The Santa Monica Rent Control Board voted unanimously Thursday to advance four proposed amendments to the city's rent control charter toward a public hearing, with commissioners debating the merits of new tenant protections and a revised fee structure they hope to place before voters in November.
The proposals, developed by a subcommittee consisting of Vice Chair Ambriz and Commissioner Gonska, are designed to be targeted and incremental, leaving the charter's core structure intact while addressing administrative gaps that have created confusion and inconsistent outcomes over the years.
"The amendments before you are intended to be targeted and incremental," Jonathan Holub, executive director of the Santa Monica Rent Control Agency, told the board. "They do not change the core structure of the rent control charter, but instead focus on clarifying language, improving administrative workability and aligning certain provisions with current practice."
The most contentious proposal would clarify that landlords cannot evict tenants solely because of certain changes in household composition — including the addition of a spouse, domestic partner, parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or non-dependent child. The amendment would also prohibit evictions resulting from the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child, provided the household does not exceed maximum lawful occupancy limits.
Commissioner Gonska acknowledged the tension at the heart of the proposal. "It's very clear that you shouldn't be evicted if the occupancy goes up because of a birth of a child, or because you get married," he said. But he expressed concern about potential abuse, describing a scenario where a tenant might move in additional relatives shortly after signing a lease with specific occupancy terms. "I wouldn't want these kind of protections to allow for something like that," he said.
Vice Chair Ambriz pushed back, arguing the amendment reflects a broader social reality. "We've moved beyond a nuclear family structure," she said. "Family structures are different for everyone, and keeping a family intact and together is healthy."
Commissioner Lesley pointed to a specific case that had come before the board. "We did have a case come before us where there was a gentleman that wanted to move his then-fiancée in because they were going to get married, and the landlord refused to accept her tenancy, and they had to live separately," she said. "So when you ask, is there a problem? We've seen it here in front of us."
A second amendment would restructure the board's financing authority. Under the current charter, voters approved a maximum annual registration fee of $288 per controlled unit in 2014, but no mechanism exists to adjust that ceiling over time without returning to the ballot. The proposed amendment would clarify that the $288 figure represents a cap rather than the actual fee charged, and would introduce annual, inflation-based adjustments beginning in 2028, tied to the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles region. Increases would be capped at 5% per year, and the maximum fee could never be reduced.
Chair Ivanov raised concern that the measure could confuse voters. "I'm worried that this is going to be something that's confusing to a lot of voters," he said, urging the board to frame the amendment in plain language "as a step that's necessary for the financial solvency of the agency."
Commissioner Gonska agreed, noting the subcommittee had already wrestled with the issue. "We don't want to necessarily be perceived as an immediate fee increase, because that's not the intention, and that's not in effect what it would do," he said.
Commissioner Dudick echoed those concerns. "The fact is that this $288 per unit has been in place for a long time, and we haven't reached it yet," she said. "It's just to simplify the process. I think that's the purpose of it, but it could be greatly misconstrued if the language isn't very clear."
The board also considered an amendment that would align commissioner term limits with broader city charter provisions, allowing members to serve up to three terms — consecutive or not — rather than the current two. The change would also clarify that appointed service counts toward the limit. Dudick noted the broader significance of that alignment. "The rent control board is the only commission with elected officers," she said, "and this is why we're discussing this — to make this uniform for elected officials."
A fourth amendment would codify a 120-day timeline for final action on individual rent adjustment petitions, while formally recognizing that board regulations may allow for extensions upon a showing of good cause. Chair Ivanov welcomed the proposal. "I'm glad to see that we're doing something to clarify the regulatory framework governing petition timelines," he said. "This is an issue that we've dealt with in a lot of appeals. It seems like it's something that comes before the board once every few months."
The board directed staff to bring the proposed amendments back for a formal public hearing at its next regular meeting in May. Following that hearing, the board will vote on which measures to recommend to the City Council, which holds the sole authority to place charter amendments on the November ballot. Holub noted that while some flexibility exists on timing, given that the county requires measures to be submitted by August.
The charter discussion came against a backdrop of financial uncertainty outlined in a separate mid-year budget report presented at the same meeting. The report, covering the first half of fiscal year 2025-26 through Dec. 31, 2025, projected the agency will end the year with a deficit of $184,806 — an improvement over the $253,365 shortfall anticipated when the budget was adopted in June.
The reduced deficit is driven primarily by lower-than-expected salary costs, with the Salaries and Wages category projected to finish $106,505 below budget, stemming from staffing transitions, retirements, and periods of unpaid leave across several departments. Revenue is expected to finish the year $917 below projections, while overall expenditures are forecast to come in $69,476 below the adopted budget. The deficit will be covered by the agency's reserves.
The agency did report some overages, including $9,724 in supplies and expenses — due largely to recruitment costs for a new general counsel — and $27,304 in capital outlays, driven by cybersecurity charges and delayed computer system billings carried over from the prior fiscal year.
A $300,000 allocation for office renovations remains entirely unspent, with construction not expected to begin until the next fiscal year. Staff acknowledged the original estimate will not cover the full cost of the project, with a revised scope and funding plan to be presented during the 2026-27 budget process.
Commissioner Gonska commended staff for the accuracy of their financial projections. "Every year, when they present the budget to us, it's based upon a lot of assumptions, and those assumptions could be really wrong," he said. "Except in my experience here with the staff, they're never very wrong, because they have so much experience and they put so much care and detail into every single line item."
The board's next regular meeting is scheduled for May 14.