m20220803_Spec 1 August 3, 2022
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 3, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 6:00 p.m.,
on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, via teleconference pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361 signed by, Governor
Gavin Newsom at https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/wxedpjbw.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre (arrived at 6:28 p.m.)
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 6:00 p.m., with all
members present except Councilmember de la Torre.
PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION:
There was no public comment on closed session items.
CLOSED SESSIONS
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 6:03 p.m., to consider
closed sessions and returned at 6:30 p.m., with all members present, except
Councilmember Brock to report the following:
3.A. Conference with Labor Negotiator: Government Code Section
54957.6 -- Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager David
White and Chief People Officer Lori Gentles; Bargaining Units: ATA-
Administrative Team Associates; IBT-California Teamsters Local 911;
FEMA-Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association; FIRE-
Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 IAFF; MEA-Municipal
Employees Association; AFSCME Local 4819, Management Team
Association; PALSSU-Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff Union;
PAU- Public Attorneys Union; POA-Santa Monica Police Officer
Association; SMART TD-The International Association of Sheet
Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Division, Local 1785; STA-
Supervisory Team Associates; Coalition of Santa Monica City
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4838F2A-E16D-4378-9261-D80CCD673777
2 August 3, 2022
Councilmember de la Torre
arrived at 6:28 p.m.
Employees
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action
taken.
STAFF
ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:
BALLOT MEASURES
Councilmember Brock
returned at 6:31 p.m.
11.A. Adoption of Resolution Nos. 11452 (CCS) and 11453 (CCS) for
Proposed Ballot Measures on the November 8, 2022 Election
Amending Articles XVIII of the City Charter, was presented.
Recommended Actions
1. Per Rent Control Board direction, adopt the attached resolution
(Attachment A) placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot
that would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter to revise
requirements for owners to evict tenants for owner-occupancy; revise
election procedures; and reduce the Annual General Adjustment,
while maintaining the landlord’s ability to petition for an individual
rent adjustment; and
2. Per Council direction, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B)
placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot that would
amend Article XVIII of the City Charter to authorize the Rent
Control Board to freeze or modify otherwise-allowed annual general
adjustments to rent ceilings during a declared state of emergency by
the President of the United States, the Governor, the County of Los
Angeles or upon a declaration of a local emergency by the City
Council or Director of Emergency Services, while maintaining the
landlord’s ability to petition for an individual rent adjustment; and
3. Authorize City Councilmembers to file written arguments for or
against and direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis
for each measure.
Members of the public Wendy Bryan, Abby Arnold, Theresa Marasco,
Danielle Peretz, Ann Thanawalla, Michelle Gray, John Alle, Denny Zane,
Christina Navarro, Jason Mathbaum, Richard Moore, Elizabeth Lerer,
Sonia Sultan, Willow Evans, Carolyn Torosis, Michael Soloff, Phyllis
Dudick, Bill Davids, and Denise McGranahan commented on the
recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: what is the
recommendation from staff; is there a trade-off between Administrative
considerations for February 1st versus March 1st; what about the Rent
registration fee that is passed through to tenants; explain the difference in
the options being considered; explain the sunset clause, and shouldn’t it be
considered when there is an election; is the idea of sunsetting so that we
can come back with more conversation about Rent Control; with regard to
the sunset clause, does there need to be a sunset clause in order to have a
Study Session about Rent Control; regarding the registration fees, is it true
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4838F2A-E16D-4378-9261-D80CCD673777
3 August 3, 2022
that it is because the Rent Control Board is self-sufficient, and if the
registration fees are not increased, won’t that impact the Rent Control’s
budget; is it right that all the Council can do is recommend the Rent
Control Board limit or decrease the registration fees; is it correct that the
fees increased this year, and what was the pass-through amount; is it
possible to expand who the waiver goes to; is there no way to decrease the
14% increase this year, and reduce the pass-through amount; is this
proposal going to incur more cost for the Rent Control Board’s cost; if the
cost of Rent Control’s budget exceeds the amount paid by fees, how does
the agency make up the difference; have the rates for city utilities gone up,
and is there a way to roll back those increases; the fee that is charged to
landlords to make sure they get a fair amount of return, is that a deposit,
that is returned to them; when do the tenants have to pay the adjustment;
does anyone backfill for the landlord if there is a hardship; can the full
increase go past the cap; is the amount based on the total return from the
building, not just the unit; how many appeals have there been from
landlords in the past year; is the process for landlords to file an appeal
onerous, or are the landlords doing well; how are mortgage cost incurred
into the increased fees; are the landlords expected to keep their expenses
for the property back to 1978, or does the Rent Control Board keep track of
those expenses and income; why is a sunset clause not acceptable; is there
some way to accommodate people who did the right thing and didn’t
increase rents during the pandemic; is the sunset long enough, or should it
be longer to give enough time to do a full dive into the conversation about
increases; if nothing is done, after the sunset, does it revert back to the
current formula, with $140 cap; if this doesn’t get done in time for the
2024 ballot, should the sunset clause be longer to secure the fee and give
more time to have discussions about the entire Rent Control system; if Rent
Control is based on 75% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), why would
we assume that there is going to be a 6% increase, since it is going to be
two years from now; what part does the City Council play in making
suggestions and changes to the Rent Control Board, and how do we hold
staff accountability if we can’t give direction; and, if a 3% cap, how hard
would it be for the Rent Control Board to change it and go higher.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: it’s
a good idea in 2023 to have discussions about Rent Control to allow plenty
of time to have the discussions; make sure that on Option 3, that it’s not
just the tenants fees that aren’t being increased, but the landlords as well;
there needs to be a way to give balance to also help landlords as well as
tenants; the sunset clause is only to get the conversation started; this is an
opportunity to make Rent Control better by taking the next two years to
look outside the box and find ways to improve Rent Control; if a sunset
clause is truly needed; there should be at least one community meeting, and
a minimum of one meeting between the City Council and the Rent Control
Board to address the rent control fees; supporting the sunset clause forces
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4838F2A-E16D-4378-9261-D80CCD673777
4 August 3, 2022
staff and all those involved to have a full conversation about Rent Control,
and it allows enough time to be able to place something on the November
2024 ballot; how to ensure renters stability over the long-term; a sunset
clause does not preclude future Councils from making the changes and
modifications, and could possibly create the same stress that is happening
now; there’s not an incentive to have the conversation, if there’s not a
sunset clause; and, supporting the sunset because there has been direction
given to staff previously that hasn’t been fulfilled, so there is concern that
this matter may not be addressed in a timely manner.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
to adopt the staff recommendations, with the following changes: 1) Adopt
Option 2, as set forth in the staff report, which adjust the timing of the general
adjustment cap to February 1, 2023; and, 2) allow a provision that those
landlords who did not take advantage of the opportunity to raise rents to the
full 6 percent, but raised them to 3 percent or less, that they be allowed to do
a calculation that allows them a 3 percent or less over the course of the year.
Substitute motion by Councilmember de la Torre, to approve the assessment
proposed in the alternate plan, which would give a 0% rent increase to those
renters that are below the median bar, and for those above the median bar a
4% increase for 2-years, with a $93/cap, with non-profits, Section 8 tenants,
Home Purchase Plan (HPP) units or those who receive subsidized rent from
the city, should be exempt. The motion failed to get a second.
Substitute motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember
Parra, to amendment to the main motion, to include Option 1, the sunset
clause. The substitute motion was withdrawn by the maker.
The main motion, as amended was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre,
to direct staff in mid-2023, to have a robust discussion amongst all interested
stakeholders and parties as to any Rent Control reforms that should be
undertaken. That should include the Rent Control board, all stakeholders,
including all residents of all rent levels. The results of that might be added to
a ballot measure 2024. Staff should poll all Councilmembers to get feedback
on expectations on what they would like to have addressed as part of the
robust discussion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4838F2A-E16D-4378-9261-D80CCD673777
5 August 3, 2022
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Direction was given to staff to identify funds that can be used to give relief
to rent-burdened tenants beginning September 1st when the 6 percent general
adjustment kicks in, and that a program be initiated expeditiously, as
September 1st is approaching quickly; and that they identify funds, come up
with a program, and begin to disburse funds at the earliest possible moments.
Also encourage all tenants who may need assistance to contact the city as
soon as possible.
Mayor Himmelrich agreed to write the argument in Favor of on all
measures, with Councilmember de la Torre.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 9:33p.m. in
memory of Marissa Rubin, Christal Anderson and Vin Scully.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4838F2A-E16D-4378-9261-D80CCD673777