SR-8-D (6)
t
A
\ \D \ - OCl\
J:-o
APR 2 2 1986
califo;AP.tlO 1986
e
CA:RMM:lld080/hpc
City Council Meeting
..
e
4-22-86
Santa Monica,
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance Enabling the Rent Control Board to
Adopt Regulations to Implement Tenant Protections
Necessitated by and Authorized in the Ellis Act
and Recommendation Regarding Ordinance Enabling the
Rent Control Board to Adopt Relocation Assistance
Programs
At its meeting on January 14, 1986, the city council
directed the city Attorney to draft an ordinance enabling the
Rent Control Board to adopt regulations to implement the tenant
protections necessitated by and authorized in the Ellis Act.
(The Ellis Act, California Government Code section 7060 et seq.,
becomes effective July 1, 1986.) In addition, the City Council
directed the City Attorney to address the legality of City
Council delegation of authority to the Rent Control Board to
develop a relocation assistance program for tenants who are
evicted or otherwise displaced through no fault of their own.
I. Necessity for Ordinance Enabling the Rent Control Board
to Adopt Regulations Implementing the Ellis Act.
The Ellis Act provides in relevant part:
./
The action authorized by sections 7060.2
and 7060.4 may be taken by regulation
adopted after public notice and hearing by
- 1 -
?-D
,,~ ~ ~ '{In~
l\?R 3 0 '9aG
.~
..
e e
a public body of a public entity, if the
members of the body have been elected by
the voters of the publ ic entity .
(Government Code Section 7060.5.)
Al though Section 7060. 5 appears to confer authority upon
the Santa Monica Rent Control Board to promulgate regulations, it
is necessary to determine whether the city Charter permits the
Rent Control Board to promulgate regulations in this area.
The organization of charter cities is at the core of "home
rule" powers. Matters involving the allocation of powers within
municipal government are undoubtedly "municipal affairs" and
therefore are not subj ect to override by general state law.
California constitution, Article XI, Section 5. Notwithstanding
the language of the Ellis Act set forth above, the Rent Control
Board may only exercise those powers conferred by City Charter or
lawfully delegated by an ordinance of the city council.
City Charter section 400 delineates the powers of the City:
The City shall have the power to make and
enforce all
laws and regulations in
respect to municipal affairs, sub;ect only
to such restrictions and limitations as
may be provided in this Charter and in the
Constitution of the state of California.
It shall also have the power to exercise
any and all rights, powers and privileges
heretofore
established,
or
hereafter
granted or prescribed by any law of the
state, by this Charter, or by other lawful
- 2 -
.
...
e
authority,
a
e
municipal
which
or
corporation might or could exercise under
the
Constitution
of
the
state
of
California.
(Emphasis added.)
The Rent Control Board I s powers are set forth in Article
XVIII of the City Charter. Section l803(g) provides:
(g)
Rules and Requlations.
The
Board shall issue and follow such rules
and regulations, including those which are
contained in this Article, as will further
the purposes of this Article .
In addition, city Charter section 1802 provides that the
Rent Control Board "shall exercise its powers and duties under
this Article independent of and without interference from the
City council, City Manager, and City Attorney."
Specifically,
section 1802(e) provides:
(e) Conforminq Requlations. If any
portion of this Article is declared
invalid or unenforceable by decision of a
court
jurisdiction
or
of
competent
rendered invalid or unenforceable by state
or Federal legislation, the Board and not
the City council shall have authority to
enact replacement regulations consistent
with the intent and purpose of the
invalidated provisions and applicable law.
Such
replacement
regulations
shall
supersede invalidated or unenforceable
- 3 -
.
...
e e
provisions of this Article to the extent
necessary to resolve any inconsistency.
The subject matter of such replacement
regulations shall be limited to rent
control matters as enumerated in this
Article.
The first sentence in this provision appears to confer the
requisi te authori ty on the Rent Control Board to adopt
regulations providing Ellis Act protections, since the Ellis Act
represents state legislation which, if itself valid, renders
provisions of the Rent Control Law unenforceable.
In fact,
Section 1802 (e) would appear to preclude the city Council from
enacting the necessary regulations in favor of the Rent Control
Board.
Based upon this analysis, it is the city Attorney's opinion
that the city Charter already grants the Rent Control Board the
authority
regulations
implementing
Ellis
to
adopt
Act
protections. However, some landlords might assert that Ellis Act
protections go beyond rent control matters and that the Rent
Control Board lacks authority to fully promulgate regulations.
Accordingly, the accompanying ordinance has been prepared for
city council consideration in order to dispel any doubt
concerning Rent Control Board authority.
Concern has apparently been raised about the Rent Control
Board's ability to fulfill the requirement placed on it in the
Ellis Act to submit its regulations to referendum by the voters
if necessary signatures are obtained.
Government Code Section
7060.5.
This concern is unfounded.
Government Code Section
- 4 -
'f
.
e e
7060.5 itself both acknowledges and remedies the problem by its
very terms:
The regulation shall be
subj ect to referendum in the manner
prescribed by law for the ordinances of
the legislative body of the public entity
except that:
(a) The decision to repeal the
regulation or to submit it to the voters
shall be made by the publ ic body which
adopted the regulation.
(b) The regulation shall become
effective upon adoption by the public body
of the publ ic entity and shall remain in
effect until a majority of the voters
voting on the issue vote against the
regulation, notwithstandinq section 4050,
4051, or 4055 of the Elections Code or any
other law.
(Emphasis added.)
Elections Code Section 4050 et seq., the provisions of
state law governing the referendum process, address "ordinances"
only and not "regulations," and speak only of the "legislative
body" or the nCity council" and not of a "public bodyn of a
"public entity."
City Charter Section 1404 provides that any
initiative, referendum, or recall election shall be governed by
the Elections Code of the state of California, unless otherwise
provided by ordinance. Thus, pursuant to the city Charter, these
state law provisions must be followed by the City.
- 5 -
..
..
It -
The authors of the Ellis Act addressed the inability of the
Rent Control Board, under existing state law, to subject its
regulations to referendum by adding the provisions underlined
above.
Those provisions specifically empower the Board (the
"public body" of the public entity as opposed to the "legislative
body") to utilize the same referendum mechanism for regulations
which the Elections Code establishes as applicable to ordinances.
Government Code Section 7060.5 functions, in effect, as an
amendment to the Elections Code provisions on referenda for the
limited purpose of adoption of regulations implementing the
protections authorized in the Ellis Act.
II. Relocation Benefits.
Nothing in the Ellis Act limits the authority of the City
to adopt a reloca tion ordinance.
Thus, the city Council may
adopt a relocation ordinance.
In addition, as discussed below,
the city Council may adopt an ordinance authorizing the Rent
Control Board to promulgate relocation regulations.
Historically,
the principles involving delegation of
legislative power have evolved so as to allow greater and greater
legislative delegation.
Among the leading justifications for
placing restrictions on legislative delegation are: (1) that the
fundamental policy decisions in our society should be made by
bodies which are immediately accountable to the people (i.e., an
elected body); and (2) that judicial review should be guided by
some measure against an official action that has been challenged
can be judged.
- 6 -
.
e
e
On the other hand, in an increasingly complex society,
where expertise and effort cannot be concentrated in one
legislative body, it is increasingly recognized at all levels of
government that delegation is a necessary and productive reality.
The U . S .
congress,
the california Legislature, and local
legislative bodies may and do lawfully delegate legislative
power, in accordance with standards established by case law.
The United states Supreme Court has sustained delegation
after delegation in recent decades, under the principle that
delegation was lawful so long as it was accompanied by a
sufficient "standard."
In some of the delegation cases, the
Supreme Court held that terms such as "just and reasonable,"
"public interest," "public convenience, interest or necessity"
constituted adequate expressions of a "standard."
There have
been only two Supreme Court decisions invalidating congressional
delegations
to
governmental
authorities.
See K.
Davis,
Administrative Law, Cases-Test-Problems 29 (1973).
The United states Supreme Court has said with regard to
delegation:
If congress shall lay down by legislative
act an intelligible principle to which the
person or body authorized to fix such
rates
is directed
to
conform,
such
legislative actions is not a forbidden
delegation of legislative power.
J.W.
Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276
U.S. 394, 409 (1928) (emphasis added).
- 7 -
.
e
e
The "intelligible principle" standard has at other times given
way to a requirement that Congress legislate in an area lias far
as is reasonably practicable."
In American Truckinq Associations v. United states, 344
U.S. 298 (l953), the United states Supreme Court upheld a set of
rules adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICe")
drastically changing motor carrier practices in the leasing of
equipment.
The Motor Carrier Act, pursuant to which the Ice
claimed to act, did not provide for the problem except by a broad
grant of power to the Ice.
The Court neither required a
standard, a general pOlicy, nor an intelligible principle; it
sustained the rules pursuant to a provision granting the Ice
power to "administer, execute, and enforce all provisions of this
part, to make all necessary orders in connection therewith, and
to prescribe rules,
regulations,
and procedure for such
administration. 11
In united States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157
(1968), the United states Supreme Court upheld the FCC's
regulation of cable television (CATV), which did not even exist
when the Communications Act of 1934 creating the Fce and setting
forth its powers was enacted.
The Court said that the FCC I s
authori ty to regulate was "restricted to that reasonably
ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's
various
responsibilities
for
regulation
of
television
broadcasting. The Court held that the FCC, for these purposes,
might issue "such rules and regulations and prescribe such
restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, If as
- 8 -
.
e
-
"public convenience, interest, or necessity requires." 47 U.S.C.
Section 303(r).
The state courts have been generally stricter than federal
courts in applying the "non-delegation doctrine,1I striking down a
number of legislative delegations. See K. Davis, Administrative
Law Cases-Text-Problems 27 (l973). The state courts have struck
down a large number of legislative delegations. The state courts
have generally employed a requirement of "meaningful standards"
in order to sustain a delegation of legislative power to an
administrative agency. The same general doctrine applies in the
area of delegation of legislative powers of a city.
The leading California case in this area, Ru~ler v. Yocum,
69 Cal.2d 371, 445 P.2d 303, 71 Cal. Rptr. 687 (1968), states the
principle that Itlegislative power may properly be delegated if
channeled by a sufficient standard. II In upholding an ordinance
providing that salaries of city firemen be no less than the
average of those of an adj oining larger city and county, the
California Supreme Court sets forth the doctrine as follows:
Generally speaking,
attainment of the
ends, including how and by what means they
are to be achieved, may constitutionally
be left in the hands of others. The
Legislature may, after declaring a policy
and fixing a primary standard, confer upon
executive or administrative officers the
"power to fill up the details" by
prescribing
administrative
rules
and
regulations to promote the purposes of the
- 9 -
,-
e
legislation
and
to
carry
e
it into
effect .
"
Id. at 376, 445 P.2d at
. . .
306, 7l Cal. Rptr. at 690, citing First
Industrial Loan Co. v. Daugherty, 26 Cal.
2d 545, 549, 159 P.2d 921, 923 (1945).
In explaining what has been referred to as the
"non-delegation doctrine," the court further states that "[t]his
doctrine rests upon the premise that the legislative body must
itself effectively resolve the truly fundamental issues. II 69
Cal. 2d at 376, 445 P.2d at 306, 71 Cal. Rptr. at 690. It cannot
escape responsibility by explicitly delegating that function to
others or by failing to establish "adequate safeguards" against
arbitrary action, Le., an effective mechanism to assure the
proper implementation of its policy decisions.
The same principles have been expressed in other California
cases.
In Nelson v. Dean, 27 Cal. 2d 873, 168 P.2d 16 (1946),
for example, the california Supreme Court held that state
Personnel Board rules regarding employee sick leave represented a
valid legislative delegation under the theory that the Board was
merely "filling up the details" of a legislatively prescribed
policy.
In Community Redevelopment Agency of the city of Los
Angeles v. Goldman, 61 Cal. 2d 21, 389 P.2d 538, 37 Cal. Rptr. 79
(1964), affirming the validity of the redevelopment plan adopted
by the city's redevelopment agency, the California Supreme Court
rejected an unlawful delegation argument reiterating the
principle that "[t] he legislature may, after declaring a policy
and fixing a primary standard, confer upon executive or
- 10 -
...
e
e
administrative officers the 'power to fill up the details I by
prescribing administrative rules and regulations to promote the
purposes of the legislation and to carry it into effect
"
61 Cal. 2d at 62, 389 P.2d at 564, 37 Cal. Rptr. at 100.
The Court in Birkenfeld v. ci tv of Berkelev. 17 Cal. 3d
l29, 550 P.2d 1001, 130 Cal. Rptr. 465 (1976), addressed the
issue of delegation of legislative authority of the city'S Rent
Control Board, pointing out that standards sufficient for
administrative application of a statute can be implied by the
statutory purpose. In Birkenfeld, the California Supreme Court
found that the statement of purpose along with a nonexclusive
list
of
relevant
factors
to
be
considered,
provided
constitutionally sufficient legislative guidance to the Board for
its determinations of rent adjustment petitions.
It, however I
found that while the policy and primary standards test had been
met, the Kugler court's requirement of "safeguards" that protect
against unfairness or arbitrariness did not exist because no
mechanisms were provided to protect against unreasonable delays
in obtaining Rent Control Board approval of rent increases.
In a recent case involving legiSlative delegation to
private organizations, wilkinson v. Madera Community Hospital,
l44 Cal. App. 3d 436, 192 Cal. Rptr. 593 (1983), the Court of
Appeal upheld a state statute authorizing health facilities to
require professional liability insurance as a condition of being
on the medical staff.
Pursuant to rules promulgated by the
hospital in question, a doctor was refused appointment to the
medical staff. In upholding the statute, the court stated that
once the Legislature has established the law, it may delegate the
- 11 -
."
authori ty to
e
administer or
apply the
e
law, provided that the
delegation is accompanied by "adequate safeguards" against
arbitrary action.
In summary, while case law is inconsistent, and in certain
situations the standard is arguably even more vague and lenient,
legislative delegation may safely be made where the legislature
establishes fundamental policy in the area being delegated and
where adequate safeguards are provided against arbitrary action.
Should the Council decide to authorize the Rent Control Board to
develop a relocation assistance program for certain evicted
tenants, the enabling ordinance should contain fundamental policy
guidelines and provide adequate safeguards against arbitrary
action.
III. Tvpes of Relocation Assistance.
Concerns have been raised by the City Council regarding the
need for relocation assistance in certain eviction situations,
whether provided by Ordinance or by Rent Control
Board
Regulations, or both. Concerns expressed thus far fall into four
principal areas, each of which involve eviction where the tenant
is not at fault. Those areas include tenant evictions:
l. Pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act, i. e. ,
discontinuance of rental of units.
2. Pursuant to Section 1806(h) of the Rent Control Law,
i.e., for owner or relative occupancy.
3. Pursuant to the granting of a removal permit pursuant
to Section 1803(t) of the Rent Control Law and
Chapter 5 of the Rent Control Regulations.
- l2 -
."
e
e
4. Pursuant to landlord necessity to substantially
rehabilitate a building in order to comply with
building, housing,
and health and safety code
violations.
Interest has also been expressed in providing special
assistance for seniors or disabled tenants who are evicted in one
of the above circumstances.
Addi tionally, a concern has been
expressed that tenants who have borne the cost of recent
significant improvements to a unit, and are subsequently evicted
pursuant to one of the above reasons, should be compensated for
their expenditures in some way.
Guidance in resolving these concerns can be obtained by
exploring relocation programs in other cities.
A. Beverly Hills.
In Beverly Hills, one cf the provisions of the Rent
stabilization ordinance provides that eligible tenants who are
evicted for owner-occupancy, or as a result of demolition,
substantial remodeling
requiring vacation
of a
unit or
condominium conversion are entitled to relocation benefits.
Benefits are determined according to the size of the unit:
1 + Bedroom
$1500
$1750
$2500
Bachelor
Single
A tenant who has lived in the unit for 2-1/2 years or
longer prior to receiving a notice to vacate is entitled to
receive full benefits.
A tenant who has lived in the unit for
less than 2-l/2 years, but for more than 1 year, prior to
receiving a notice is entitled to receive one-half the amount of
- 13 -
,"
e
the above benefits.
e
There is no condition that an eligible
tenant be elderly or handicapped.
ordinance No. 82-0-l876,
Chapter 6, Sec. 11-6.0l.
B. Carson.
In furtherance of the purposes of its Mobilehome Act
Control Ordinance, Carson adopted an ordinance on September 20,
1985, which requires that an owner wishing to convert a
mobilehome park to another use must file a Relocation Impact
Report.
Based on this Report, relocation benefits are to be
determined on a case-by-case basis. In the only instance where
this Ordinance has been relied on thus far, coach owners received
payments which included complete costs of moving a coach to a new
site within lOO miles plus $600 in relocation benefits or a cash
payment of $1000 plus $100 for each year of residence in the
park. ordinance No. 82-618.
C. Cotati.
In the City of Cotati, the Land Use Ordinance provides that
the Planning Commission may require relocation assistance where
developments cause displacement. The language is permissive and
not mandatory. cotati Municipal Code section 17.30.070(L).
D. Los Angeles.
Pursuant
to
amendments
to
the
Los
Angeles
Rent
stabilization Ordinance effective February lO, 1986, tenants who
are
evicted
for
owner-occupancy,
demolition,
substantial
rehabilitation ($10,000 per unit), or due to permanent removal of
rental housing from the market are entitled to receive relocation
benefits.
- 14 -
Los
e
Angeles
e
divides
tenants
into
two
categories:
"qualified tenants" and "eligible tenants."
Qualified tenants
are tenants who are either over 62 years of age, handicapped,
and/or have 1 or more dependent minor children. Eligible tenants
are all other tenants. Qualified tenants are entitled to $2500
in relocation benefits per unit; eligible tenants are entitled to
$1000 per unit.
Ordinance No. 160791 amending Los Angeles
Municipal Code section 151.09.
E. San Francisco.
San Francisco's Rent Stabilization Ordinance does not
provide for relocation assistance.
San Francisco has a
Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RAP) pursuant to which it
provides loan assistance to owners whose buildings are in need of
substantial rehabilitation.
Where owners participating in the
RAP evict persons for rehabilitation purposes, payment of
relocation benefits are required.
San Francisco Administrative
Code, Chapter 32, Article IX, Sec. 32.90.
- 15 -
e
F. Washinqton, D.C.
e
As part of its rent control system, washington, D.C.
provides for relocation assistance when tenants are displaced due
to a landlord's demolition, substantial rehabilitation, or
discontinuing to rent.
The amount of payment is determined
according to a formula as follows:
$l50 for each room in a
rental unit which is 60 feet or larger, not including bathrooms,
balconies, closets, pantries, kitchens, hallways, utility rooms;
and $75 for each pantry, kitchen, storage area, and utility room
that exceeds 60 feet. Rental Housing Act of 1985, D.C. Law 6-10,
Title VII, sections 701-705.
G. West Hollywood.
As part of its Rent Stabilization Ordinance, West Hollywood
provides for relocation assistance to tenants where evictions for
owner-occupancy occur and where foreclosure occurs as to a single
family home or condominium.
As in Beverly Hills, relocation
benefits are determined according to size of the unit:
Bachelor Apartment
$1500
$1750
$2500
One Bedroom Apartment
Two or More Bedrooms
senior Citizen or Handicapped
Tenant
$3000
Condo Unit Resulting from
Conversion in which Tenant Resided
Prior to Conversion
# of yrs of tenancy
X current rent or
relevant amount
according to size,
whichever is greater
West Hollywood Municipal Code Sections 64l2A.12 and 6412A.l4.
- 16 -
."
e
e
Relocation assistance provisions also commonly include such
things as:
1. Requirements regarding when benef its become due and
payable.
2. Requirements that fees may not be waived.
3. Requirements that landlords provide tenants with a
list of available units within a certain radius of
the property.
4.
Requirements
that
landlords
help
elderly
or
handicapped tenants with transport to new housing.
5. In lieu provisions whereby a landlord can relocate a
tenant into a comparable replacement and pay actual
moving costs.
6. Notice requirements.
IV. Analysis.
The Rent Control Board has expressed its concern about and
desire to develop a relocation assistance program.
If the city
Council chooses to do so, it can delegate the authority to the
Rent Control Board to develop regulations implementing a
relocation assistance program.
An ordinance delegating such
authority would be prepared by the City Attorney in consultation
with the Rent Control Board.
In lieu of adopting enabling legislation, the city council
may direct the City Attorney to draft a comprehensive relocation
assistance ordinance.
Although the city Attorney advised the city council in 1983
against developing a relocation assistance ordinance, some of the
- l7 -
e
-
legal concerns present at that time have been alleviated. In
addition, studies have continued to show that many owner
occupancy evictions are fraudulent, thereby making relocation
assistance an attractive policy option as a deterrent to
fraudulent evictions.
Finally, continued opposition to rent
control which has manifested itself in the form of state
legislation such as the Ellis Act makes relocation assistance a
necessary component of a rent control program in order to protect
tenants who will be evicted through no fault of their own.
VI. Recommendation.
The City Attorney recommends that the City Council:
1. Take such action as the City Council deems appropriate
on the accompanying ordinance.
2. Take such action as the city council deems appropriate
on the subject of relocation benefits.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney
- 18 -
,T
e
e
CA:RMM:lld081/hpc
City Council Meeting 4-22-86
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 4614 OF THE SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE ENABLING THE RENT CONTROL BOARD
TO ENACT REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE ELLIS ACT,
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7060 ET SEQ.
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, duly elected
by the voters of the City of Santa Monica, is authorized under
City Charter Sections 1802 (e) and ~803 (g) to adopt rules and
regulations as will further the purposes of the Rent Control Law
and to adopt replacement regulations where State legislation
renders provisions of the Rent Control Law unenforceable or
invalid; and
WHEREAS, the Ellis Act, Government Code Sections 7060 et
seq., if upheld by the courts, will effectively render portions
of Section 1803 (t) and Section l806 of the Rent Control Law
invalid or unenforceable, provisions related to removal controls
and eviction controls respectively; and
WHEREAS,
the Ellis Act permits public entities to
promulgate by state ordinance or regulation, certain implementing
provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Rent Control Board will be the administrative
body responsible for enforcing any such implementing provisions
- 1 -
I.L ,'6
e
--
and will receive the brunt of tenant and landlord inquiries and
complaints regarding the Ellis Act: and
WHEREAS, the Rent Control Board has the expertise and the
interest necessary to develop such implementing provisions: and
WHEREAS, the City Council may lawfully delegate to the Rent
control Board the power to adopt regulations implementing the
protections provided for in the Ellis Act,
NOW I THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. section 4614 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
is added to read as follows:
SECTION
4614.
Reaulations
Imolementinq the Ellis Act.
The Rent
Control Board shall have the authority to
enact
regulations
implementing
the
anti-abuse provisions permitted by the
Ellis Act, Government Code sections 7060
et
seq. ,
consistent
with
and
in
furtherance of the purposes of the Rent
Control Law.
SECTION 2.
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.
- 2 -
l 1 ~.. .,"
e -
SECTION 3. 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
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of the 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 4. 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 15 days after its adoption. This ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~l
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
~
- 3 -
1 ~~.. ....
e
e
RE ELLIS ACT G!f~f'-D.
~ 1&-/1)
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF DISCUSSION
/ ~ Yhee+~14/30/86
ltif~~~)
Mayor Reed: O.K. Tha~k you Mr. Alvarez. That concludes the
members of the publlC who sought to be heard o~ the
pUblic hearlng. Mr. Za~e do you want to move to
close the pUblic hearl~g?
CM Zane:
CM EpsteIn:
Mayor Reed:
Mayor Reed:
CM Zane:
eM A. Katz:
Mayor Reed:
CM Zane:
Mayor Reed:
CM Epstei"1:
Mayor Reed:
eM Za'1e:
eM Epstel:1.:
So moved.
Second.
Moved a~d seconded. All those i~ favor say Aye.
(ALL SAY AYE)
Opposed? Hea~lng IS closed. Now thIs matter is
before the Cou~cll. Mr. Zane and then Mr. Epstei~.
Urn, I am pursuaded and I understand I have
certai'1ly heard no Opposltlon from members of the
CounCIl that the delegatlon of the authorIty, the
enabll'1g ordInance, delegatl'1g authorIty regardIng
..A~ r
the EllIS regulatlons~whlle not ~ecessarlly J~
necessary, IS probably WIse to offset the potentla~_ (.
for lItigatIon so I would like to pIove th.a --= ~~)
Ordl'1anCe that IS presentee here enabllpg the Re~t --------
CO'1trol Board to adopt the rules a'1d regulations
WIth respect to the Ellis Act.
Second
ri r..JI{\ ~
:~
O.K. This 13 the ordl~ance as prepared by the CIty
Attorney a~d attached to the staff recommendatlon.
That's correct.
Okle doke, thank you Mr. Zane. M~. Epsteln.
I'd lIke to move a substItute whlch would change
only two whereas clauses-
Would you lIke to offer those as amendments to
change?-
Make It speCIfIC (garbled) /" ...~
All right, O.K., all rIght, well, all rIght, I'll ~~,~~~-
move it as an amendme~t first. O.K., dlrectl~g ~
your attentIon to page two, I would delete the
two, last two whereas clauses and substitute the
followl~g: Whereas the CIty CounCIl belleves that
the Rent Control Board now has the power to adopt
regulatlO'1S implementing the protectiops provided
- 1 -
~.:I ..
e
e
for In the EllIS Act (comma) but to remove all
doubt (comma) wishes to exercise its power to
delegate authorIty to the Rent Control Board to
adopt such regulatIons (comma)-- and then It goes
to I'J.OW...
CM Za'1e:
I accept that as a frle~dly amendment.
~tu('
CM A. Katz:
So do 1.
Mayor Reed:
O.K., a~d you dId reVIew this la~guage WIth the
CIty Attor'1ey? Mr. Epstein?
CM EpsteIn:
Ahh, yes. I, he looked It over and saId he didn't
have a problem WIth It.
Mayor Reed:
Its O.K. WIth you Mr. CIty Attorney? O.K., fine.
We have Mr. Zane1s motIon on the floor WIth the
incorporatIon of M~. Epstein1s suggestIon. Is
there any discussIon on the motion that's o~ the
floor? Mr. Katz.
eM A. Katz: Yes, I would Just say a couple thi~gs. ~e is I
thl'1k one of our prImary goals here should be to
act In cooperation with the Rent Control Board as
we would expect them to act In cooperatIon WIth us
on matters of mutual concern. It IS Important in
an area such as thIS, WhICh IS bound to be tied up
with a sIg~lfIcant amount of lItlgatio~ as the act
is Interpreted, that the CIty speak WIth one VOIce,
a'1d "lot add to the confUSIon and to the doubt that
will naturally surroU'1d thIS kI~d of an Issue. So,
I think It's approprIate what we are dOIPg here.
As far as the relocatio'1~ fees a~e concerned,
it's my personal belIef that,lf those a~e to be
implemented, they should apply, not to Just rent control
u~lts,but baSIcally to UPltS In general IS SM~,And I thInk we
come lnto the questIon of , IS It approprlate for us to delegate
to the rent control board auth~ity over unlts that are not by
Charter under their JusI~dlctlon, WhICh IS re~t controlled
UnIts. Therefore, It;S my belle~ that on those fees, If we a~e to
delegate them to the ReB, that It be done WIth the u~derstandl~g
that,were this Council to Implement~relocatlon fee ordl~ance,
that that Ordl"lanCe, to the extent posslble, would preempt
ordInances e'1acted I~ the meantIme u~der the authorIty of this
resolution.
Reed: It's my understanding that the ordInance Zane has placed
o~ the table has nothIng to do WIth relocatIon benefIts. Is that
correct?
AKatz: I'm ahead of myself, so 1111 Just sit back and walt....
Reed: I thl~k we'll get to that Issue ~ext after we conclude WIth
this partIcular ordl~ance.
- 2 -
1. ." 'l
e
II
EpsteI~: I have a brIef comme~t -- I've been crItIcal of the
current RCB for nunmbe~ of reasons, and I think some of those
critIcIsms stIll apply. I don't thlPk that's the pOInt here. I
thInk the Council and RCB worked faIrly hard a couple of years
ago to develop language for the Charter to appropr~ately dlvIde
the authorIty between them, and the voters of the CIty agreed
wIth what we came up wIth, so I thInk what we're dOIng he~e IS
gIVIng effect to what the CHarter already says. I thInk that's
the dIvISIon thIS Council and RCB agreed to whe~ we put it on
the ballot a~d the people adopted, a~d we ought to stick w1th
what was voted In.
Zane : Membe~s of the public ought to understand what's happen1ng
here WIth the process -- What the CIty 1S dOIng now. In the
fIght agaInst EllIS WhICh took place some mont~s ago, Mr.Finkel,
In partIcular, was able to conVInce the legisl~ature that we
needed to make sure that there were no fI~ancIal
l~centIves~, basic~ly, provIded for someone to proceed
alo~g the EllIS courts. The legIslature, In It's WIsdom the~,
offered the oppo~tunIty for cItIes to develop thIS system of
protections. The regulatIons we are talki~g about here are
regulatIons that the CIty must adopt In a tImely man~er In order
for tenarts in thlS city to be protected from potentially
negatIve consequences of the EllIS act. The CIty IS delegatIng
that authority because in fact the legIslatIon enviSIoned the
posSIbIlity that agencIes other than city councIls might adopt
these protectIve measures by regulation. The city IS actIng l~
thIS fashlo~ to make it clear that we are speakI~g wlth one VOIce
WIth theRCB, a~d that we are seekIng to make it clear that
Insofar as anybody may seek to challenge the RCB's authority,
that they have both the authority of the state leglsltation and
the clty cha~ter and the Courcil behind them in their actIons. I
thInk It's very slgnlfcant that the city IS doing thIS, and the
renters should understand what It means.
Reed: Question for TumlIn i~ response to pOlnnt ~aised by one of
the citizens who asked aa questIon directly about notIfIcatlon
prOVIsIons. I know that the State law supersedes WIth regard to
30 day ~otice to eVlct. Is the Board I~ regulatlo~s it has before
It attemptIntg to make any regulatlon that guarantees a longer or
more advanced notice to tenants.
~- Tum~~: We haven't addressed that
question dlrectly.
AKatz: Just wa~ted to clarIfy that I was talkirg about before
--as I read thIS ordlnapce In SectIo~ l, we are delegating
authorIty to the RCB to "act conslstent WIth and In furtherance
of the purposes of the Rent Control law. It was my u~derstandl~g
, that at least, It was the rent control's InterpretatIo~ that
that entitled them to deal WIth relocatIon fees at least as It
co~cerns rent control UPltS. Ask CIA to clarify.
Myers: Proposed regulatio~s of ReB under EIllS do I~clude
relocatIon benefIts~~~Ss. We have communicated to the
RCB our belIef that the ReB, absent a specIfIc ordInance on
relocatIon benefIts, does not have the legal authorIty to adopt
- 3 -
.. J- If ~If
e
It
relocatIon benefIts. The Ellis Act protectIons that are
specifcally set forth concer~ notification recordIng and other
thl~gS. They do not Include recloatio~ be~eflts. Separate
provIsIons of the EllIS Act IndIcate that a City's general power
i~ polIce power or zoning or other thl~gS Isn't taken away so
that we believe that relocatio~ ordInance could be adopted by the
CCou~cll directly or through delegatIon to the ReB, but absent / ~
such a specifIc ordl~ane, the ReB does ~ot have autho~ity to '~~~
adopt relocatIon benefIts a~d thIS partIcular ordInance ~ 0~~
Introduced thIS evenIng would not give them that power. ['l~U-_. ~~
ROl~n Za~es motIon, modIfied by EpsteI~: Conn - yes, EpsteIn - hn~~
yes, AKatz - Yes, Zane - yes, Reed - yes. (Abse~t: HKatz and ~//
Jennings.) /'
EpsteIn: ~ that we dIrect the CIty Attorney, In consultatIo~
wIth the ReB and other l~terested partIes, to prepare to brIng d _.~
back to the Council, In a timely fashIon, an ordInance coverIng ~~~~~
relocation for tenants eVicted for matters not their fault; that ~
that relocation ordInance Include dIfferent rates of compensation
for furnIshed apartments as opposed to unfur~Ished apartme~ts.
I'll sto~p there and see whether I get a second. ~
Seco~ded by AKatz?
Epstein: I thi~k thIS is an Issue that goes beyond EllIS. It may
go beyond re~t controlled units. I thInk it's approprIate for the
CIty Atty to begIn wo~k o~ thIS Issue ~ow rather tha~ walt untIl
we have a full CounCIl, which will be late May at the earlIest.
It's my belIef thIS CounCIl should adopt such an ordInance" that
I'm fully In favor oof that, but I would urge
colleagues who perhaps would prefer a delegatIon to the RCS
nevertheless vote to allow the attor~ey to bel~g the process so
that we donlt have to begI~ It five weeks before Ellls takes
effect.
Zane: I'm gOIng to support thIS. I brought Issue of
relocatiOon beneflts before or SImultaneously with EpsteIn I
belleve :-- several months ago. I think the CIty ~eeds to proceed
here. I thI~k there's a strong argument for delegating this
responsllibillty and retaIn optIon of makIng that suggestion at a
later time whe~ we have a full Councll, but I wlll support thIS ~
measure now. I would lIke to suggest several thIngs: One l~
partIcular, that relocatIon be~efIts be prOVIded for persons In
traIler parkssssssssssss and In a fashion that reflects the r.'~~
special burden of tenants In traIler parks. ~r-
n
EpsteIn; If that's a frIendly amen~ment, I would accept It.
Zane : And mobile homes.
Reed: So that y~ou are asking that the scale of benefits~ be
adJusted for the traIler/mobIle home situatIon because of the
dIffICUlty of mOVIng them.
- 4 -
..... ..L r _I'
e
e
. .l~?
~o~fl)t ~ \Ax '
Za~e: Correct, and the way I understand the motIon being t~ ~~
formulated, we're not now debatIng, for exam~le, Issues as to ,~~~~
whether or not there are dIfferertIal benefIts for dIsabled, or ~ W ~
what the preCIse dollar value that we are askIng the City ~ ~~.
attorney to come back wIth. ~~\
f
Epstein:
debate.
I left that out because we get into an endless rou~d of
.i
~ *t
Reed: I would like to suggest that the language of thIS ~ _ \ ~~\:
ordInance also Incorporate the optIon of havIng a scheme of a " X~
dollar amount per unIt -- In addItIon to the benefIt that goes to ~
the tenants, that the~ be some amount per unit WhICh would paId ~,
to a~ agency for coun~sellIng tenants In need In the bUIldl~g and J
the fee would be paId by the landlord to the agency, and It would \ ~
have to lIke a Santa Monica agency on a lIst approved by the J ~~~~
CIty.It could be lImIted to the elderly and handicapped ~ ~
IndivIduals who may be most In needddddd of that sort of ~
cou~sellI~g be~efIts, but It would not be paid to the tenant.... 0
I
I
I
1
1
EpsteIn: Yea, a~d I assume the CIA Will do, as he often does, i
WIll prOVIde us wIth reasonable optIons where he thInks there :
are...I only wa~ted to hIghlight the furnIshed vs. unfurnIshed J
Issue, because that hadn't been addressed I~ any of the draft /
regulatIons I have seen, and I thl~k it's a faIr conSIderatIon.
Za"1e: FIne.
Zane: Just wa"1t to make it clear that the CIty Attorney has the
authorIty to make proposals in that area himself.
EpsteIn: You mean, the serVIces mIght be, but not the payment.
Reed: The serVIces are for the tenant. The payment would be
made by the la~dlord to the agency, perhaps through some
mechanism by the city. ....i~ addItion to monetary benefits
given dIrectly to the tenant to compensate them for movIng
expenses, etc., that the CIty Attorney InvestIgate creating the I
language that would allow us to say, you know, in the event that )
a dIsabled or elderly person reqUIres coupselling, that the
landlord shall make blank number of dollars avaIlable to agenCies
on some list -- or somethIng like that.
Epst~n: I'm WIlling to take a look at It, but wIthout a~y
commItment necessarily to support it. My concern Is....the~e IS
a concern WIth, If you make the landlord pay more for the elderly
or dIsabled, you;re gOIng to deter them from rentIng to those
people to some extent, and there are other issues, but I am ~
certainly WIlling to have the attorney look at it. ~
Reed: I upderstand the concern about not dIscouraging rentIng
uunIts to elderly and dIsabled, but Mr. FInkel also present
compellIng arguments for the speCIal needs of those people, apd
It does not have to be mandatory, It could be at the optIon of
the tenant Just to Insure that that serVIce will eXIst for them
- 5 -
, ~~
e
-
1f the1r reqU1reeee It and that they don';t have to pay for
It.That's a suggest1on, that's all.
Conn: I don't have any problem with that suggest1on. It seems to
me that someone who is a stressed our sl~gle parent m1ght have
compell1ng reed for counselllng as well.....The quest10n that I
have about all th1S 1S that 1f we're gOlng to ask the CIty
Attorney to do this 1n cooperat1on w1th the RCB, do we have some
notIon about what that means. Are we i~ fact asking the ReB to
hold some hearing about th1S to get some Input, or are we are
gOlng to hold all those hearIngs. When are we gOlng to do th1S
before July 1st.
Epsetln: I means that maybe Myerssssssss would talk to Mr. Levy
aabout the ~esearch that alsready been done on thIS 1ssue; that
the consultation be on the staff level. Not necessary hearing.
Or that drafts be circulated pUbllcally before they come. That's
the sort of thing I had In m1nd.
Reed: 11m expect1ng th1S w1ll have to be adopted as an emergency
ordInance, Simply because under the regular ordinance scheme we'd
have to be adopt1ng It In the next two weeks on flrst readIng,
and that probably Isn't pOSSIble.
Conn: I'm rot sure It's phys1cally possible any way you out it.
Reed: EIllS takes effect July 1, so we'd have to have it be 1n
place and 1~ effect that day,wh1ch mea~s we'd certalnly have to
co~slder 1t 1n June as emergency ordinance.
Conn: lId oertal~ly be 1nterested In glvlng thIS to the RCB a~d
let them do 1t.
Myers: I think we can have a draft ~eady for thIS Council at the
May 27th meetIng. I' m not sure It needs to be an emergency
ordi~ance, although it can be. Under the Ell1S Act, la~dlords
caDnot beg1r to serve the1r 30 day Dotlce until after July 1, and
so I don't thlnk aD ordlnance would have to be effect1ve on
p~ecisely July 1, because the benef1ts could be payable at the
end of the 30 day ~otice period, Wh1Ch would , at the very
earliest, be August the lst.
Conn: My concern IS that we have an enormous agenda to
accompllsh
by the end of June? I know that everybody has put the1r 11fe on
hold, except for Alan, for that duratIon, and I can't Imag1~e
that we can take on another burden. You may have It for us on
the 27th, but I know that on the 27th we're going to spend five
hours lIstenlng to Soolal SerVIces agenc1es tell us how much we
should gIve and we're gOIng to spend five hours telling them how
lIttle we have to gIve them. I can't Imagine when 1t is, unless
we're gOlng to call a specIal seSS10n for a Thursday night -- I
don't k~ow how 1t IS that we're gOlng to do this between now and
the end of JUne. I'm only thInk1ng l~ terms of , not only the
delIberation process which I thInk should be done as
intelligently as poss1ble, but, glven the pressure of the next
- 6 -
')" _ , .,..,-
e
e
45 days, I don't know how we're gOIng to have the tIme to do
that. Now If you all want to hack thIS out, fine wIth me. I'll
give a~other 24 hours of my life to the CIty, but I think you
ought to look at thIS realIstIcally.
AAKatz: First off, everythIng I saId before about relocatIon
fees I'd like to have applIed now. Secondly, I share Conn's
concerns that we seem to be takIng on to our shoulders an
enormous responsIbIlity WhICh I'm ~ot sure we need to rush
forward WIth. My concern IS that people have time to plan theIr
lIves. If we're In the process of passl~g an ordInance when
others are in the process of determl~g now whether they WIsh to
go out of bUSIness, I thInk we owe them -- we have a
responsIbIlIty to let them know what the cost of doing bUSIness
or gOIng out of business actually is. So I think there IS a
faIrness that requires us have relocation fees If they are to be
applIed to the EllIS SItuatIon on the books as early as possIble
so people can make appropriate plans. I would be willing to
authorIze the RCB to enact relocatIon fees Just to apply to Rent
Control unIts WIth the understandIng that should this Cou~cII In
Its WIsdom determine that relocation fees should be establIshed
for all unIts, not Just rent controlled units, that such
ordl~ance would preempt the regulatio~s that we would be
delegatIng to the Re~t Control Board. They have already
promulgated some relocation fees. We heard some of the comments
that they WIll undoubtedly hear May 8th.. In the Interests of
allOWIng landlords and tenants, especially landlords i~ thIS
situatIon, to plan their lives, I think It mIght be approprIate
to do that.
EppsteIn: It guess my feeling is that we were elected to perform
certaI~ responsbIIItIessss. There IS a certal~ dIviSIon of
labor writte~ l~to the charter WhICh has been debated In the last
two years by the people, and I thInk we have a responsiblIty. I
thInk we can do thIS, If not on the 27th, we can do It on the
3rd, at least adopt something on first readIng on the third,
WhICh would gIve people at least a month. The RCB 1S also facing
Its budget process and they have all these much more complex
Issues to go through. I think we ought to meet our
responsIbIlItIes. That's what we get our $50 a month for.
~vr
IIJ,...iJ ~r{'
'" tv
(f\JJ
Reed: I'd lIke to add that ~o fault eVIctIons have always struck
me as dIstressing and heartrenderIng. You know, when the tenant
has do~i ~othl~g wrong and by fate or CIrcumstances or the fact
that they live In the front unit of the bUIldIng, or whatever,
they get eVicted because a famIly member wa~ts to occupy that
unit or because the buildIng has permIssion to be torn down or
whatever, I thi~k It's importa~t that we extend the benefits to
all the people who suffer those kinds of eVIctIons, and if we're
goi~g to have a system of extendIng a benefIt to the no fault
eVIctess when the landlord deCIdes to go out of bUSIness under
the Ellis BIll, then we also ought to extend the benefIt to the
no fault eVIctees who get eVIcted because the landlord would lIke
to p~ovIde unit for one of hIS chIldren or some other relative.
A~d that fact of extendIng the benefIt to cover all the rented
units In the CIty, baSIcally, means that we should do It, and
- 7 -
.. ... .....'
e
It
that It should not be delegated, and that it probably would not
be legally approprIate to delegate It. If we're going to do It
for ~on=rent control upits In the cIty, we ought to Just have the
same system for everybody, and that IS the reason I basically
support taki~g this issue up he~e at the Council, although I
certa1nly adm1t, from the pOl~t of VIew of length of public
hearings, it would be easier certa1nly to hand 1t off to the
Rent Control Board as far as the ElI1S bill IS concerned. I stIll
thInk in the end we WIll be having the hearIngs because there
will be a majority of us that want to extend the benef1t to the
other units, a~d if we're gOIng to have those hearings then, we
might as well have them all at once. The same people WIll be
comIng and they w1ll probably be saY1ng slmilar things 1n a~y
event. So I bas1cally thInk this is something we ~eed to do
here.
~
Zane: I'm sympathetic w1th J1m's posit1on, although I th1nk
we'll SImply have to do 1t. My SUsp1C1on 1S that there aren't
four votes here to do any further delegatIng tonight. I fra~kly
from the standpOInt of a person who is pri~cipall;y concerned
about the impact of these ordInances on tenants would llke to
delegate because, under current c1rcumstances, I th1nk the ~ent
board will do a more sympathet1c Job w1th respect to the
Interests of tenants. Frankly that's a pollt1cal assessment of
the comm1tments of the bodies. I hope that I'm w~ong, and I'll
push for as stro~g a measure as I thlnk the CouncIl will be
willing to support. We ought to vote a~d move on.
Co~nn: I don;t see what the problem 1S of havling the RCB hold
the hearings and do the work and then if we decide to extend,
simply extend 1t, and then we don1t have to do all that stuff.
But I agree with Zane, at least a fourth vote here wa~ts to do
thlS desparately r1ght here in thlS Chamber, so I'm going to let rn
~er do ~t, V~~
Vote yes, Epsteln - Yes, AKatz - yes, Zane - yes, t~~~
Reed (Absent HKatz and Jenn1ngs)> ~~~~~
End of transcript.
Done by CIty Clerk's offIce
May 2, 1986
Z flUv ~ ~rn5.
- 8 -
I r .
- ~~1~~~~
~u';"-;?::r~~?
-L v....,;.....:..-:-- :P~:......
e
e
~."D
A,,'0,1.
Jerome P Lewls
1221 Ocean Avenue
Santa l"\omca. Callforma 90401
S-D
4-30-(J~
L9~ -:';l3, 118Co
)n~C7... _ C~~~ 17D"d.. .
C>-1 =f ~ '}~C\A-L~CL.
~o. n1~-<( CO. 7C4..CJ
. f 10
~~~,~....~ ~{-::,~~
i:Reu.- n 1~~ {~d-/
CUt..- ~~ ~ ~ &u..~l to I/~
~vt C'ilC~~ ~c-f.,~/ 711~. ~ C~~~<
f>:;rcv.cX- to .c-<- <14 ~~dW;~ {~
cG-1T'-~ r C- ~c<:a:s:;:- """ a..J' ~~<l..<<-u:.... 6 c-z.
cv..Q.... 'G..v C\AA.~ .v--~ Q ~~ -^- ~ C/ t c~ ~
-ct..h.), g~ 0/) ~(u2. ~t- oz flit I'C.U ct~r
~~ ~ ~ 0J::f-: u
~ --tA o..u.-"l.. ~c(Q~",\.<::(,,,vtq Uio..t-
1
~~ ~.J:.. l2~ (O.~cc. L'f..:::U:lu. L4..~1d..;,lA.I.J...,~
:J .' -. - .... ~
~c..-) J'I~cC L.7 _~l...a ....,d.;:~~..-, /C.C~
~ ~~".- ...zL{c4 cu.(.. '1.McZi...ti:"~ A.JZ.f~/ t&
~.....ra..f ~~ ~a:.. ..-L~c,,~--:) ;;r::L0.;.f:o..-.a.k-W
,.~-c. ~ ~;,,:>y~--'LJ.v1r D::~ f~ eCMAA-CZ -'
~~~ J..... -- .
~4.., ~ -<4'= c..-l.i... tei......)~ C-:.tr ~~ .
,. ~c, ..~;
11~ ~'-~
~c....o.. IJ ~.:.....
-'~::;.-t-y~...~f-"'''' '):Ji~:"-_
(r( ~ t.f L~~ (1)
~ d~7 U)
3-D
API 3. .
v...,. ,\ ... : . ~
I l'" t
e
e
P -- D _'
.PIl 30 ,.
/
?)-D
'-I-30-()~
.~ kL.iJ ~r; Itjr 1
''''A~~.....->~!t>~'J!
~A-y ~.
.J2~pJ4~0'-"~~U
.~~~ _ ---
-t.. ,Lv ~ ~~ Li ~~~ cJ
~~f/lk- ~fl'-k-cuP
~~ ht&J~.tt-:J:#-~1
r~~~~Cld. - ---
- ~~~:oi~-;::-~ ~~:o..''\:"~'';
'f)
~....::::~:~~..~..,. _ ~-'C-.4,~:t~.r-"_-:
- .jf..~.il-:r;'~-;~v1r-i..J~,;;}-S;
-
~.... ~~ T I .:.
fl" r19 L'{f'< ( 9 )
tq ~ (//
'j~ D :
III J' 1.
.:
~- -::"~'_:-;"; :~ --; ~ t-.... .. .... ~ -- .--
,
::. ;-....,--.Jo
~ .....
-."- --V~:J"'v~- -:;. _~ ~
.
, .
e
e
'6-D
J.j-30- Y(q
,- () ~, 1/ -, IL J. (, '"2 t.
f;:( ~J. Ijn" U.N-t.t:i;JL,- ik.~k -' -r -
_ . J ~~7-i: ~ (~J kt~
at.,~ O'~~,,~} L4~ ~ 10 &v:t;;{
~vrv./_1:rk ~ ~f~ .
f. -rr . _IJ/J . i. I~ II/) r :J
Q. ~f...&v.., ~~ vI.- aJiK ~
~,e/ ~ ~~t~ ~ ~ aJ-~
"~lj--1T 1 ~~(' ~ ZV.w t@M &J:
;;e.. PJ; 1{$n?J
I 2 J.. (Vj U 02a.-v\ Clr'f --1T 6 () f
~ M (ah-{ yiJyiJ/
/ ;
-, I Q i
(/., ".;:: r !JlhLcL~ l i /
L L ,L.U'~j -J -'
r ~( {{;~e /\ "'_ 6 r~
/. i.-- i {...{c...-"'-'""",~{_~
GLV; I
________ -.aoI
--
--
~ ,
" .
e
e
From Desk of
~-D
4 - :3 C - f'~
MRS. MILTON V. BARANCIK
\D~ IlIT ~
~ ~ E.! ~~ .r~~
~~U:...~~
~~i:ek^~_Ol~~
t) cL . ~
& ~~~
~ ~~~M...&\:J
~ ~~~Ci4lb
~j ,...!l. · - G
c
'\ \~~ ~6
~
(~.
\ (c1)
/".j- nl /02.~~ '-
""'fr,).J J "
L c::. . I...-'VV'L. '-J
'- -r; ( t-;tr--ll/)/l~
lUJ, '-' ~
)
......... ~
--
--
i~ J .. rI
e
e
_ ....~~~~l~~~-..}';'~vN.t
..
_ ~u~..;-~~:~~~
APyID
<<3ilJ
Ll - 30 - '8'(.
DAVID W LEDERMAN
1221 OCEAN AVENUE
SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401
/v.~ ~ ,Q~.4 up
(&gs IU.~ ti.
S ~ fi.<.ou.-~)~' 'lo'fo"
~, l'liC"
___ o'-~~"" ........._.... ~.....<<--~_____...
Uh-~ ~~,
~ >>^\R- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ (4..
~ ~""",UL -lJ-,... ~l J:}u..R. Rr.~_L:f ~ ~L
-hk~~~~(t
a. ~ ~ ~~t..O. ~ o.QQ ~ a....:ftLl
~ ~~€L-,D r~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~9.0_J..:,-~ ~~ L1u
~ (l d-.
~:;;;i~ '~.....~:~""*-...4~.,",~
...::; ...:"'~ -<r-~:.~-{~:"--,.~~~~"''''''-JI':
~~ l. -k~,,_.
Avv 10 e::p
.. 3 a ,,"
_.... ~.. _ J _
,. ~
-,- ~-..i _ ~
-~ ... - ~, .,y - - .... ~,...-
_ ....... -.... - J'
..:- _ir-~-
;;- L r ~
_ J:,.o-_"2-""":"-"lL-- ...,..-
.. -..~-+..--=I....-.r... _"""_~_ ~ ................_ '"-__~. .0...-.-- --,. ..--...._ _ ~ __ ~ _
(L
. .
(
(
(
{.....
{
': C
(
(
(
(
{
(
(
l
<--
l
L
C.
L
N
a)
.....
r-- .
!E."--
~
"<t
N
It)
" l,u
5 EPSTE:I~I .
1221 oeEAt, hVr A~bOO
SANTA ~UNJCA CA qO~Ol 27A~
~-ooe127s11' O~/27/86 IeS IPMMTZZ CS~ LSAB
2133Qa08?S MGM~ TDMT SANTA HONICA C& 70 OU-27 OS33P EST
CITY COUNrIL OF SANTA HQNICA CA
ATTENTIUN: ~AYQR C~RISTI~E RE~O
1085 M~I'" .sT
SA~TA MONICA CA qO~Ob
t4J,:D -ro ~ - 1)
APR 3 o"ilii
~-30- ~(,
DEiR COUNCIL ~EM~E~
I URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO P4SS AN OODINANCE ENABLING THE R~NT
CONT~UL 8nARD TO BE SOLELY RESPONSIoLE FOR DETERMINI~JG A RELOCATION
ALLowANC~ ~~p ALL TENNAHTS WHO ARE EVICTED FROM THEl~ HOHES AS THE
RES~LT OF PPOCfEDINGS U~DER THE ELLI~ aCT.
RQSt.t.4AFJTE EPSIEI"J/Sl(l,JEY EPSTElf\i/1221 OCEMJ AVE APT bOb/SANTA
MONICA/CA Q0401
17:31 EST
t1 G M C lJ t1 p
ADD
'l;; ~-1>
APP 3 0 lt8S
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL. FREE PHONE NUMBERS
(
~ .
(
(
(
<...
(
-c
(
(
(
(
~
(
(
l
<-
<.
L
l.
L
N
co
"-
;L
~
'l'
N
II)
- i..:.:
S ~PSTFIN ..
1221 OCEAt: ^VE 4~bOo
SANT~ ~ONtC^ C~ qO~Ol 27AM
,. '.' '- @
W, ,est!trnM.a-II'g' .am@i~r~~
. Union .~" ~ '"
. .
.~ ':" ... .. . ~ .. .. . ....
q-OO~1~5stl' OU/27/8b res IP~~TZZ CS~ LSAB
2133q~0825 ~GM8 Tn~T SANTA MO~ICA c~ 00 0"-27 051Qp ~ST
CITY CQU~CIL OF S4~TA MONICA CA
1 0 8 S :-1A INS T
SANT~ ~UNtc~ c~ Q040b
--=
\~~
A:1>; 10 ~i3 ~&
4-30-'6'
~EAR CQUNrlL M~MRER
i..
I URr,~ THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS 4r~ QQOfNANCE ENA8~ING THE ~ENT
CONTPUL R~4RD TO BE SOLELY RESPQt{SIBlE FOR DETER~INING A RE~OCATION
ALLowANCE ~~p ALL TENNANTS WHO AR~ EVICTED FROM T~EIR HOMES AS THE
RESULT OF OQOCEEDl~GS UNDER THE ELLIs ~Cr.
R(lSEYAQTF: EPSTEIN/SIDi~E:Y EPSTEItUl?21 OCEAN AVE APT bOb/SANTA
MO'HCA/r:Jo, QO'lOl
17:37 ~ST
~~ G ~ C n '1 D
~
lD g:.]I
A'~ 3 0 '18&
TO REPLY BY MAilGRAM MESSAGE. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UN!ON STOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
.. ~. ,.
(-;"
t.~'
;-'\ f!..- L
e
1
/ -'
-- j
~~-
I
/
~ - -t fl .
"~--:._----.../~ ! ~"-....-
{-~'
'---
( C--l.',
"'L-..._.~.J
t L L- ~:: L
/-/-~.' -/--
/'L- ~ { L
/ /
(
....___ [ -Z <L
..,
~/./.
z....
/ i.c
/ .>- . --/---t.......(, < ~L /
---i
-~ I
DL -L. / : ~
- J --;'-,
(,)-J
/-- ~ //! , ,_ - -.:.- t ~
----t./ C---^--, I. t- '-~'L-1
.(
/[ , ~-J~ ~
~ t Lr/l----f.
tt /'c (
-,'
......./ ./ .. ...
------- L-----;: :~ _ :~ __ l____.. L
/
/I-i
'-" ~ -
/'A--:' '--..,_
- ~....--- .I' /~
F ~
/--~/. /. -./
/ ~ ...
'~ . ~__i.... - ~_
u c...
I
---
I
: "/
_ ~-i
'" C
(~
"
\.
---"
. ! /"
( ~-"-
. /- ~-...7 /--2
y,./; --
;'
/
/
./
J.t ,-;,-] .. 'L-/--L-?/
--j
7?L-~
. ,// ~/
_---:;.~o~~j
"-T ,'_ -7/~ ~i /"
--~)' 'o.!.-
~
-i--:; j
L ..!,7
r. r~ /- /,/
.' J _._",,- '- ~...-(_ <..
-?
------ -,
/'/'" ------j'
..-
I ~ /- .'
"'-..--- ..... '
r
r
/
/,,/
~I
_________...----- '-...../ -- {-7 .I
//
. ----- ,
~---- _ ~1 1
----~ \....--/:- V
___----- I
/' /
I
l
/
/
.... ------'
( ~f '~
,
iF
(, (.
Aa -r;
~- D
API 3. lJli ~ I
t.f- ,jO-bb
,.. I
.:
.----.
/'
/
---'--
/-
/
.] I /C~
" .;- d Vi -r-
i "'--'- - >e::./;/
;
/
/
\_~---
Ii
.t '.
/
.: "-'? (
/ /"
c {_.-f.. ....- {~ L
/-
r
.-- 'l c C~
-" i.- ,(f
..
.--t
--- ~
,- )
,/_-~
;// <~ i' '-----;;-1: '2
---/
c-L /
"----- -'
--h--
./'L-{.
/'
- -,/ ~
t~~
/ / ./'.
1, Q--L (>-L~_.* P-L-.
, / /' --/--.-
C--c:.--- / /~ ~-k (;f-"--' ~A..__ C.?( / L?1- - ?--L-
/'
/J /
t-L Lr .-/"L C/j. ,{
/L l--~~ 0
< ./
'I ~L t:L 7 --''--z~-;-L '2. -L
C(~-V =~V,0-<c . "z~_ ilA"L.e.+2~
I ,---
i ~~
, j -- /- -
__L t- ~l! tf; l- C:/L-- ,L_ C'/L c_ /
{
( ('2{ /(~./ .+/ r'--z " ) /:;J
..-' ...-c::t //1
/ . / ~-,,,///} / // - - ~
/.. '. 'J-1~-/L,!. -/ --j-"i /' L ~
-,t '!. '- / 0'-..~.--/;/ /
'_ I.,... ~
....
I
.'---
Pu>D~ g'~
~'" 3 Q 1916 ,
~ -! !-.-_...i_
e
CITY OF
SANTA
CALIFORNIA
.
IO-A
A:~R2lo \'''G
MONICA
RENT CO~TROL BOARD. (213) 458 8751.1685 'lam Street. P 0 80... 2200. Santa \Iomca. CalIforma 90406 2200
April 17, 1986
To The Honorable Mayor and City council:
Rent Control Board Commissioner David Finkel requests to address
the council regarding regulations to implement tenant protections
necessitated by the Ellis Act.
HT : j sh
- 1 -
~20Q
IO-A
APR 2 2 1986
APR 3 0 \9BG