SR-8-A (15)
110 ~- DO&--
g---A
OCT 0 9 1984
..
CA: RMM: KMM :kmm
Clty Council Meeting of 10-9-84
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Clty Councl1
FR~1: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Ord1nance Adding Munlcipal Code Section 4812
Concerning EVlctions and Proposing a New
Adm1nlstratlve Procedure Regarding Residential
BU11ding Reports in Buildlngs Converted to
Condominiums After April 10, 1979.
This Staff Report analyzes and transmits for Clty Council
Consideration an emergency Ordinance llmiting evictions for
owner-occupancy 1n buildings converted to condominiums after
April 10, 1979, and proposes a new admlnistrative procedure
regarding the issuance of Resldential Building Reports.
I . BACKGROUND.
In Santa Monica Plnes v. Rent Control Board, 35 Cat. 3d 858,
679 P.2d 27, 201 Cal. Rptr. 593 (1984), the Ca11fornla Supreme
Court upheld the removal permit requirements contained in City
Charter Section 1803 (t) of the Rent Control Law.
However, in
doing so, the Court, in dicta, has created an apparent amblgulty
with respect to the creation of condom1niums.
The lssue 15 lm-
portant for the Clty because of the prov1sion 1n the Rent Control
Law allowing eviction for owner occupancy.
There is no dispute over [Santa Monica Plnes]
authority to subdivide their apartment
P-A
OCT 0 9 1914
bUl1dlng as provided ln the approved
tentative map, that lS, to sell fee interests
in single apartment units.
Rather,
appellants claim they acquired thefurther
right to transfer interests which are free of
an lntervening general regulation--the
requirement that any owner of a "controlled
rental unit" obtain a permit before removing
1t froM the rental market." Id. at
629
P.2d 32, 201 Cal. Rptr. 598 (emphasls added).
This language 1S subJect to varying 1nterpretat1on.
Developers have argued that it allows conversion and sale of in-
dividual condominium units whenever a flnal subdiv1sion map is
secured and f1led.
Th1s could be seen as bypassing the salient
purpose of the removal permit requ1rement and allow evictions for
owner-occupancy.
City Charter Section 1806 prohibits evictions from regulated
units except for grounds specified. One such ground is set forth
in subsection (h):
The landlord seeks to recover posseSS1on in
good faith for use and occupancy of herself
or himself, or her or his children, parents,
brother, sister, father-ln-law, mother-in-
law, son-1n law, or daughter-ln-law.
It was apparent to the Clty that landlords would seek to
construe Santa Monica pines to allow sale of subdivided units and
eviction of tenants pursuant to Section 1806 (h) .
Al though the
City concluded that Santa Monica Pines allowed of no such con-
2
struction, the Clty petitioned for modification of the oplnion to
ellminate any uncertainty. On June 21, 1984, the petition was
denled. As a result, and as anticipated, several landlords and
developers who possess s ubdlVl sian maps, but who nonetheless
never applied for or failed to receive removal perml ts, are in
the process of converting their units and evicting tenants in
violation of the rent control law.
In Opinion Number 84-4, the Clty Attorney has concluded that
existing law both prohibits the sale of unlawfully converted
unlts (i.e., unlts converted without a removal permit) and
precludes evictlons from said units for owner-occupancy. A copy
of this opinion is attached to thlS Staff Report as Exhibit A.
However, it is also clear from recent experience that landlords
may seek to exploit what they Vlew as uncertalnty caused by Santa
Monlca Pines and 19nore current legal requirements.
The Clty Attorney has determined that two actlons are
requlred to assist in the enforcement of eXlstlng law. The first
(attached ordinances) would clarify that no evictions are permlt-
ted in condonllniums converted wi thou tar emova 1 pe rml t. The
second (new administratlve procedure) would provide the Rent
Control Board the opportunity to take affirmative judlcial actlon
to prevent the sale of unlawfully converted units.
These actlons are urgently needed now because of the recent
resurgence of efforts by developers to unlawfully convert thelr
units. It has came to the attentlon of the City Attorney wlthin
the past few weeks that rental unlts are being sold and tenants
eVlcted in contravention of the Rent Control Law. Developers may
3
see a "window of opportunity" pr ~or to the November election to
c~rcumvent the law. The actions indicated herein are immedlately
required to prevent further depletion of the housing stock and
the ev~ction of tenants.
I I. A.NALYSIS.
The Rent Control Board has promulgated regulations im-
plementlng Section 1806 (h). They are conta~ned in Board
Regulation 9002. Among other things, they limit eVlctions under
1806(h) to natural persons who own not less than a 50% interest
"in a property." Another critical requirement ~s contained ~n
Sectlon 9002 (b):
An owner .
. May evict a tenant from a con-
trolled residential rental unit for the use
and occupancy of himself or herself or for
one of the relatives [authorized] for one
unit only on 2. given property. If any
owner or enumerated relative al ready
occupies one unit on a property, no eviction
pursuant to Section l806(h) may take place.
The term "property" is nowhere defined 10 the Board
Regulations. However, 1n the case of condoffilniums, developers
would likely argue that each unit is a separate property, thus
allowlng for owner-occupancy eviction of every converted un 1 t.
The Board's pos1tion, however, is that unless a removal permit is
secured, the entlre building remains a single "property" for
4
purposes of 1806(h) and 9002. The C~ty Attorney concurs in this
analyslS. (See attached Opinlon)
However, it 1S not certain which interpretation would be
Judicially approved in a court challenge WhlCh is almost certaln
to ensue after the Santa Monica P~nes decision. The worst case
would be for a court to declare the Board powerless to regulate
condominium evictlons. Some curatlve action, however, could corne
by ordlnance or Charter Amendment. Slmilar eviction protections
1n Massachusetts cities have been upheld by the courts. See,
e.g., Grace v. Town of Brookline, 399 N.E.2d 1038 (Mass.).
The attached ord~nance is simllar in effect to the proposed
revisions to the Rent Control Charter Amendment (Artlcle XVIII).
However, immedlate action is necessary to provide interim tenant
protection. Act10n by the Clty Council would also provlde legis-
lative history concernlng the adoption of the Charter changes.
The administrative procedure which has been proposed is to
lnstruct the Planning & Zoning Department to defer for 10 days
all appl1cations for Residentlal Building Reports in converted
unlts. Upon receipt of such an application, the Department would
transml t a copy thereof to the Rent Control Board. The Board
would then determine whether it wants to pursue any Judiclal ac-
tlon to enJoin the sale of the converted units. At the expira-
t10n of the 10 day period, the Planning & Zoning Department would
issue the Residentlal Building Report which will conta1n the fol-
lowlng statement:
Sale and use of this property is subJect
to Article XVI II of the Santa Monlca Cl ty
5
Charter (Rent Control Law).
No vested right
or removal permit has been issued by the Rent
Control Board for this property.
Unless dlrected by court order, the City Attorney wlll take
no afflrmative actlon to stop the sale of a condomlnium unit for
WhlCh a valle final subdivision map has been issued. However, as
1ndicated in the attached Opinlon, the C1ty Attorney belleves
that the sale of a unit prior to issuance of a removal perm1t
vlolates eXlstlng law, but that the agency properly vested with
responsibll1ty to implement those provisions is the Rent Control
Board.
It also appears likely that unless the Board lS success-
ful 1n seek1ng a judicial remedy 1n these cases, converS1ons wlll
go forward, thereby depletlng the rental housing stock.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended:
1. That the City Council 1ntroduce and adopt the accom-
panYlng ordinance.
2. That the City CounC11 d1rect the Plannlng and Zoning
Department to implement the new administrative procedure regard-
lng the issuance of Residential BUlldlng Reports as outlined in
this Staff Report.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. ~~ers, City Attorney
Karl Manheim, Deputy City Attorney
6
~
CA: RMM: KMM
Clty Councll Meetlng of 10-9-84
Santa Monlca, Callfornla
ORDINANCE h~MBER
(Clty Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 4812 CONCERNING EVICTIONS IN BUILDINGS
CONVERTED TO CONDOMINIUMS AFTER APRIL 10, 1979,
AND DECLARING THE PRESENCE OF AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, in the interest of the publlC health, safety, and
welfare, the Rent Control Charter Amendment (City Charter Article
XVIII) regulates evictlons from residentlal rental units~ and
WHEREAS, lt is the intent and purpose of the Rent Control
Charter Amendment to protect the rental housing stock and prevent
eVlctions by regulating the removal of controlled rental un its
through conversion, demolition, or other rneans~ and
WHEREAS, to protect the rental houslng stock the Rent
Control Charter Amendment requires a removal perm~t be issued
prlor to any such removal; and
WHEREAS, it has been the understanding of the City of Santa
Monica and the Santa Monica Rent Control Board that a removal
perml t is required in all cases of eondonnnium conversion, in-
eluding those cases where the landlord has secured and filed a
final subdivision map; and
1
WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court has affirmed the
validity and necessity of the removal permit requirement in the
case of Santa Monica pines v. Rent Control Board, Case Nos. L.A.
31615, 31616: and
\'lHEREAS, several landlords and developers 1n the City have
construed Santa Monica pines to allow sale of 1ndivldual con-
dominium units wherever the owner has secured and filed a flnal
subdlvlsion map, irrespective of whether a removal permlt has
been Obtained; and
WHEREAS, Sectlon 1806 of the Rent Control Law limlts the
grounds for eviction but does not prohibit evictions for the pur-
pose of owner and owner-relatlve occupancy; and
WHEREAS, by Regulation, the Rent Control Board has permitted
one evictlon per property by persons ownlng not less than 50% of
the entlre property for the purpose of owner or owner-relat1ve
occupancy: and
vlHEREAS, developer and landlords have contended that exist-
1ng law allows the sale of converted apartment units without a
removal perrnlt, and thereafter allows the new owners thereof to
evict tenants pursuant to Section 1806(h) of the Clty Charter and
Section 9002(b) of the Rent Control Board Regulations: and
WHEREAS, this construction 1S contrary to the intent and
purpose of the Rent Control Charter Amendment and is inimical to
the publlC helath, safety, and welfare: and
2
WHEREAS, buyers of unlawfully removed condoffi1nium units may
be unaware that they will not be able to evict the present tenant
in order to take personal occupancy; and
WHEREAS, unlawful conversions and evict10ns are presently
occurlng WhlCh cause irreparable harm to renters and irreversibly
deplete the supply of rental houslng in the City of Santa Monica,
thereby creating an emergency condition; and
~IEREAS, it is proper for the Clty Council to adopt curatlve
regulations limltlng evict10ns for owner-occupancy as orlginally
intended by the voters and the Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLL~lS:
SECTION 1. Section 4812 is hereby added to the Santa Monica
Municlpal Code to read as follows:
Section 4812.
Tenant Evictions for
Owner Occupancy. In addl tion to any other
protectlons provided in the Municipal Code,
the Clty Charter, or the laws of the State of
California, no eviction for purposes of con-
verS10n or sale lncident to converSl0n or for
personal occupancy by the landlord or owner
or relative of the landlord or owner shall be
allowed in any condominium or stock coopera-
tive unit unless the unlt had flrst been
created or converted from an apartment or
3
other rental unit on or before Apr11 10,
1979, or the Rent Control Board has 1ssued a
removal permit or declared a vested right for
said unit, or the un1t has been convertecl
pursuant to Article XX of the City Charter.
As used herein, a unit shall be deemed
created or converted on the date the unit 1S
first sold as a condamin1um or stock coopera-
tive unit. As used herein, an eviction shall
mean any action to recover possession of a
residential rental un1t, 1ncluding service of
not1ce of terminat10n of tenancy. This sec-
tion shall apply w1th respect to any unlawful
detainer action for which Judgment has not
been entered prior to the effective date of
this Section.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is declared to be an emergency
measure adopted pursuant to the provisions of Sction 615 of the
Santa Monica C1ty Charter and is necessary for preserving the
public peace, health and safety, and the urgency for 1tS adoption
is set forth in the findings above.
SECTION 3. Any provisions of the Santa Monica Hun1c1pa1
Code or append1ces thereto 1nconsistent W1 th the provisions of
this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistenc1es and no
4
further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the prov1sions of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any sectlon, subsect1on, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance 1S for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent Juris-
diction, such decision shall not affect the validi ty of the
remainlng portions of the ordinance.
The C1 ty Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and
every section, subs ection, 5 entenc e, cIa us e 0 r phr a se not
declared invalid or unconstitutional wi thout regard to wh ether
any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared in-
valid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5.
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of thlS ordinance.
The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be publlshed once in the offlclal newspaper
wlth1n 15 days after lts adoption.
This ordlnance shall become
effectlve immediately after the passage and adoption hereof.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ ~- "rr iii.
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
5
CITY ATTORNEY OPIKION NUMBER 84-4
OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING THE
EFFECT OF SANTA MONICA PINES v. RENT CONTROL
BOARD ON THE LEGALITY OF SELLING CONTROLLED
RENTAL UNITS AS CONDCMINIUMS AND TO
EVI CT TENANTS FOR OWNER-OCCU PANCY
ISSUES PRESENTED
The City Attorney has initiated this opinion regarding the
effect of Santa Monlca Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board, 35 Cal.
3d 858, 679 P.2d 27, 201 Cal. Rptr. 593 (1984), on the rlght of
owners of controlled rental units who possess final subdivision
maps to sell the units as condomlnlums and to exercise the rlght
to evict for owner-occupancy.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons di scussed in more detall below, the Cl ty
Attorney concludes as follows:
1. Santa Monica Plnes does not answer the questlon whether
a controlled rental unit may be sold as a separate condominium
unlt absent a removal permit, even if a final subdlvision map is
recorded. This issue must await judicial clarification, wh ich
may be forthcoming in pending cases.
2. Regardless of the interpretatlon of Santa Monica Plnes,
a controlled rental unit remains subJect to all the provisions of
Article XVIII of the City Charter (Rent Control Law) before,
during, and after the sale of such unit, whether as a condominium
or as unsUbdlvided real property.
3. If a controlled rental unit is sold as a condominium no
tenant may be eVlcted for owner-occupancy, elther before or after
sale, without complying with Rent Control Board Regulation 9002
WhlCh requires that an owner be a natural person wlth at least 50
percent ownership interest in a property. For purposes of this
section the tem "property" means the entire parcel of real
property and not the separate subdivided condominium units.
ANALYSIS
On Aprll 20, 1984, the California Supreme Court decided
Santa r.1onlca Pines v. Rent Control Board, 35 Cal. 3d 858, 679
P.2d 27, 201 Cal. Rptr. 593 (1984). The facts in Santa Monica
Pines are Slml1ar to a number of other properties ln the City.
1
Santa Monlca Pines, Ltd., a 11mi ted partnership obtained
tentative tract map approval for the conversion of the1r property
to condom1nluros prior to the adoption of the Rent Control Law on
Apr11 10, 1979. On May 11, 1979, Santa Monica pines paid a
refundable $42,000 condominium conversion tax to the City. On
June 26, 1979, the City Council approved the final subdivislon
map which was subsequently recorded. On June 29, 1979, Santa
~10nica Pines sought a vested right exemption for purposes of
removing the units from Rent Control. The vested right applica-
tion was denied because only $1,709 was expended on the project
prlor to Aprl1 10, 1979.
The Californla Supreme Court initially concluded that ap-
proval of the tentative subdlVlsion map prior to Rent Control
obligated the City to approve a final subdivision map Wh1Ch sub-
stantially complied with the condltions of the tentative JTlap.
rd. at 679 P.2d 31-32, 201 Cal. Rptr. 597-98; Youngblood v.
Board of Supervisors, 22 Cal. 3d 644, 586 P.2d 556, 150 Cal.
Rptr. 242 (1978); Great Western Savln9s & Loan Ass'n. v. City of
Los Angeles, 31 Cal. App. 3d 403, 107 Cal. Rptr. 359 (1973).
However, the Court was qUlck to pOlnt out that compliance
wi th the subdivl sion map act dld not excuse fur ther compllance
with rent control requirements. The Court stated:
There is no dispute over [Santa Mon1ca Pines]
authority to subdivlde their apartment build-
lng as provided in the approved tentatlve
map, jthat is, to sell fee interests in single
apartment unlts. Rather, appellants clalm
they acqulred the further right to transfer
lnterests which are free of an lntervening
general regulatlon--the requirement that any
owner of a "controlled rental unit" obtaln a
permit before removing it from the renta 1:
market." rd. at 679P~32~01 Cal.
Rptr. 598 (emphasiS-added).
The Rent Control Board has, 1n a letter-brief to the
Californ1a Court of Appeal 1n McMullln v. Rent Control Board, 2d
Clvil No. 64269, interpreted this passage----U;- requlre a removal
permit prlor to sale of a controlled unit. Th1S construction 1S
supported by~h~anguage of Charter Section 1803(t) WhlCh
equa tes "conversion" with "removal." Since "conversion" occurs
when the first unit is sold (County of Los Angeles v. Hartford
Accident and Indemnity Co., 3 Cal. App. 3d 809, 814-15, 83 Cal.
Rptr. 740 (1970)), and the Supreme Court upheld the removal per-
mit requirement, lt necessarl1y follows that the removal permlt
lS required pr10r to conversion, that is before sale.
The contrary construction of Santa Monlca Pines is that
developers holding recorded final maps may sell their units
without Rent Control Board authorlzation, but that sold unlts
remain sUbJect to the Jurisdiction of the Boara until a removal
2
permit is issued. Because of these contrary ~nterpretations, the
Clty Attorney belleves that further JUdicial guidance will be
necessary before the issue 1S firmly resolved. A number of cases
now pending ln the Court of Appeal are posslbile vehicles for
this.
Regardless of wh~ch interpretation ultimately prevails, the
Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the rlght to sell a
controlled rental unit as a condomlnium does not include the
right to be exempt from the Rent Control Law. Id at 679
P.2d 32, 201 Cal. Rptr. 598. The Court stated:
[W]e question whether the approval of a sub-
dlvision map for condominium conversion can
ever lead to a vested exempt10n from sub-
sequent rent control laws. Id at 679
P.2d 32, 201 Cal. Rptr. 598.
It is therefore clear that Santa Monlca Pines and simllar
buildlngs must comply with all aspects of the Rent Control Law
even if they possess the right to sell separate condominium
unl ts. At a minimum this would require own ers of the se con-
dominium units to register the unlts with the Rent Control Board,
to charge no greater than the maximum allowable rent, and to com-
ply with Bectlon 1806 regulating evictions.
Section 1806 of the Rent Control Law sets forth the grounds
upon which a landlord may proceed to recover possession of a con-
trolled rental unit. Section 1806 (h) of the Rent Control Law
authorizes a landlord to recover possession for the good faith
use and occupancy of the landlord and certain enumerated rela-
tlves. This provislon is commonly known as an "owner-occupancy
eviction".
Section 9000 et seq. of the Rent Control Board Regulations
lmplement and clarify the Just cause eviction requlrements of
Section 1806 of the Rent Control Law. Bectlon 9002(a)(1)
provides:
Only a person who has at least a 50 percent
ownership interest in a property shall be
consldered an owner. (emphasis added).
Bectlon 9002(b) sets forth a limit on the number of owner-
occupancy evictlons which can occur pursuant to Section 1806h)
and provides in relevant part:
An owner may eVlct a tenant from a
controlled rental unit [pursuant to Section
1806(h)] for one unit only on a given proper-
ty. (emphasis added).
In reconcl11ng these two regulations it is apparent that
the Rent Control Board has drawn a distinction between the terms
3
"uni t" and "property". In the condominium context the individual
condominiums would constitute a "un~t" and the ent~re parcel
containing numerous units would be a "property". Although it is
acknowledged that a subdivided condominium is a cognizable unit
of real property under state law, the Rent Control Board has
drawn a distinction between "property" and "unl t" for purposes of
~nterpreting tne Rent Control Law.
Thus, until the Board 1.ssues a removal perm~t, an entire
building is cons1.dered a single "property" for purposes of
regulat1.ng evictions. It 1.S the bUllding's status w1.th the Rent
Control Board which is cruc1.al for implementation of Charter
Section l806(h) and Regulation 9002, and not its status with the
Department of Real Estate. Accord~ngly, at the very least, Santa
Monica Pines recognizes the Board's authority to regulate
removals and eV1.ctions from controlled units, even if sold. It
would be incongruous for a developer to argue that Santa Monica
P~nes gives h1m the author1.ty to sell and eVlct tenants in l1.ght
of the Supreme Court's strong aff1rmance of the removal require-
ments. We have no doubt that the courts would uphold this con-
struction if challenged.
The following hypothetical examples are provided to illus-
trate how the rent control law operates in the wake of Santa
Monica Pines.
Example 1: A landlord notifies h1s tenants that a final map
has been recorded and that he 1.ntends to sell the units as con-
daniniums. He further states that unless the tenants agree to
purchase their units at a stated price, they must vacate w1th1.n a
certa1.n amount of time.l/
In this case, the landlord has violated both state and local
law. Under no circumstance or reading of Santa Mon1.ca pines may
the landlord evict h1s tenants prior to sale.
Example 2: A landlord sells occup1.ed units to purchasers
W1 th the representation that the new II condomlniurn " owner wi 11 be
entitled to evict the tenant under Section 1806(h) after transfer
of the unit.
The new owner (of an individual un1.t) will not be entitled
to evict the tenant under Sect~on l806(h) (see Regulation 9002).
The landlord-seller may be liable to the purchaser for false
representation.
Example 3: A landlord sells a vacant un1t to a "con-
domin~um" purchaser with the representation that it is free from
rent control.
!/ This 1.S drawn from several actual sitations brought to the
City Attorney's attention.
4
The new owner (of an ind1vidual unit) will be able to take
occupancy since no eV1ct1on is required. However, the unit does
remain subject to rent control. Should the "condominium" owner
ever re-let the unit, the rent would revert to the MAR and the
tenant would enJoy all applicable eviction protections.
Sale of the unit, even if vacant, is a v1olation of the rent
control law (per the Board I s interpretation). However, in the
absence of further judicial construction, the c~ ty Attorney I s
Office w1ll not take any steps to prevent such sales.
Prepared by: Robert M. Myers, C1ty Attorney
Karl M. Manheim, Deputy City Attorney
5
c-A
TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING
HELD O,C:rOBER 9, ,1 ~~4
ITEM 8-A: ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING AMENDING
THE CODE CONCERNING EVICTIONS AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REPORf~ -
FOR BUILDING CONVERTED TO COND9~INIUMS AFTER APRIL 10, 1979.
DISCUSSIon was held (Including approval of adm1nlstratlve pro-
ceedIngs for res1dent1al buildIng reports)
em lane:
.....r would like to move that the City Coun-
cll Introduce and adopt as an emergency ordInance, the ord1nance
submItted by the CIty Attorney.
MPT Press:
Second.
DISCUSSIon was held.
The motIon faIled by a 4-3 vote (f1ve votes required)
Councllmember EpsteIn and JennIngs requested the record reflect
that theIr primary reason for vot1ng no 13 they do not fInd there
are facts before us suff1clent to conclude that there IS In fact
a genuine emergency.
Councllmember Reed requested the record to reflect her reason for
votIng no is because there IS no factual Showing of a state of
emergency.
em Zane:
...1 would lIke to make the same motIon then
as a, to Introduce the ord1nance for fIrst read1ng.
HPT Press:
Second.
DISCUSSIon was held.
- 1 -
~ity Attorney: I belIeve that If you Introduced the or-
dInance for fIrst readIng you should delete Section II, renumber
SectIon III as SectIon II, renumber SectIon IV as SectIon III and
then have SectIon V be the standard Section V for an ordInary
ordInance.
em Zane:
motIon.
I'll accept that as a clarIficatIon of my
"'ayor Ed:
Is that acceptable to you Ms. Press?
MPI Press:
Yes.
DISCUSSIon was held (Reed).
Mayor Ed:
to propose?
Do you have specIfIc amendments that you want
em Reed: Yep, I can do a whole series of them If you
are ready. I w1ll start by propOS1ng that we amend the second to
the last Whereas clause to read "Whereas unlawful converSIons and
eVIct10ns may occur" and delete the words "are presently
occur1ng".
em Zane:
I'll accept that.
Mayor Ed:
Ms. Press?
That 1S accepted to the maker of the motIon,
HPI Press:
Yes.
Mayor Ed:
That IS accepted.
- 2 -
em Reed: In the second Whereas clause on page 2, where
IS says "Whereas several landlords and developers In the CIty
have construed Santa MonIca Plnes to allow", I belleve that we
should say "may construe" because we don't know what they are
dOIng.
Mayor Ed:
Is that acceptable to you Mr. Zane?
em Zane: I thlnk that what I have heard, there IS fac-
tual basIs for that one, so I would lIke to leave It as It IS.
~ayor Ed: All In favor of the (Interrupted)
Cm Epstein: FIrst of all, why don't I second It for pur-
poses of dIScussIon.
~ayor Ed: It has been moved and seconded, dIscusson?
All In favor say aye.
MotIon falls 3-4 (Epsteln, JennIngs and Reed voted yes)
Cm Reed: I have a problem wIth the last Whereas clause
on page 3, In Whlch It references the orIgInal Intent of the
voters In the adoptIon of the orlginal Rent Control Charter
Amendment, wIth regard to Ilmltlng eVictIons for owner occupancy.
Now correct me If I am wrong, but my ImpressIon is that the lan-
guage In the orIgInal Charter Amendment as adopted by the voters
IS much broader than the regulation WhICh IS adopted by the Rent
Control Board. And In fact there is no language in the orIgInal
charter amendment which lImIts the eVIctIons as strIngently as
the rent control board has lImited them by regulation and so If
- 3 -
we are referenclng the orlglnal lntent of the voters, It seems to
me we are puttlng ourselves In a strange sItuatIon here. Since
we have no knowledge other than the language of the charter
amendment Itself, what the orlg1nal Intent of the voters was.
Mayor Ed:
What IS your proposed amendment?
em Reed:
I would llke to delete that SectIon.
Hayor Ed:
Would you read that Section?
Cm Reed: On page 3, Whereas It 1S proper for the City
CounCIl to adopt curltlve regulatIons lImItIng eVIctions for
owner occupancy as origInally 1ntended by the voters and the
Board.
Cm lane:
The maker of the motion belIeves that the
language here IS, the Whereas IS approprIate, It does say Intend-
ed by the voters and the board.
Hayor Ed:
Is there as second to that amendment?
em Epstein:
I seconded it.
Mayor Ed:
favor say aye.
....any diSCUSSIon on the amendment? All In
MotIon faIled by a 3-4 vote (EpsteIn, JennIngs and Reed voted
yes)
Cm Epstein: On page 4, and I have a real concern about
It, on page 4, startIng on lIne 4 after the word unIt, I would
change the comma to a perIod and delete the language "or the unIt
- 4 -
has been converted pursuant to Article XX of the City Charter".
It IS qUite clear that when there IS a conversion under Article
XX, that there can be no owner occupancy evictions. This might
appear to Indicate an Intent of the CIty Council to somehow get
around that and I believe that the language is unnecessary and
may be confusIng. There was a very f1rm promIse made to the ten-
ants of th1S City, 1f unIts were converted under TORCA, the
bUIlding went TORCA then there would be no more owner occupancy
eVictions, that was an added protectIon and I think we should
make It clear.
Cm Reed:
Second.
Cm Zane: I think that 1S an apt observation, and 1t 1S
also, I thInk the charter language of Article XX of the charter
supercedes th1S language anyway and makes thiS language
unnecessary.
~ayor Ed:
So you accept h1S amendment?
em Zane:
Yes, except that I obJect to "TORCA".
~a1or Ed:
you accept It?
Okay, you accept the mot1on, Ms. Press, do
HPT Press:
Yes.
~ayor Ed:
the main motIon.
Any other amendments? Okay call the roll on
DiSCUSSion was held. (Epstein)
- 5 -
The motIon was approved by a vote of 5-2 (JennIngs and Reed voted
no)
Councllmember Jenn1ngs requested the record reflect that the rea-
son for hIS no vote 1S because he feels thIS ordInance speCIfIes
an evictIon permit WhICh he th1nks IS not allowed In the Berken-
fIeld deCISIon.
Councllmember Reed requested the record to reflect that the rea-
son for her no vote IS because thIS whole matter will be before
the voters In about four weeks and would prefer to walt to see
what they do.
Hayor Ed:
Next Item please. Mr. JennIngs.
Cm Jennings: Is It possible to dIrect our lobbyist to see
If we can get somethIng Introduced ....... ....
City Attorney: I can Just indicate that the subdlvls10n map
act has a procedure for the CIty council to Initiate what 1S know
as a reversion to acreage, If the unit has not been sold after
five years.
BrIef d1ScusS1on was held.
em Jennings: ....1 would like to make a motIon to d1rect
the staff to report on the status of those fInal tract maps that
were granted more than fIve years ago, whether or not the unIts
have been sold and the advisabIlIty of us takIng the necessary
actIon to revoke those fInal tract maps or revert It to acreage.
Mayor Ed:
I'll second that, any dISCUSSIon?
- 6 -
.
em Reed: Can we get a lIst of the addresses of the
places we are talkIng about to please?
~ayor Ed:
Okay.
~it1 Attorney: We are currently working on thIs subJect mat-
ter and can prepare a staff report relatIvely qUIckly.
~ayor Ed:
All In favor of the motIon say aye.
The motIon was approved by unanImous vote.
END OF ITEM
- 7 -