Loading...
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 -