonna be voting on at the end of the meeting. But I would second that motion. Unless there's a substitute motion that anyone wants to bring, then I will call a roll call vote shortly.

Chair, just to be clear, the motion was to adopt the language as proposed originally by Councilmember, I'm sorry, Commissioner Gonska and Vice Chair Ambres.

Not to adopt it, because this isn't the up or down vote on that, but...

But this is the language you want. The language we want is what was handed out at the beginning of the... Correct.

What was handed out. Without the red lines from the recess. Just so we're clear. Thank you. Okay. Are we voting on that right now? HOSA, I see several... You can be... Commissioner Dudek, you can be recognized if you want to have a comment.

Well... I don't know if this would be a vote or a comment, but I do feel that the clarity that we have now in the new verbiage is important. So I am not in favor of changing. I am in favor of changing to more clarity. It means the same thing. And for those who are, you know, Yeah, for those who need more, who will get more time if they have a lower rent, they'll have more time.

Commissioner Leslie.

Commissioner Dudek, kind of expressed my sentiment. My request for clarity is for the regular working class person that would read this. And in its original form, it's kind of confusing for a person that is not an attorney or does not have any legal experience. So we want the tenant to be able to understand exactly what's happening. So that was my reason for the request. And for us to have counsel to go and correct it and then take it back is kind of confusing to me. What are your reservations in clarifying the language?

Well, I think what we've now seen is I think even There were good intentions and putting that clarification language in there But I think it actually made things even more confusing than they were originally because we've now had a debate between Council as to what it means and what term should be used instead of what and So I think our intentions were good originally in trying to add that language But I think it had the unintended consequence of actually being even more confusing if you disagree with me, you're more than welcome to make a substitute motion and

So what I will point out to you is that our council, Mitchell's, did say that it clarifies on the back end on both ends as far as how the clarity was explained to us. Of course, anything that we put out here will be challenged anyway, even if you have it in its original form or you could have it in a more clarifying form. Either way it goes, it'll be challenged. So, you know what I'm saying, either way it goes. You know what I'm saying, we could, We could do six, or we could do half of six. It's still the same thing.

Commissioner Gonsko?

I was going to say exactly what you said, that I think I share the, I mean, I understand and I think it's admirable to try to make this less confusing, but I worry that the language makes it more confusing. Okay, I see our general counsel in the queue.

Just very briefly, if the concern from board members is like the use of the fair market rent term, we can certainly change that, and so I guess I would ask, is it that term that is the biggest problem? Or is there another part of this that we could address now and potentially talk about to address your concern?

I would just say that I don't think it's necessary. It's not going to change what's being done here from a policy perspective. So why risk trying to craft this here on the fly and not being able to fully think through vetting it properly? I trust your judgment, but, you know, we're doing this in real time. So if it's not actually impacting the policy, why take the risk is my view. Commissioner Lussier, are you in the queue again?

No, but give me a minute. I probably will be.

Well, we have a motion on the floor. It has been seconded. So unless anyone has any final points or would like to make a substitute motion, I would be inclined to proceed in voting on the motion on the floor.

I'm more inclined to make a substitute motion. If we, instead of adopting the previous language, striking from the record what has been already recrafted, what is in question or what it is that has skewed with reservations or any other commissioner with reservations, I'd prefer to strike that rather than go back to where we were. For clarity's sake.

I'm not following. Are you making a substitute motion to include these red lines? No. I'm not following what the substitute motion is. The motion on the floor is to not adopt these red lines. The motion on the floor is essentially to use the language that was where we started. Originally proposed. Originally by Vice Chair Ambriz and Commissioner Gonska from the subcommittee.

So not to use the language that was just presented. Correct. Is that what you're saying?

If you want to make a substitute motion, really the only option here is to include any of these red lines. That's really the only.

Well, then, yes, to include the red lines.

OK, so you want to make a substitute motion to include the red lines in this language.

Is that the new?

Correct. Is there a second to the substitute motion on the floor?

I have one question. The council suggested that the term be changed so people would understand. Could that be added?

In other words, he wanted the word Santa Monica put in front of fair market rent.

Just to clarify, because fair market rent of art is a term that is used by HUD, and it's actually a part of the term small area fair market rent, I thought it would be confusing to do it this way. If you were to say Santa Monica threshold rent for purposes of this subsection, Santa Monica threshold rent means the average of the annually published small area fair market rents for each zip code wholly or partially in the City of Santa Monica. I think that would accomplish the same thing. without creating the confusion regarding fair market rent being a pre-existing term.

I think that kind of proves the point of the original motion on the floor, but there has been a substitute motion. Is there a second to the substitute motion on the floor?

What is the substitute motion?

To include the red lines.

What we just...

Yes.

Does that include... No. What? That doesn't include... Good Lord. I think we'll be here all night. No.

Okay, I'm not I'm not hearing a second in which I'll make a second second the substitute motion okay and the substitute motion takes precedence in which case we'll proceed to a roll call vote on the substitute motion. May we have a roll call the police.

Yes, commissioner did it. Yes, commissioner Gonska no commissioner Leslie yes, last year and breeze. No sure I don't know no motion fails.

The motion fails. The original motion now takes precedence. Can we please have a roll call vote on the original motion? Yes.

What was the original?

Without the red lines.

Commissioner Dudek?

I have to review the original motion. I'm sorry. Where is it?

Can we proceed to other voting members? Of course. Okay.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

No.

Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yes.

Chair Ivanov?

Yes.

I still think this is more confusing than the second, so I'm going to say no.

The motion carries, I believe. Okay, we will now move to the added household member provisions concerning additional family members. Is there a board discussion on whether to include the added household member provisions concerning additional family members in the board's recommendation to the City Council, either as presented in the staff report or as revised? Vice Chair Ambres.

Just a question. Is this 1806A2? including A to little I, little I, double I, triple I, and B, and continuing on. If so, I have another red line change that I'd like to propose. And I'll just go ahead and start passing it out because I think that's what it is. Thank you. All right, so this is a change small deviation from the agenda packet Subsection 2 B Is where you're seeing the change? What I'm proposing to change here is to omit the enumerated family members. I believe the change is to take out aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, and nephew, and essentially to add in the, hold on, let me see how it's phrased. or minor dependent of any additional person listed in this section. So not a niece or nephew, but minor dependent of any additional person listed. So we are still including parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, but taking out aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, and nephew.

Okay, I would generally be favorable to that. I think we need to limit the scope of this language a little bit. Commissioner Dudek?

Does this pertain to the added plus people? Is that what this pertains to?

Yes, these are the additional family members concerning added household members that you cannot be evicted for adding these additional household members. I'm sorry, that's right. There's an additional change as well, which says that the tenant must also give written notice to the landlord. So you do have to provide notice to let the landlord know that you are doing so within 14 days to let them know that you are adding these persons into the household. That's another, I believe that's another change that was made.

Commissioner Rogozka? Yeah, I think that this change includes, in my opinion, two very important changes that were just described, but to reiterate, one being that it requires the the tenant to have lived in the rental unit for at least one year before this would apply, before they can bring in the additional family members. And it also does require that the landlord is notified. I believe that landlords have a right to know who's living in the units, and so that disclosure is important. And here we specify what time period it must be done as well. So I would support these changes.

I would also be supportive of these changes, again, for the reasons I just stated, that I think we need to limit the scope of this. You know, again, as you look at the other jurisdictions that have pursued anything even somewhat similar to this, no other jurisdictions included categories like cousins, nieces, uncles, aunts, et cetera. So I would also be... I like the notice addition, and I like the one-year residency addition, so I would also be supportive of this language. Commissioner Leslie?

Just for the sake of clarity, let me go back to this. So the affidavit of domestic partnership within the city, the same city, or can it be from a different city?

So it's my understanding, or maybe I'll have someone else jump in, but it's my understanding that the City of Santa Monica has something that is different from what our domestic partnership is. So there's marriage, and then there's a registered domestic partnership, but then there's also something within the City of Santa Monica where you can file an affidavit of domestic partnership. So we've only specified here within the City of Santa Monica.

It just says the city. It doesn't say the city of Santa Monica.

I believe it's implied it would be this city.

I'm sure it's defined earlier on in the code section.

To make it clearer, we could say city of Santa Monica. That's a good catch-up.

That's the reason why I asked. Commissioner Dudek?

So basically, we are saying that a tenant can go beyond the lease agreement in terms of How many people can be in for any reason at all? Is that what we're saying here? We are not providing a reason. There's no reason. There's no policy reason stated. There's no policy reason. So basically, the rental agreement with the landlord just sort of, as far as how many people can be, would be sort of null if people wanted to pursue this and bring in various people. family members?

There's no stated reason for why you would be adding an additional person, whether it is your parent or it is your domestic partner or it is your sibling. There's no reason that is stated in this language for why that is an additional person, whether it's because it is your domestic partner, your spouse, or your parent, there is no reason stated.

What are your thoughts, Phyllis? What are your thoughts, Phyllis?

It just seems like when someone signs an agreement with the landlord to have a certain amount of people, and then all of a sudden you can just add these other people without sort of consent. I'm glad that there's up to at least letting them know, but What is the purpose of the lease in the first place if you can just?

Commissioner Gonsko yeah, I think what we're trying to do here is find the middle ground So we're not saying that you can just bring in anybody here under this provision And we're not saying you can do it whenever you want we're saying that you can do it if you've been a tenant for at least a year and And we're saying that you can do it if the person is a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, dependent of the owner, or a minor dependent of those specified. So we are putting some parameters around that to try to find a middle ground.

Well, but what is the reason for it?

Well, I mean, I think...

I mean, is it because of financial... We can't take any comments from the gallery, please.

All right. So we're not specifying here as the direct answer to your question. I think there's been a lot of conversation of hypotheticals of why a person would want to move somebody in. That could be because of financial distress. It could be because of health reasons. Those are two examples, but there could be other reasons as well. But here, what's before us, we're not defining that.

Yeah.

It could be a medical emergency.

A medical emergency, yeah. Mm-hmm. It makes sense. Yeah.

Could be that a minor's parents are lost and they need to live with a relative. There could be many reasons that we could come up with here, but rather than to limit it to just a few specifics, we don't define it in any way here.

Okay. Regardless of how you intend to vote on this charter amendment, whether or not to recommend it to the council or not, At this point in time, does anyone have any suggestions of any language that they want to see changed or removed from what we currently have before us? If not, then we're going to proceed to the third charter amendment. Okay, I'm not seeing any additional, okay. Okay, we will now move to the family member occupancy after vacancy provision. Is there a board discussion on whether to include the family member occupancy after vacancy provision in the board's recommendation to the City Council, either as presented in the staff report or as revised?

Vice Chair Ambrose.

Yeah, I'm sorry. My mic's not working, so I will be sharing with the chair. I do have some amendments again, and I will pass those out, and then they will be displayed.

May I ask the chair just for a clarification as to which proposal?

I had family member occupancy after vacancy. Did I skip one?

That's number three on the agenda. Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's 1806C? I don't know.

Okay. That's number three on the agenda.

Okay.

Understood.

It makes sense that it would be D, subsection D, but we could do C or D. Do you follow? However the chair wants to do it. Subsection D makes more sense.

Well, let's follow the agenda.

The agenda is C? Yeah. Okay. All right. Here's C again. Sorry.

I don't have subsections. Okay. Yeah. This is number three on the agenda. After occupancy. Yeah, I can see it was the one we just did. The next one is about remaining OK. Sorry.

So this is going back to the staff report in item 11 from our agenda packet. from my understanding, is attachment E, section 1806, proposed amendment concerning family member occupancy after tenant vacancy. Subsection C, I have some proposed changes. Essentially, the changes that I am suggesting are, again, taking out, actually, hold on. Yeah, so I'm proposing to take out enumerated family members. So you will see that the biggest change from what is contained in your staff report, where it had previously said, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the section or in the rental housing agreement, if the spouse, children, 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. All of that is basically being amended to this new language. So now we are keeping the one year provision of having the occupant living in the rental unit for at least one year. And we are referencing subsection A to B, which we had just went over, the thing that we just talked about. So what we had just talked about previously, those additional persons being allowed to come in to the unit Subsection C is discussing those additional family members being allowed to stay after the tenant no longer resides. I believe that is my explanation. If staff would like to explain it a different way, that may be helpful.

Commissioner Gonsko? Yeah, I think that this, as was stated, the main thing here is that it's removing the listed relationship types and just pointing back to the other provisions here. So as the Vice Chair stated, it's pointing back to subsection A to B and D, B or D. So it refers back to what is in those provisions whether some of those provisions do list specific family relationships, other provisions do not. So it just says that anybody who is authorized to be residing in that unit can stay in the unit if the original tenant of the owner vacates. And it also requires them to have lived, for that tenant who's going to remain, to have lived there for at least a year. And one other thing I do want to clarify, because I think there's some confusion, from the public that I've seen in written comments and heard here tonight as well from the public that there's a thought that this would, in effect, never let them reset the rent, but that's not actually the case. This allows those tenants to stay under these conditions in the unit, but it does not guarantee that they would or offer that they would retain the existing MAR. And so in theory, the landlord could reset the rent to market rate, but it just gives that tenant who had been living there for at least a year and was otherwise authorized to be there the right to stay in that unit.

Or we are not addressing that in this proposed language. Thank you, Commissioner Gonska. That is something for the courts to decide, and Costa-Hawkins is in place. So yes, thank you for raising that point, because I do want to make note of the feedback that I heard from all the written comments and the comments that we heard today that I did take into consideration and I did hear and I did read. But I do want to clarify that some of the comments that were provided to me and that we heard tried to state that the additional family members, if they were to stay, would automatically continue this, would be continuing the rent-controlled rate. And I don't believe that we are not doing that with these charter amendments. That would just be inaccurate to say that that's what we're doing.

Before I recognize Commissioner Leslie, just a quick point of clarification. This is incorporating the language that we just reviewed in the last charter amendment, correct? Where we struck some of those groups of cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews. We struck that language and that's incorporated into this proposed amendment as well, correct? Correct. Those groups are not

No. Well, no, it would be whatever that language that gets adopted would apply here. Right. This would refer to the adopted language.

So hypothetically, if we were to adopt and we strike that language or we don't include those groups, those groups are not included in this one as well, correct? Correct. Okay. Commissioner Leslie?

So, and I too will acknowledge that I got the emails. This is not perpetual tenancy. I don't think anybody has the right to extend a tenancy in perpetuity. We also are just trying to be mindful of the term family and make provision for those that could possibly stay in a unit moving forward instead of trying to exclude people under a tenancy that could possibly keep a family intact or save those that are in medical emergency. For instance, or for example, I just wanted to state that because it was not the intent of this board to force tenants down any landlord's neck or make them bankrupt. We need landlords just as much as you need tenants. And it's a symbiotic relationship. One feeds the other. Just so that we can be clear.

Commissioner Dudek.

Yes, I just wanted to reiterate now, we're not talking about co-tenants, we're talking about, when we say authorized, oh, unauthorized, no, authorized tenants, they'd be authorized by the landlord, correct? Going beyond the lease for the additional, add the plus people.

Can you restate that? I'm sorry.

Okay. We're talking about when we say authorized tenants, who is authorizing? They're authorized by the landlord, correct?

I believe that language refers to who would be authorized in subsection A2B or A2D, as defined in those two subsections.

That classification. Okay. And those would be people who would be above and beyond the actual lease.

The number stated in the lease.

The number stated in the lease.

Potentially, yes.

Potentially. Okay, thank you.

Okay, regardless on how you intend to vote on this particular charter amendment at the end of the meeting, with respect to the language that is currently before us, does anyone have any proposed changes or additions or anything that they want removed from the language that is currently before us? Okay. Seeing none, we will now move to the proposed Tenant Protection Act finding. Is there a Board discussion on whether to include the proposed Tenant Protection Act finding in the Board's recommendation to the City Council, either as presented in the staff report or as revised?

Yes, please. One thing that the Board didn't address directly was So I believe that the subsection A to D of the proposed language, which is in attachment D. So I believe that the proposed language that came from the Vice Chair and Commissioner Gonska were related to A to B only. it may be appropriate to return to that issue first and then move back to the regular order.

Okay, yeah, let's take a look at that.

Just to make sure I understand, so this was, it was basically that A2B and A2D were both part of agenda item two. We just skipped A2, we did only half of it and then moved to agenda item three. So we're moving back to agenda item two. Yeah, there was no discussion.

So to be clear about what the board intends,

We can go back to C after we go back to 1806 A to D. I think we completed C. We did.

We don't need to go back to it, but we just need to go to the rest of agenda item two, which is subsection A to D. And then I think the chair would then ask if there are any proposed changes to that language.

Oh, that's my bad. Sorry.

Okay, are there any proposed changes to that language? Yes. Okay. Vice Chair Ambrose.

Again, I have another change to Section 1806A to D, and I will provide those at this time. So to reiterate where we were about additional family members, when we took out the enumerated family members, such as aunt and cousin and nephew, that was the proposal. That's where we were before. That was subsection A. Hold on. A to B, right? That was when we said it was the, or I said and Commissioner Gonska said it was the family members such as the spouse, the domestic partner, the parents, the child, but not the cousin, the niece, or the nephew, for example, but that you needed to provide that you needed to live in the unit for a year. Separately, we are looking at section 1806A to D. So additional family members that are not enumerated in that section. And I'm trying to remember what the difference is from the staff report.

Yes, Ken. Just to point out, there are two changes that I want to draw your attention to. The first one is the addition of one year that the tenant of the owner has to reside in the unit before they can take advantage of this section. It was not in the original language. And the other one is, as this section covers either non-family or family that's not covered in B. As far as the non-family or the non-related folks that you would like to move in, there is some intent language here that the additional person intends to create a household with the tenant of the owner, which is an attempt to show that it's not a random person, that you're trying to move in a person who may not related by blood or marriage, but you may consider part of your chosen family, and it's an ability to bring them in as well. The main difference between B and D is B are folks that you can bring in essentially as a matter of right and just give the landlord a notice after the fact. What you're looking at now in D is the permissible section, which is they have to ask before they move them in. That's the main difference in the two categories.

That's right. Thank you for that clarification. I'm not sure if this was part of the red line, but just for a reminder that as our council states that this one has the reasonableness test and also that you have to ask permission, again, pointing to the 14 days. that the tenant would need to request in writing to the landlord for this for additional person or persons and the landlord would have the right to respond if the the request is Shall be deemed approved by the landlord if it is essentially ignored and that the landlord Yeah, so it goes to the reasonableness test here. This was what was provided essentially already in the agenda packet for today, except for the things that our council mentioned, those few changes.

Commissioner Gonsko?

Yeah, I just want to state that my support for these changes, I think that they're in some ways they're consistent with what we tried to do in some of the other provisions tonight. For example, requiring at least a year of tenancy before this is allowable. And also, I think it's important to require that the that the new person who's being brought in is forming a household, that they're not, for example, a stranger. Sometimes people find roommates that they don't know before they live together, that they find through various online forums or through friends of friends. And so the intention here is that those types of relationships would not qualify here, and that this is truly for people who are intending to form a household but may not be related by blood or law. So I definitely support these changes.

I agree with my colleagues. I'm glad that we're putting some limitations and parameters on this language, so I would be supportive of this language as well. Again, regardless of how you intend to vote on this in the end, does anyone have any changes, additions, or any language you would like to see removed in this section? ARE WE COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING TO THE FOURTH CHARTER AMENDMENT, PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE AGENDA, OR COMMISSIONER LESLIE?

YEAH, THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND CONCISE. WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.

OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE FOURTH PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS WITH RESPECT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEED RESTRICTION PROVISIONS. Is there more discussion on whether to include the affordable housing deed restriction provisions in the board's recommendation to the City Council? including the proposed new just cause grounds and related notice language either as presented in the staff report or as revised I Okay. Do I take it that I'm not hearing or I'm not seeing any? Commissioner Dudek, do you want to be recognized?

Yes, I think this is pretty straightforward. It is a requirement every year to reinstate or reiterate eligibility, and I think it's important. I'm just

Okay. It seems like everybody is comfortable with the way this language is written in the staff report. I'm not seeing any proposed language changes. Again, we're not voting up or down on this yet, but in that case, we will proceed to our fifth charter amendment on the agenda. which is the proposed Tenant Protection Act finding. Is there a Board discussion on whether to include the proposed Tenant Protection Act finding in the Board's recommendation to the City Council, either as presented in the staff report or as revised? Commissioner Leslie. Oh, okay. With respect to the affordable housing deed restriction provisions? Okay, go ahead. Is there...

Is there a way to adopt the language of income by more than 50% for at least two consecutive years? Is there a way to adopt that as well?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

That is on attachment K. K. Page 4.

What was the question?

Is there a way that we can adopt that the maximum allowable income be more than 50% for at least two consecutive years? Because right here it says that they do not qualify under terms that they are exceeding. I'm sorry, I lost my place. Give me one second.

You're just essentially proposing to mirror the language of what West Hollywood is doing? Is that what you're saying? Yes. Which page is that? Four.

Four.

Which page is this?

Four.

Page four of attachment K. Mm-hmm. So West Hollywood, I'm looking at West Hollywood page four of attachment.

I just wanted to give one just informational point, not a policy point, but the language is intended to incorporate the guidelines, which for many of the properties would allow going to 140% of the max income. And so there is that language in there, provided the landlord complies with all applicable regulations. And so that could incorporate, again, the ability to go up to the 140%.

Thank you. Yeah, I think this one was one of the trickier proposed charter amendments because we're dealing with affordable housing, which has so many different... restrictions and legal parameters that we want to make sure that we're not putting in jeopardy. So I just want to make certain that whatever we do, we aren't making any substantial, we are not making any change that our staff hasn't make sure that they are certain isn't going to change things legally.

I just had a clarifying question for the point you made. Are you saying that, because you mentioned the 140% figure, are you saying that the language as proposed actually goes even further than what the West Hollywood language does?

I'm not sure. I don't think that would be the case. It would be different. What I'm saying is there are existing... regarding basically being qualified or allowed to stay when you initially qualify and then subsequently go over income and what those say for the units for which those apply, which may not be 100% of the units, but certainly those for which the guidelines apply. And they say that you can go up to 140% of income And then after that, basically the owner should, there's like a framework that's set up where you're supposed to get a one year eviction notice if that's the only option, or potentially have a priority to get another unit that you do qualify for. But there's a whole framework that's been thought through that is in the guidelines. And so I think the idea is to incorporate that so that this wouldn't authorize an eviction that wouldn't otherwise be required for compliance with the deed restriction.

Based on that, is there a preference to maintain the language as written in the staff report? Or is there agreement with Commissioner Leslie's suggestion? Or is there a preference to just keep the language as written?

My preference is to keep it as written.

So without the language being in the statute here, how do we ascertain that they have the year? And maybe my question is for you, to make sure that they have an additional year.

I don't think this does make sure that they have an additional year. I think that would be a policy question. But I think that the housing division staff has tried to think through various policy considerations in developing the guidelines. And they've made a set of policy determinations with respect to what should happen in various different situations, such as, for example, there's a distinction between not initially qualifying versus qualifying and then going over income. But I think that that would require being over income multiple years in a row would be a different policy decision.

That's the reason why I was drawn to this policy here in West Hollywood. So it quantifies the amount of time that the tenant would have.

Do you want to make a motion to change the language to mirror West Hollywood?

Absolutely. I make the motion that we mirror the language from the city of West Hollywood.

Is there a second to that motion?

It's the last page, Phyllis. It's the last page.

I'll make a comment. So whereas with other policy decisions in other cities, we have tried to follow or we could follow what other cities have done, when it comes to affordable housing projects or affordable housing issues, I believe that each city is unique. in what their requirements are. This language was proposed by the city attorney's office and was presented this way, I think, in their best judgment. And so the reason for my support of the original what is before us today in the staff report is because I'm assuming that it was brought forth to us in this way because it is encompassing the unique needs of the City of Santa Monica's affordable housing programs. And so I'm more inclined to support the staff reports for today in the way that it was presented to us. So that's the reason for the way that I feel.

So my question to you, did you ask about timelines or even if this would be relevant in this policy making procedure?

I did not. So is there a second to the motion on the floor?

I think Phyllis is still reading the last page. West Hollywood, page four.

Going once, going twice, going three times. I'm not hearing a second to the motion that's on the floor. I think because there isn't unanimity, I think just for consensus and so staff is clear on what we're voting on up and down at the end, I would make a motion that the language that we want to vote on at the end with respect to this affordable housing deed restriction charter amendment is what reflects the language that's currently included in the staff report. Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second that motion.

Okay, motion by myself, seconded by Commissioner Dudek. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

No.

Vice-Chair Ambrys?

Yes.

And Chair Avenoff? Yes.

Motion carries. Okay, we're going to proceed to the fifth charter amendment on the agenda, which is with respect to the Tenant Protection Act finding. Is there a board discussion? as to whether to include the proposed Center Protection Act finding in the Board's recommendations to the City Council, either as presented in the staff report or as revised.

Mr. Dudek? Yes, Chair Ivanov, can you just summarize this?

It's what's in the staff report on page five of the staff report. I think it would be more helpful for the subcommittee members that worked on that language or if the general counsel, if...

And maybe in addition to what it actually says, why it's necessary.

Sure. Thank you. So this new section would add a finding that Article 18 is more protective than the provisions of Cal Civil Code 1946.2. And the finding states that Article 18 limits the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy consistent with Code Section 46.2 further limits the reasons for termination to a greater degree and provides higher relocation assistance amounts in conjunction with implementing the provisions of the local code and provides additional tenant protections not prohibited by law essentially that what what are what you've been voting on this evening and what's contained in Chapter 18 is more protective, and that's not prohibited for you to decide here. And it's perfectly authorized by law and consistent with the TPA.

I just wanted to add that the reason for this language is because the Tenant Protection Act has a provision in it that says that any amendments made to local ordinances or local rent stabilization must state this finding in order to preserve the fact that our rent control law applies before the Tenant Protection Act. So We haven't had to do that previously because we didn't have an amendment after the Tenant Protection Act was enacted. But now, if we make amendments, we need to have that preserving language.

Is it sort of like an administrative proposal?

Essentially, yes, because it's just what the Tenant Protection Act requires in order to preserve our local superiority over the Tenant Protection Act. Thank you.

So we're just getting our charter in line with what the TPA requires, essentially? Okay.

Yes, that's exactly right. Okay.

In that case, I wouldn't assume that there would be any proposed changes to that based on the way that's written. Any final questions or comments with respect to this charter amendment? Okay. We've now gone through each of the proposed provisions. Based on our discussion and any separate votes that were taken during this item, I would now entertain a motion to recommend the City Council place before the voters at the November 2026 general election any of the proposed, any or all of the proposed Senate protection related just cause eviction amendments to Article 18 of the City Charter consisting of the provisions approved or supported by the Board during this item with any revisions stated on the record.

So I think just to be extra careful and cautious about clarity, could we take a 10-minute recess so that staff can gather all the provisions that have been voted on or discussed tonight and then we can go forward from there, just to make sure that the record is clear about what's being voted on to move to the council. MR. Yeah, absolutely. Is everyone OK with that?

OK. OK. We'll take 10, 15, something like that. OK.

Amen. Thank you. you Okay. Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna gavel back in. Can we see the proposed language for section 1806A1?

Not to be funny, but is there a reason why there's blue underneath there? Is that because there's a space before the comma or something?

It's just autocorrect.

Autocorrect? Ignore that. OK, ignore it.

OK, sorry.

The grammar in Word doesn't agree with the way we've written the regulation. But it's not binding. Cool.

Okay, based on this language, is there a motion to recommend to the Santa Monica City Council that the proposed Section 1806A1, as proposed by Vice Chair Ambres and approved by Board vote, be placed before the voters at the November 2026 general election? Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

You would like to make a motion?

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion that this be placed on the ballot. I'm sorry, not the ballot, but to be proposed to the city council. It is just a small .

Is there Commissioner Gonska?

Yes, I'll second that.

OK, motion by Commissioner Leslie, seconded by Commissioner Gonska. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambriz?

Yes.

Chair Abanoff? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay, can we now put up the proposed language for 1806 please?

Yes. Would the Chair prefer that I put up the original 1806 that's in the agenda as There's a portion of that that was unchanged, and then there are two proposed revisions by Commissioner Ambrose, both for A2B and A2D. Is there an overview?

With the proposed revisions.

Since they won't all fit on the screen, I will start with what's on the agenda, and then I'll show B and D.

Okay, based on the above language, is there a motion to recommend to the San Monica City Council that the proposed section 1806A2 as stated in attachment C to the staff report with the revisions to subsections A2B and A2D as proposed by Vice Chair Ambres be placed before the voters at the November 2026 general election?

I will make the motion.

Is there a second?

You're in the queue? No, are you in the queue? No, but I'll make this, I'll second it.

Motion by Vice Chair Ambry, seconded by Commissioner Gonska. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Commissioner Diddick? Sorry, was that a yes, Commissioner Dudek?

Could you go on, please?

I'm trying to figure out which one this is. Okay.

Okay, you can proceed, yeah. Okay.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yes.

And Chair Ivanov? Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

I'm gonna abstain on that one.

Okay, question carries.

Okay, can we have, can we now put up the proposed language for section 1806C? Was 1806D in that one as well? Okay. Because it's not in the language of the motion. I just want to make sure.

No, D was the A2D. Oh, okay, okay.

We covered that one. Okay, got it. Yes, correct. Got it, okay. Okay, based on this language, is there a motion to recommend to the Santa Monica City Council that the proposed Section 1806C, as proposed by Vice Chair Ambrose, be placed before the voters at the November 2026 general election? Commissioner Gonska? So moved. Commissioner Leslie?

I second the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by Commissioner Leslie. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambres?

Yes.

And Chair Ivanov? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay, can we now see the proposed language to Sections 1806A11, A12, and B? which is the affordable housing deed restriction provisions. Based on this language, is there a motion to recommend to the Santa Monica City Council that the proposed sections 1806A11, A12, and B, as stated in attachment G to the staff report and approved by board vote, be placed before the voters at the November 2026 general election? Commissioner Leslie.

I move that we recommend this motion to the City Council.

Is there a second? I'll second that motion by commissioner Leslie, seconded by myself. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Commissioner.

Yes.

Commissioner guns. Good.

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie.

Yes.

Vice chair.

Yes.

Sure. I have enough. Yes. The motion carries.

Okay, and can we see the proposed language for Section 1822, which is the Tenant Protection Act finding? Based on this language, is there a motion to recommend to the Santa Monica City Council that the proposed Section 1822, as stated in attachment I to the staff report, be placed before the voters at the November 2026 general election? So moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Leslie?

I second the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by Commissioner Leslie. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Commissioner Dudek? Yes. Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambriz?

Yes.

Chair Ivanov? Yes. The motion carries.

Okay, can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board on July 9th, 2026?

Voice vote, all in favor?

Aye.