The Santa Monica City Council on Feb. 13 amended the city’s housing anti-discrimination law to prohibit discrimination based on an applicant’s “housing status.” The newly protected class, codified in Santa Monica Municipal Code, covers individuals currently or formerly homeless, living in transitional or temporary housing, or lacking a traditional rental history.

Under the revised ordinance, if a prospective tenant has no prior landlords or rent payments to verify, the rental property owner must allow them to provide alternative evidence of reliability, such as personal references. Landlords are required to consider any such information in evaluating the application, even if it differs from the standard criteria used to assess prospective renters.

The California Apartment Association is concerned this mandate disregards the practical realities of providing rental housing. Thoroughly screening prospective tenants, including confirming their rental history and ability to pay, is a necessary and prudent practice for landlords to responsibly manage their properties.

By forcing rental property owners to accept subjective measures in place of proven evidence of a renters’ ability to pay the rent and comply with the lease, the new law effectively requires rental housing providers to evaluate each applicant differently – which is at odds with how anti-discrimination laws have historically operated.

In addition to the “housing status” provision, the ordinance institutes several other significant changes affecting rental housing providers in Santa Monica:

• It prohibits “excessive” rent increases imposed in “bad faith.” Evidence of bad faith includes increases within six months of an unsuccessful “just cause” eviction attempt or tenant complaints. CAA supported a legal challenge to a similar law in San Francisco in 2022, but the law was ultimately upheld in the courts.
• Permanent relocation fees are expanded to situations where a tenant moves out within 120 days of a rent increase exceeding CPI+5% or 10%, whichever is less, or after a temporary relocation exceeding six months. CAA is challenged a similar policy in Pasadena – the policy was upheld by the Superior Court, and the case is now on appeal.
• New regulations are imposed on buyout offers and agreements, establishing minimum buyout amounts.