SR-8-A (19)
e
\\ D\ -' onL\
e
~-A
:1AR 1 3 1390
CA:RMM:lld597/hpc
city Council Meeting 3-13-90
Santa Monica, California
, 101 - ooL{
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
city Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code
Sections 4853 and 4856 Relating to Tenant
Relocation Assistance
At its meeting on February 27, 1990, the City Council
directed the city Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Santa
Monica Municipal Code Sections 4853 and 4856 relating to tenant
relocation assistance.
In response to this direction, the
accompanying ordinance has been prepared and is presented to the
city council for its consideration.
The accompanying ordinance amends Santa Monica Municipal
Code sections 4853 and 4856 as follows:
1. A new subsection (b) has been added to Municipal Code
Section 4853, which provides that if a tenant is evicted from
more than one rental housing unit on a property, the tenant is
only entitled to receive a single relocation fee based on the
total number of bedrooms in the rental housing units from which
he or she is being evicted.
2. section 4856 has been modified so that its provisions
apply when either a decision is rendered or a judgment has been
entered.
Therefore, if a decision has been rendered or a
judgment entered in favor of a landlord prior to a tenant's
MI\~ft90
- 1 -
.
.
vacation of a unit, the landlord may withhold from distribution
to the tenant the amount provided for in the decision or
judgment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be introduced for first reading.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney
- 2 -
.
.
CA:RMM:lld596jhpc
City Council Meeting 3-13-90
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS 4853 AND 4856 RELATING TO
TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4853 is
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4853.
Amount of Relocation
Fee. The amount of relocation fee payable
pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter
shall be determined as follows:
(a) The relocation fee shall be
determined according to the size of the
rental housing unit as follows:
Housing Unit Size
Relocation Fee
Bachelor or Single
$3,000.00
One Bedroom
$3,750.00
Two Bedroom
$4,250.00
Three Bedroom
$5,250.00
$5,500.00
Four or More Bedrooms
- 1 -
.
.
(b) If a tenant is evicted from
more than one rental housing unit on a
property, the tenant shall not be entitled
to receive separate relocation fees for
each rental housing unit. The tenant
shall receive a single relocation fee
based on the combined total number of
bedrooms in the rental housing units from
which the tenant is being evicted. If one
of the rental housinq units is a bachelor
or sinqle unit , it shall be counted as a
one bedroom unit for purposes of
determininq the amount of the relocation
fee (e.q., a tenant who is evicted from a
bachelor rental housinq unit and a one
bedroom rental housinq unit would receive
relocation benefits for a two bedroom
unit) .
(c) If the rental housing unit from
which the tenant is being evicted is
furnished, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars
($250.00) shall be deducted from the
amount set forth in subsection (a) of this
section. For purposes of this subsection,
a rental housing unit shall be considered
to be furnished if the landlord has
provided substantial furnishings in each
occupied room of the rental housing unit.
- 2 -
.
.
(d) If one or more of the displaced
tenants is a senior citizen or disabled
person, or is a tenant with whom a minor
child resides, and the displaced tenant(s)
occupied the rental housing unit on or
before the effective date of this Chapter,
an additional One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) shall be added to the amount
set forth in subsection (a) of this
section.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4856 is
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4856.
Tenants.
(a) wi thin two (2) working days of
the written request by the tenant, the
landlord shall deliver written
instructions to the escrow holder to
distribute all or a portion of the
relocation fee to a third party providing
moving or replacement housing to the
tenant. The instructions shall direct the
escrow holder to make the distribution
within three (3) working days of delivery
of the instructions.
(b) within two (2) working days of
the vacation of the rental housing unit,
payment to Displaced
- 3 -
.
.
the landlord shall deliver written
instruction to the escrow holder to
distribute the amount of the remaining
relocation fee to the displaced tenant or
displaced tenants of such rental housing
uni t. The instructions shall direct the
escrow holder to make the distribution
within three (3) working days of delivery
of the instructions.
(c) The entire fee shall be paid to
a tenant who is the only displaced tenant
in a rental housing unit. If a rental
housing unit is occupied by two (2) or
more displaced tenants, the relocation fee
shall be paid to all displaced tenants
jointly. In no event shall a landlord be
liable to pay a total amount more than the
fee required by section 4853 of this
Chapter for one rental housing unit, and
the landlord shall have no responsibility
or liability for disputes between
displaced tenants over allocation of the
relocation fee between such displaced
tenants.
(d) In the event the landlord has
been required to commence a legal action
to recover possession of the rental
housing unit and a decision is rendered or
- 4 -
.
.
~ judgment has been entered in favor of
the landlord prior to the tenant's
vacation of the unit, the landlord may
instruct the escrow holder to withhold
from distribution to the displaced tenant
or displaced tenants of such rental
housing units any unsatisfied monetary
award provided in such decision or
iudqment in favor of the landlord. Upon
the judgment becoming final, the City
shall authorize the escrow holder to
return to the landlord the amount
withheld. If no decision has been
rendered or no i udqment has been entered
for a monetary award in favor of the
landlord prior to the tenant's vacation of
the unit, the landlord must authorize the
distribution of the entire relocation fee
in accordance with Section 4856.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
- 5 -
.
.
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The city Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within l5 days after its adoption. This ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~''-''lJ
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
-
- 6 -
e
~ \ 1) 1-- 00 t\
e
I'\C D TO
a-A
J'" 1 I) -
Lisa Monk
TENF~TS' AID PROJECT
722 Hill Street
Anartment C
Santa Monica, CA 90405
June 9, 1986
The Honorable City Council
Santa Monica City Ball
168S Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Counci1members:
The Tenants' Aid Project is a currently-coalescing gro~? of
Santa Monica citizens concerned generally wit~ providing aid to
tenants in need of assistance. In this capacity we ~espectf~lly
subIT~t this letter regarding the propective Tena~t Relocatio~
Assistance Ordinance.
We are wholly supportive of the irrmediate adoption or s~c~
an ordinance and generally supportive of t~e draft ordinance
prepared by the City Attorney for the Council's consldera~ion
on J~ne 10. We respectfully req~est adoption of the ord~nance
at first reading with several ITodifications, sUIT~ar~zed as
':02.10'.":5 :
SQ~~A~~ O? ~A? P~OPOSAL
1
....
A flat base relocation fee of $6,000.00 irrespective of
unit size or duration of tenancy, or, in the alternative, _
flat base relocation fee of $5,000.00 with additio~al
increme~ts for long-term tenants in the amount of five
percent of ~he base for each yea~ of ter.ancy over five
years;
2.
Expansion of the hardship fee class to include any sen~ors
or disabled people who may move to Santa Monica in the~J) ,-c)
8-A
/ f '
- 1
/i. Z fc;)
lilj / Jt:--I. -..-.c~, -...:.j
{~:q d~J (IJ
Jill D lH6
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
JU:1e 9, 1986
page 2
future as well as families with
currently residing in the City,
to be fifty percent of the base
a flat $1,000.00;
. , t . 'ld
aepenaer. cn~ re:1
with their additional fee
relocation
.c"",,,,,,
.L~~
rat::ter than
3. Establish~ent of a p~ogram in which the City proviQes
loans to tenants (secured by funds in ~heir relocation fee
escrow accounts) in advance of their moving dates, so that
needy tenants will have the ability to secure new aCCOIT~O-
dations prior to departing from their current units;
4. Transformation of the comparability list for the in-lieu
?hysical relocation provisions into a non-exclusive lis~
which also includes comparability of building cond~tions,
unit improvements, furnishings, pet permissibility, a:1d
proximity to grocery stores; and
~. Inclusion of a provision making landlord =ail~re to release
relocation money from escrow ~n a timely fashion to
departed tenants a civilly actionable offense.
SOCISTAL NEED FOR A RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ORD!NANCE
Oral testimony at the June ~O public hearing will es~abl~sh
clearly that, in the absence of some sort of relocatio~ ass~s-
tance p~ogram, many Santa Monica tenants may ex?erience pro-
tracted periods of homelessness and endure other severe ha~d-
s~~ps as the result of evic~ions which are th~ough no fau~t of
their own and over which they have no control. This estab-
lis~es a clear and compelling need as well as a rational hasis
for ITunicipal legislation to pro~ect these members of oJr
c:.tizenry.
The impending effective da~e of the Ellis Act~ wi~h its
concomi~ant potential to prolifera~e ~he n~rrber of no-fault
evic~ions, demonstrates the situational urgency w~ich requires
iITmediate Council action. For this reason as well as o~hers it
e
e
Santa Monica City Cou~cil
June 9, 1986
page 3
is inperative that the Council co~me~ce adoption of an
ordinance in some form at the conclusion of Tuesday night's
public hearing.
It will no doubt be suggested by some that the Ellis Ac~ is
preclusive of the City's ability to adopt requlations in t~e
form suggested by the City Attorney's office and in this
letter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Sllis Act
provisions in fact not only fail to state explici~ly such a
proscription but also expressly reserve to local governme~tal
entities general authority over land use as well as all powe~s
that t~ey possess independently which are not specifically
di~inished by the Act [$~~ CAL. GOV? CODE ~7060.7(~) a~d (4)J.
The power to ordain relocation assistance programs ~as
already been asserted by a number of California municipalities,
including several neighboring ones, as outlined in the City
Attorney staff report. Even more significantly, the need for
such programs are already recognized by Doth the federal
government and the state, the la~ter of which is, a=ter all, tee
purveyor of the Ellis legislation [see 42 D.S.C. 54601 et seq.
and CAL. GO\~. CODE ~7260 et seq.].
The City Council not only may act,
it ITl"'2.st
~ ~+-
c.=........_ .
DISCUSSION OF TAP ?RO?OSAL Ca~ONEN~S
De~ails of the modifications to the City Attorney's draft
ordinance being suggested by the Tenants' Aid ?roject, along
with accompanying discussion, follow:
1. BASE RSLOCATIO~ FEE ~~~OUNT
We submit here two alternatives for the Council's
consideration--a flat amount in the su~ of 86,000.00
irrespective of unit size or duration of tenancy, or a base
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
Ju~e 9, 1986
page 4
amount of $5,000.00 to be aUgT.8nted by five percent for every
year of tenancy experienced by a =enter beyond five yea~s.
If, as suggested on page 11 of the staff re?o~t, a relQ-
cation fee is to represent both movi~g costs and tne cost of
acquiring housing comparable to that presently occupied by ~he
tenant, then the $4,000.00 sum proposed by the City Atto~~ey is
way too low, and for that matter, e~ther of the amounts being
suggested by TAP are demonstrably insufficient--simply deter~~ne
the difference be~ween the ave~age Santa Monica con~rolled ~e~t
of $425.00 and the average West Los Angeles price for co~pa~able
shelter and multiply by 48, the nurrber of months in the tine
period of subsidy under federal law following displacement [~2
D.S.C. 54624(1)J, to get an idea of the financ~a~ impac~ to an
evicted Santa Monica tenant, without even conside~ing actual
moving expenses!
Recognizing, however, that a legally susceptible ~elosation
ordinance will be of no value to many needy Santa Monica tenan~s
if enjoined, even temporarily, by litigation, the Tenants' Aid
Project models our suggested amounts after those suggested Dy
existing state law. Either of our sugges~ed base relocation
amount figures ($6,000.00 or $5,000.00) bear a di~ect reiation-
ship to the $4,000.00 plus actual moving expenses established
by CAL. GOVT. CODE 55 7262 & 7264.
It appears manifest that people being involun~arily reffiove~
from a home of fifteen years a~e likely to suffer conslQe~aDly
wo=e trauma and mental anguish than those being evicted fo~-
lowing a tenancy of short standing. While it is naturaily
impossible ~o quantify this in any mathematically or economi-
cally precise fashion, we feel that the suggestion offered near
the bottom of page 13 of the staff repo~t is a good one ana
hence offer it as an option ~o the Council in tandem wi~h the
$5,000.00 base relocation fee =l~Jre.
It
e
Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 1986
page 5
The two suggested methodologies appearing earlier on staff
report page 13 a~e entirely unacceptable, as either provides a
paltry amount to eviction victims whose tenancies were of short
duration. There is no reason to believe that eviction for a
twelve-month tenant is any less of a hardship, either economi-
cally or mentally, than eviction for a twenty-fivE-month tena~t:
If any~hing, one would suspect that, due to the sheer
frustration of continual relocation, eviction would be consid-
erably more traumatic for a tenant who had only taken possessio~
of his apartment one month earlier ~han for one who had been
settled in for two years. (Such cases are not entirely unheard
of, by tne way; a similar situation was confronted in a case
before ~he Rent Control Board only last May 22.)
TAP agrees with the analysis of the City Attorney1s office
that no purpose is seyved by arDitra~ily distinguishi~g relo-
cation fees in accordance with the size of :he u~it fro~ w~ich
a tenant is being evicted. Should the Council choose to p~oceeci
in this fashion, however, we would point out that the amounts
suggested in the methodology appearing in the middle of page 12
of the staff repo~t a~e woefully inadequate. Again, if the
purpose of the relocation fee is to compensate tenants fo= the
costs of moving and the additional costs of comparable replace-
ment housing, a better approach would be to assign a relocatio~
fee of $5,000.00 for a Bachelor or Single apartment and to
adjust the figures for Single- and Multi-Bedroom apartments
p=oportionally u9wa~d.
Suggested language for the two options supported by TAP aTe
as follows:
OPTION 1 (for Section 4853)
(a)
Fc<.:i:i:'
Six Thousand Dollars
(~~,C8C.8C) ($6,OOO.OO) for each rental
housing unit froM which any tenant is
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 1986
page 6
displaced for any of the reasons set fort~
in Section 4851.
OPTION 2 (for Sectio~ 4853)
( a ) F .:;.:: ::- Five Thou s an d D 0 11 a r s
{Su1,C8G.CC} ($5,000.00) for each ~er..tal
housing unit from which any tenant is
displaced for any of the reasons set fo~th
in Section 4851. In additionr fer each
year of tenancy beyond five (5) years,
a displaced tenant shall be entitled
to an additional five percent (5%) of
the base relocation fee.
2. E~RDSRIP FSS p~OUNT
P~y doubts that seniors and the disabled are much more
severely t~aumatized, both emotionally and in real econorr-ic
terns, than most other classes of tenants will be dispelled at
the public hearing and need not be dealt with here. As such,
~~ese people will require relocation assistance fees well above
and beyond those of ~he average citize~, in excess of the
$1,000.00 differential proposed in the draft regulations. For
this reason TAP suggests that the base relocation fee be aug-
mented in hardship cases not by a flat $1,000.00 but ir:stead by
fifty percent.
Much discussion has centered around whether such a pol~cy
would have the undesirable and unintended effect of dlscourag~ng
Santa Monica landlords f~om renting to seniors and the disabled,
thereby hurting the very people whom we are trying to help. It
is TAP's belief, based upon conversations with several promi~en~
merrbers of the landlord industry, Lhat ~his will not in fact be
the case--that those landlords presently renting to seniors and
the disabled will continue to do so and those landlords cu~-
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 1986
page 7
rently discriminating against seniors and the disabled will also
continue to do so. Therefore, we suggest that this additio~al
fifty percent hardship assistance apply both to current and
future Santa Monica residents.
Sven if th~ Cou~cil disagrees ~ith our analvsis aDd =inds
the conce~n of disincentive to re~t to $enior$ ?nq the disabled
DaraT-ount~ under no circuMstances shou~d it consider tne OPt~on
of totallv denvinq additional benefits to me~bers of these
severely i~pacted groups.
It is highly important that the Council recognize o~e
additional hardship class in enacting the Relocation Assistance
Ordinance, namely, families with dependent children. There is
so much ongoing discrimination against young fa~il~es, both
locally (even with our newly-adopted anti-child-ciiscr~rrination
ordinance) and in neighboring co~~unities, that fa~~l~es with
mino~ children may find it extremely difficult if not irrpossible
to locate any residential accoITmoda~ions following a no-=aul~
eviction. For these and other reasons we suggest ~hat faffillies
w~th dependent children whose tenancies predate the effective
date of the ordinance also receive an additional fifty pe~cent
above and beyond the base relocation fee.
Please obse~ve that there is one possible loop~o~e arisi~g
from this situation when taken in tandem with the ?hysical
Relocation in Lieu of Fee Section, albeit one which hopefully
would not likely occur with substantial frequency. It waule be
possible for a landlord owning multiple prope~ties in the City
to relocate a no-fault evicted family into a compa~able unit
elsewhere, thereby sparing himself of the hardship fee (since
he would only be required to pay actual moving expenses under
these circumstances) but simultaneously crea~~ng an occ~?ancy
which di9 not predate the effec~ive da~e of the ordlna~ce. Sucn
a landlord could then evict the family iR~ediately from ~he new
unit and have no responsibility for the hardship portion of the
e
e
Santa Morica City Council
June 9, 1986
page 8
relocation assistance fee (this scenario could conceivably
arise if a landlord with nultiple properties decided to close
them all down sequentially via Ellis). To plug this loophole
TAP suggests that any family which has already undergone a no-
fault eviction subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance
be a~to~atically entitled to the ha~dship fee at the time of a
later no-fault eviction.
To implement the above suggestions, a definition for
"Farrily with Dependent Hiner Children" would have to be added to
Section 4850, and language added to 4853(c) along the following
lines:
(c) If one or more of the displaced
tenants is a senior citizen or disabled
person, or if the rental housing unit
contains a family with dependent minor
children any member of which ~
occupied the rental housing unit on or
before the effective date of this Chapter
or any member of which was displaced
from a rental housing unit for any of
the reasons set forth in Section 4851
subsequent to the effective date of
h . Ch t d~ ~ t- . 1 C..'" (' ('\ r n [',
t ~s ap er, an a .......L~lOna -~~.-v~..... v.....
fifty percent (50%) shall be added to the
amount set forth in subdivision (a) of this
Section.
3. CIT~-ADMINISTERED LOAN PROG~~~
In the nost-Ellis era it seems likely that a dispropo~-
~ionately high nUIT~er of Santa Monica tenants undergoing no-
=aul~ evictions will be low-income and/or have little in the
way of liquid savings. Unless a way is found to Drovide these
?~ople with some po~tion o~ their relocation assistance fee at
e
Santa Monica City Council
Ju~e 9, 1986
page 9
e
SQ~e ti~~ signific?ntly D~ior to t~eir date of ecTiction, they
will not have the resources to make a first mo~~hls rent
P?y~ent and security deposit on a new anartment, much less h~re
Q novinq service to transport thei~ b~lo~ginqs. meaning that
they will loin the ranks of the hOFeless and 90tentially lose
so~e of their worldlv possessions.
The City Council must take whatever s~eps are necessary to
ffiaKe sure that this is not the case.
The Tenantsf Aid Project suggests a program to be adminis-
tered by the Department of Co~~uni~y and Economic Developrrent i~
which tenants can apply for City loans after securing them w~th
the corresponding portion of monies in the relocation ~ee esc~ow
account. These loans must be made available in amounts of
sufficient size and on a schedule of sufficient timeliness ~o
enable tenants to secure new accorrmodations and to hire moving
services prior to losing possessio~ of their units. After a
tenant vacates the former unit, the City will be able to
recover the money owed it from the escrow account prior to the
balance of that money being dispensed to the tenant.
This is one o~ the most i~porta~t asnects of the ~A?
p~opcsal, and its i~oortance ca~not be u~de~sti~ated.
Although we propose no specific language here, we would
like to see this idea incorporated in some fashion into the
Tenan~ Relocation Assistance Ordi~ance at the ea~liest posslble
oP?ortunity. If the Council is unable to formulate the prograrr
suf=iciently for the purposes of adoption following Tuesdayfs
public hearing, TAP respectfully suggests that the Council ado?t
the balance of the program (since time is ut~erly essenLial, as
outlined earlier) and direct City staff to come back with a
specific loan program proposal for consideration at the next
Council meeting.
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 1986
page 10
4. PEYSICAL RS~OCATION IN LIEU OF FSE
This is one of the most important features of the draft
ordinance. TAP both supports it wholeheartedly and hopes that,
as no-fault evictions arise, landlords will take advantage or
the provisions of Section 4857 to assist their tenants in
finding comparable replacement livi~g quarters (rather than pay
the monetary fees).
To ensure that tenants are not coerced by the loss of their
relocation assistance fees into accepting new accommodations
which are not genuinely comparable, we suggest a few minor bu~
highly significant additions to the comparability list
appearing in Section 4857(a) on page 9 of the d~aft ordinance.
The new unit, for obvious reasons, should be analogous to the
existing unit with respect to furnishings, improvements,
building condition, pet permissibility, and proximity to grocery
stores.
Additionally, since there may be other important aspects of
comparability which the Council may inadvertently fail to
consider when adopting the ordinance, we suggest that the list
be made non-exclusive, possibly by the use or the following
language ~o be contained in Section 4857(a) as i~s las~
sentence:
For purposes of this Sec~ion, a =eplacement
unit shall be comparable to the existing
unit if both units are comparable in all
aspects including, but not limited to,
size, price, location, building
condition, improvements, furnishings,
pet permissibility, proximity to medical
and recreational facilities, parks,
community centers, shops, grocery stores,
transportation, schools, churches and
synagogues, amenities, and if the tenant
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 1986
page 11
desires, location of the rental unit in the
City of Santa Monica.
5. TENANT REMBDY FO~ NON-DIST~IBU~ION OF RELOCATIO~ FEE
One major defect of the draft ordinance is that it pe~mits
no remedy to the tenant should the landlord fail to dis~erse the
escrowed relocation fee to him in a tiMely fashion aftec- he
vacates, or, for that matter, at all. Obviously the whole
program does a tenant little good if a landlord should deposit
a relocation fee into an escrow account and then never release
it from escrow after the tenant vacates the existing unit.
The simplest way to cure this defect is con~ained ~n ou~
flnal recommendation, which is for a draft language revision to
Section 4858, as follows:
(b) Any landlord who fails to p~ovide
monetary relocation assistance as required
by Sections 4853,~::d- 4854 and 4856 of
this Chapter shall be liable in a civil
action to the tenant to whom such assistance
is due for damages in the amount of the
relocation fee the landlord has failed to
pay, a civil penalty in the amount of
$500.00, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs as determined by the court.
CONCLUSION AND RECO~NDATION
The Tenants' Aid Project respectfully regues~s that tne
City Council adopt the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ord~nance at
first reading Tuesday night with the foregoing modifications to
the la~guage of the draft ordinance.
If the Council is unable to formulate a loan payment
program as suggested above in time for adoption on Tuesday
e
e
Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 1986
page 12
night, TAP respectfully suggests that it adopt the balance of
the ordinance at first reading and instruct City staff to
prepare a program along those lines in time for Council action
at the next Council meeting.
Sincerely,
/--..........r , "" )
C/i ~~-,<..--
?m~~
Lisa Monk
TENANTS I AID PROJECT