SR-6-N (39)
{;-IJ
MAR 2 2 199't
CA:f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\richard.hrg
City Council Meeting 3-22-94 Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: city Attorney
SUBJECT: Appointment of David Pettit to Review and
Reconsider Complaints Concerning Relocation
Benefits That Are Being Offered Remaining Tenants
At 505 Olympic Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council authorize the
City to hire David Pettit of Hedges & Caldwell to act on behalf
of the City Council in reviewing and reconsidering complaints
raised regarding the relocation benefits that the City has
offered the remaining tenants at 505 Olympic Boulevard.
BACKGROUND
In February 1992, the City purchased the property located at
505 Olympic Boulevard from Joel Hager. Mr. Hager operated this
property as a mobilehome park. The City currently uses a portion
of this property for a homeless services facility. The remainder
of this property will be utilized by the City's Transportation
Department. The city's current and anticipated uses of this
property require the displacement of the tenants residing on this
property. The City is required to provide relocation assistance
to the displaced tenants.
All tenants who resided in the mobilehome park at this site
have been relocated to comparable replacement housing except the
tenants residing on Space No.6, Benny Richardson and Pamela
Summers ("the remaining tenants"). To assist the city in
relocating the remaining tenants, the City hired Pacific
Relocation Consultants ("PRC") in April 1993. PRC has been in
constant contact with the remaining tenants since that date
determining their relocation needs and providing them with
comparable replacement housing listings. Based on the appraised
value of the remaining tenants' mobilehome and other relocation
assistance obligations, PRC has informed these tenants that the
City is prepared to provide relocation assistance of $55,000.00-
$58,000.00. In accord with this representation, as of this date,
PRe has provided these tenants with eight (8) comparable
replacement housing listings, all of which have been rejected by
the remaining tenants.
MAR 2 2 199't
~-N
While it is this office's position that the City has fully
complied with its relocation obligations under state and local
law, the remaining tenants disagree. Pursuant to Title 25
California Code of Regulations section 6150 et seq. and Santa
Monica City council Resolution 8615, Section 1000 et seq., the
remaining tenants have the right to administratively challenge
the propriety of the City's actions in relocating these tenants.
An informal oral presentation before the city Manager or
City Manager Designee is the first step in this administrative
review process. The remaining tenants requested such a hearing
on or about January 21, 1994. The city Manager appointed Jeff
Mathieu, Director of Resource Management, as his designee. A
hearing was held on February 8, 1994. Mr. Mathieu issued his
decision on February 24, 1994 affirming the actions that the city
has undertaken in seeking to relocate the tenants and the amounts
of relocation assistance being afford. A copy of that decision
is attached hereto as Attachment A.
The remaining tenants have until April 10, 1994 to appeal
this decision to the City Council. The city council is
authorized to review and reconsider this matter itself or appoint
an impartial designee to conduct this review and reconsideration
on behalf of the Council. While the remaining tenants have not
yet filed an appeal, we believe that such an appeal will be filed
shortly. We also anticipate that the hearing on this matter
could last 1 to 2 full days.
since we anticipate a lengthy proceeding involving a
detailed evidentiary presentation, we recommend that the city
council appoint David Pettit as its impartial designee to review
and decide this matter, rather than have this matter heard by the
city Council itself. If appointed by the Council as recommended
herein, Mr. Pettit's decision would be final subject to the
remaining tenants' right to seek judicial review.
Mr Pettit is an experienced civil litigator with a highly
reputable law firm in downtown Los Angeles. He is currently on
the list of pro tems who hear Small Claims appeals for the Los
Angeles County Superior Court and typically sits as a Superior
Court judge pro tern two or three times per year. He has
particular expertise in landlord/tenant law and is very familiar
with the regulatory protections afforded mobilehome tenants. A
copy of Mr. Pettit's resume is attached hereto as Attachment B.
Hr. Pettit's billing rate for this proceeding will be $150.00jhr.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City council appoint David Pettit
as the impartial designee to review and reconsider the remaining
tenants' anticipated appeal from the February 24, 1994 decision
of Jeff Mathieu regarding the remaining tenants' relocation
assistance complaints.
Prepared by: Marsha Moutrie, city Attorney
Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy city Attorney
Attachments: A. Jeff Mathieu decision dated 2/24/94
B. David Pettit Resume
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA
RE~01JRCE f\.lA.'\AGEME\T DEPART~"IEl\T (310) 4582251
3223 Don,lId Dllugl...~ Loop South ~ul!e 2, S...rt.l .\hml~'" CA,. 9'J+-)')
February 24, 1994
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
505 Olympic Blvd., #6
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Review of Relocation Benefits Complaint
Dear Mr. Richardson and Ms. Summers:
As you know, on or about January 21, 1994, you submitted a
relocation benefits complaint form to the City requesting a
hearing before the Clty Manager or his designee to review your
complaints concerning the relocation benefits that were being
offered you to relocate from the City-owneQ property at 505
Olympic Boulevard. Attached to this complaint form was a several
page document setting forth approximately forty-three (43) issues
that you wanted addressed. A hearing on this matter was held on
February 8, 1994.
I have now completed my review of all the exhibits that you
presented me at the hearing; a transcript of the February 8, 1994
proceeding, a copy of which is attached hereto; relevant
correspondence between the City and Pacific Relocation
Consultants ("PRC); the April 12, 1993 Schenberger, Taylor,
McCormick & Jecker, Inc. appraisal of your mobilehomej the city's
updated relocation plan; the various notices of termination and
displacement served upon you; and all relevant rules and
regulations. Since your presentation at the February 8th hearing
tracked the issues presented in the complaint form document, I
think it would be most appropriate to proceed in the same issue
by issue format in my response to your complaint.
ISSUE 1
Whether the six Month Notice of Termination of Tenancy for
Cause served on July 15, 1993, allegedly authorized by Civil Code
section 798.56(g) and Santa Monica city Charter section 1a06(i),
the 90 Day Notice of Displacement allegedly served on or about
October 19, 1993 and allegedly authorized by Title 25 California
Code of Regulations section 6042(d) and Santa Monica City
Resolution No. 8615, section 1202, the 60 Day Notice of
RE~OURCI:. !\;1A..'iAGH1ENT DEPARTMENT
A.......<..l " In 19.t:ment
B.J.\....lllt... J)....lrlc..t
l--oLOOUmEl De.....t-..lopnlenl
F ...rm H' \1.uke.
''.In... Moln.... AJrpurl
....Im.. MonKa P,er
"r>eu.d I-'rOle'-l~
Tlun.l ".reel Promen.!de
HUU....Ulp; Aurhor1t'L
HOu....Lng Dr\.Ic;;lun
Re...1 i-,[.![L Admlnl,.r.![llm
Redt:,<:lupment A~enl\
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 2
Termination for Cause served on November 18, 1993, allegedly
authorized by Civil Code section 79B.56{g), the 30 Day Notice of
Termination of Tenancy for Cause served on December 17, 1993,
allegedly authorized by civil Code Section 798.56(g) and Santa
Monica City Charter section la06{i) and the 30 Day Notice of
Termination of Tenancy for Cause served on December 21, 1993,
allegedly authorized pursuant to Title 25 California Code of
Regulations Section 6042 (c) and 6058 (b) and Santa Monica City
Council Resolution 8615, Section 1203(6) are all unlawful and
void ab initio under established law.
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 1
As I discussed with you at the February 8, 1994 hearing, the
scope of review of your complaint is established by state and
local relocation assistance law. These statutory provisions
provide that any person who believes himself aggrieved by a
determination as to eligibility for relocation assistance, the
amount of payment, the failure of the City to provide comparable
permanent replacement housing, or the City'S property management
practices may have his claim on these issues reviewed by the city
Manager designee. with this scope of review in mind, I believe
that only your challenge to the October 19, 1993 90 Day Notice of
Displacement and the December 21, 1993 30 Day Notice of
Termination are appropriately the subject of review in this
proceeding.
Title 25 California Code of Regulations Section 6042(d)
provides in relevant part that "[nJo eligible person occupying
property shall be required to move from a dwelling . . without at
least 90 days written notice from the public entity requiring the
displacement.., Santa Monica city Council Resolution No. 8615,
Section 1202 imposes the same requirement.
On October 19, 1993, the City served a 90 Day Notice of
Displacement on you informing you that the use of the property at
505 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, California by the Cityfs
Transportation Department will require your displacement by
January 17, 1993. This Notice was served by posting a copy of
the notice on your premises and by mailing a copy of the notice
to you.
At the hearing, you challenged the propriety of serving this
notice by mail. However, both state law and local law
specifically authorize service in this manner. See Title 25
California Code of Regulations Section 6196; Santa Monica City
Council Resolution No. 8615, Section 1210. Moreover, as
discussed, this notice was also posted on your property after
attempts to personally deliver the notice were unsuccessful.
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 3
You further contended that you did not receive this notice
untll much later in time. The City, however, is at a loss to
understand this contention in light of the fact that the City
employed two distinct methods to serve this notice on you -- one
by posting, the other by mail. The city has signed proofs of
service from the individuals responsible with serving these
documents on you in the manner discussed.
The December 2~, 1993 Thirty Day Notice of Termination was
served on you pursuant to Title 25 California Code of Regulations
Section 6058(b) (5) and 6042(c) as well as Santa Monica city
Council Resolution 8615, Section 1203(6). These sections
authorize eviction where a tenant has refused to accept one of a
reasonable number of offers of replacement dwellings. The Thirty
Day Notice addressed in detail the basis for this notice. More
specifically, on or about May 13, 1993, the city of Santa Monica
through its consultant Pacific Relocation Consultants ("PRC")
provided you with a listing of seven (7) comparable replacement
dwellings. These comparable replacement dwellings were located
in Santa Monica and Culver City, California. On about July 20,
1993, PRC sent you a follow-up letter indicating that these
listings were still available and stating that PRe was prepared
to provide you all necessary relocation assistance. Finally, on
or about November 11, 1993, PRC sent you another letter, PRC sent
you another letter indicating that another comparable replacement
dwelling had become available in Culver city and specifying which
of the previously offered units were still available. Thus, as
of the date of the Thirty Day Notice, the City had provided you
with at least eight (8) offers of comparable replacement
dwellings, yet you have refused to accept any of these offers.
Additionally, PRC has~continued to attempt to work with you
since the service of the Thirty Day Notice. For instance, as you
acknowledged at the hearing, on or about January 28, 1994, PRe
notified you that at least three (3) comparable replacement
dwellings remained available in Culver city.
You emphasized at the hearing on this matter that there are
currently no comparable replacement dwellings available in Santa
Monica. However, the fact that you refused to consider any of
the dwellings that were available in Santa Monica and that they
have now been sold can hardly be a legitimate challenge to the
City's actions in this matter. The City offered you several
comparable replacement dwellings in Santa Monica and you refused
all of these offers.
You contended at the hearing that the City is required to
relocate you in your neighborhood. However, this does not
accurately reflect the requirements of state law. More
Eenny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 4
specifically, state law simply requires the Clty to make every
reasonable effort to relocate you within or near your existing
neighborhood. Where as here it is impossible for the City to
relocate you within the immediate vicinity of the existing
rnobilehome park since this is the only such park within a couple
mile radius, the City does not believe it is precluded from
relocating you to other comparable housing not precisely within
your existing neighborhood Moreover, as noted above, you were
offered several mobilehomes in the two other parks in the City,
both within relatively close proximity to your current residence,
i.e., near your existing neighborhood. Given these
circumstances, the city believes that it has proceeding properly.
The fact that one of you is now sixty three (63) years of age
does not alter this analysis.
ISSUE 2
Whether established law requires the City to appraise our
lease and negotiate its value fairly?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 2
The city is unaware of any provision of law which would
require the city to appraise and purchase your lease, a month-to-
month tenancy terminable upon establishment of just cause.
certainly, there is no provision in state or local relocation
assistance law which remotely suggests that this is required.
For instance, Title 25 California Code of Regulations section
6104 requires the city to provide you with the amount of
financial assistance necessary to enable a displaced person to
lease or rent comparable replacement dwelling for a period of 48
months. This amount is determined by subtracting the amount of
rent you are currently paying from the amount of rent you will
have to pay for a comparable dwelling and multiply this figure by
48. Surely, if state law required the city to purchase your
lease, this section of state law would so provide and the
requirements set forth in this section as discussed above would
be eliminated as being irrelevant to this calculation.
Additionally, Title 25 california Code of Regulations Section
6008(q) identifies the types of leasehold interests that can be
classified as ownership interests. Your lease is not one of
these types of leasehold interests.
Relatedly, you contended at the hearing that under santa
Monica's Rent Control Law, you have the right to lease you space
pad in perpetuity. However, as you are well aware, under the
Rent Control Law, the owner of rental property is authorized to
evict tenants for certain specified reasons, one of which is
having obtained a removal permit from the Rent Control Board. On
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 5
May 27, 1993, the City obtained such a removal permit and
therefore was expressly authorized by the Rent Control Board to
serve you with an eviction notice on this basis. While you
contend that the removal permit is invalid, that contention is
beyond the purview of this review. However, I note that you have
never challenged the issuance of this permit in the manner
established by law, namely through the filing of a timely
administrative mandamus petition. As such, the removal permit
granted by the Board is valid and the City has acted properly in
proceeding in the manner authorized by the permit and the
agreement signed thereunder.
While you stated at the hearing that you desired to live at
the 505 Olympic site forever, you were aware at the inception of
your lease that a change in use of 505 Olympic property was
envisioned. Indeed, on May 10, 1984, you acknowledged that the
park would be closing and indicated that you would be moving your
mobilehome to Mexico prior to the park's closure.
ISSUE 3
Whether the appraisal of our mobilehome and real property
interest in space number 6 was untimely and unfairly made and
whether the amount of the appraisal is lnadequate based upon its
location and condition?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 3
On April 12, 1993, an appraisal report was issued by
Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick & Jecker which appraised the value
of your mobilehome. The City considers this organization to be
highly skilled in conducting appraisals of this nature. The
appraisal is extremely detailed and thorough. At the hearing on
this matter, you presented absolutely no evidence to rebut the
validity of this appraisal other then your mere contention that
it is inadequate. Moreover, while you contend that the value of
the mobilehome has increased since it was appraised, you failed
to provide any evidence to establish this claim except to state
that this assertion is based upon people knowledgeable in real
estate in the area. General market conditions in Southern
california would certainly suggest otherwise. Given the above,
the City remains quite confident in the reliability of its
appraisal.
As discussed in Response to Issue 2, the City did not
independently appraise you interest in Space Number 6 and does
not believe that it has any obligation to do so. The city notes,
however, that when your mobilehome was appraised, a significant
portion of its value was attributable to the increased amount
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 6
that a purchaser of the home would be willing to pay due to the
buyers' anticipation that their rents would continue to be below
market rents due to the presence of rent control. In essence,
your rent-controlled lease was valued through the appraisal of
your mobilehome.
ISSUE 4
Whether the appraisal of our mobilehome in space number 6
was untimely and unfairly made and whether the amount of the
appraisal is inadequate based upon its location and condition and
whether its value presently exceeds the appraisal?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 4
See Response to Issue 3.
ISSUE 5
Whether we have a real property interest in mobilehome space
number 6 under established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 5
See Responses to Issues 2-3.
ISSUE 6
Whether we may lawfully refuse to accept the $56,000.00
offer made by the City to purchase our mobilehome and relocate us
elsewhere?
RE~PONSE TO ISSUE 6
See Responses to Issues 1-3, 7, 9.
ISSUE 7
Whether the City has failed or refused to acquire our
dwelling and real property interest in mobilehome space number 6?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 7
On September 10, 1993, the City made a formal offer to
purchase your trailer at the appraisal price established in the
April 12, 1993 appraisal report issued by Schenberger, Taylor,
McCormick & Jecker which appraised the value of your mobilehome
at $33,800. The City has on other occasions indicated that it
anticipated paying you additional relocation assistance in the
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 7
$20,000-$25,000 range. The exact amount will depend on the
specific mobilehome park that you chose and the rents and other
expenses therein. Thus, the total amount of relocation
assistance that the City believes it is responsible to pay is
approximately $55,000-$58,000. While I have reviewed all the
evidence that you presented at the hearing on this matter,
including the transcript of your testimony, I find no basis for
requiring the city to bear a greater relocation obligation.
since you have never accepted the City's offer to purchase, it
has been impossible for the City to actually acquire your
mobilehome. The city remains ready and able to do so immediately
upon your acceptance of the city's offer.
As already discussed in detail, the City does not believe it
has any independent obligation to purchase your mobilehome space.
You expressed concern at the hearing that the City may
revoke its offer of relocation assistance. I am aware of no
basis for this concern. The city understands its obligations
under State and local law and unquestionably intends to meet
these obligations.
You also emphasized at this hearing that the state
Relocation Guidelines only establish minimum requirements for
relocation assistance and payments. However, the city is unaware
of any other authority or obligation which would require it to
offer you a greater amount of relocation assistance than has
already been offered you. You did not specifically identify any.
ISSUE 8
Whether we have the continued right of possession to our
mobilehome absent acquisition by the city of our real property
interest in mobilehome space number 67
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 8
since the City does not believe that it has any obligation
to pay you for your leasehold interest at the premises, the city
does not believe that you have any continued right of possession
based on this claim. See also Responses to Issues 2-3.
ISSUE 9
Whether the allegedly comparable replacement housing units
offered by the City lack comparability under established law and,
if comparable, whether there is justification for refusing it?
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 8
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 9
On or about May 13, 1993, the City through PRC provided you
with a total of seven (7) mobilehome referrals. Two referrals
were identified in the Mountain View Mobile Inn, 1930 stewart
Avenue, in Santa Monica. Space 40 and space 1-2 were available
with asking prices of $47,000 and $43,900. space rents for these
units were in the $300 to $350 range. Two additional referrals
were identified in the village Trailer Park, 2930 Colorado Ave.,
in the City. Space B-3 and Space B-4 were available with asking
prices of $34,000 and $25,000 respectively. Finally, three
additional referrals were identified in the City Terrace Mobile
Home Park, 11250 Playa street in Culver city, California. Space
82, Space 59, and Space 36 were available in the park. The
asking prices were $34,900, $33,000 and $48,000 respectively.
On or about July 20, 1993, you were provided with a follow-
up letter indicating that the referrals of May 13, 1993 were
still available and setting forth two examples of the relocation
benefits that would be available to you.
On or about November 11, 1994, an update was provided to you
stating that mobilehomes in the city Terrace Mobilehome Park were
still available. These were the mobilehomes located in spaces 59
and 36. In addition, you were informed that a new unit had
become available. Space 77 was available with an asking price of
approximately $42,000.
On or about January 28, 1994, another update was provided to
you advising you that the units in the city Terrace Park in
Culver city were still available. These units are spaces 59, 36
and 77.
The replacement options clearly meet the requirements of
State law regarding comparable units. The available homes in the
Culver city park are in fact superior to your existing coach.
The others that were available in the Santa Monica parks were at
a minimum equal to your present coach. In the instance of the
Culver city units, the amenities are better than the existing
park, even when the park was in full operation. This park is in
close proximity to all the same type of facilities that you
currently enjoy and is not an unreasonable distance from Santa
Monica where you currently spend a lot of your working hours.
The City does not believe that you are justified in refusing
to accept any of the comparable housing units that have been
offered to you. Moreover, given these legitimate offers of
comparable replacement mobilehome housing, the City has no
obligation to provide you with conventional housing as you
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 9
suggested at the hearing on this matter. See 25 California Code
of Regulations Section 6112(c) (5) (A).
ISSUE 10
Whether the City has made every reasonable effort to acquire
our real property interest in mobilehome space number 6?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 10
See Responses to Issues 2-3.
ISSUE 11
Whether prior to the purchase of the Civic Center Trailer
Park by the City, Joel Hager and the city agreed to withhold
mobilehome spaces from the housing market in violation of
established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 11
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 12
Whether the City purchased the Civic Trailer Park subject to
the existing rights of tenants in possession?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 12
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceedi~g.
ISSUE 13
Whether Civic Center Trailer Park was a mobilehome park on
the date the City and Joel Hager entered into an option and
Purchase Agreement and whether it ceased to be a mobilehome park
when the next to the last tenant vacated the park?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 13
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 14
Whether the City is required to make every effort to
relocate us within our existing neighborhood and whether we are
entitled to special consideration as to location because we are
an elderly household?
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 10
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 14
See Response to Issue 1.
ISSUE lS
Whether civil Code section 798.56(g) is being tortiously and
unconstitutionally used by the City to terminate our tenancy in
the Civic Center Trailer Park in violation of our 5th and 14th
Amendment right?
RESPONSE TO ISSOE 15
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 16
Whether the City undertook or participated in activity that
would result in displacement of persons prior to adopting rules
and regulations that would implement the requirements of the Act
and Guidelines?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 16
Title 25 california Code of Regulations section 6006(a)
provides that before undertaking or participating in an activity
that will result in displacement of persons, a public entity
shall adopt rules and regulations implementing the California
Relocation Assistance Law. You assert that the city failed to
comply with this provision since it did not adopt the required
rules and regulations until the adoption of Resolution 8615 on
June 29, 1993. However, as Resolution 8615 expressly states,
that resolution amended the City's preexisting rules and
regulations for implementation of the California Relocation
Assistance Law and property acquisition procedures. The City had
already adopted rules and regulations iEpleEenting the Act and
Guidelines well before it purchased the 505 Olympic Boulevard
property. The City believes that its actions in attempting to
relocate you from the City's property at 505 Olympic complies
with state law and the City's resolution implementing state law.
You argued at the hearing that all actions that the City
undertook prior to the June 29, 1993 resolution were improper
since before that time it had not enacted rules and regulations
implementing State Relocation law. However, as stated above,
your assertion is incorrect. Moreover, even if the June 29, 1993
resolution had constituted the Council's first enactment of rules
and regulations for the implementation of state Relocation law,
the City was clearly authorized to proceed with its displacement
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 11
activities in light of the resolution's adoption. See Title 25
California Code of Regulations, Section 6016(a).
ISSUE 17
Whether the City after it purchased the civic Center Trailer
Park continued to withhold mobilehome lots from the housing
market in violation of established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 17
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 18
Whether the City denied us procedural due process by
proceeding with any phase of the project or other activity that
will result in displacement prior to the Relocation Plan being
submitted to the city councilor the head of the state agency?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 18
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 19
Whether the city deprived us of procedural due process when
it failed to give us an opportunity to participate in reviewing
the relocation plan and monitoring the relocation assistance
program required by established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 19
While this precise issue is not properly a subject of this
proceeding, the City does believe that it has provided you with
ample opportunity to review and comment on the relocation plan
and to monitor the City's relocation assistance program.
ISSUE 20
Whether the city removed tenants from Civic Center Trailer
Park in order for the Transportation Department to use the
property in violation of established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 20
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
page 12
ISSUE 21
Whether the city continued to pursue Removal Permit
Application No. 296-R on May 27, 1993 in violation of established
law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 21
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 22
Whether the city failed to have the hearing set on Removal
Permit Application No. 296-R in violation of established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 22
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 23
Whether the provisions of the Rent Control Charter Amendment
and Chapter 5 of the Rent Control Board's Rules and Regulations
are mandatory?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 23
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 24
Whether registration and penalty fees were due and owing on
the date the city's Removal Permit Application was set for
hearing?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 24
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 2S
Whether the city submitted an incomplete removal permit
application to the Rent Control Board on May 6, 1991?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 25
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 13
ISSUE 26
Whether the word "site" as used in Rent Control Charter
Amendment section 1803(t) (2), (ii) means only the property in
question to the exclusion of contiguous property?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 26
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 27
Whether the Relocation Plan submitted to the Rent Control
Board on December 12, 1991 is inadequate under established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 27
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 28
Whether the updated Relocation Plan is inadequate under
established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 28
I have reviewed the updated Relocation Plan. It appears to
thoroughly cover all areas required by state and local law.
ISSUE 29
Whether the Rent Control Charter Amendment and Rent Control
Board rules and Regulations apply to all Category D removal
permits?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 29
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 30
Whether the provisions of the Rent Control Charter amendment
and Rent Control Board Rules and Regulations apply only to
landlords and tenants and whether homeless persons that have no
landlord tenant relationship are excluded from the operation of
the provisions?
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 14
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 30
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 31
Whether the city and Jay Johnson agreed to remove civic
Center Trailer Park from rent control in violation of established
law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 31
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 32
Whether the Removal Permit Agreement, executed on June 29,
1993, violates the City Charter and Rent Control Rules and
Regulations?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 32
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 33
Whether the Removal Permit Agreement signed on June 29, 1993
is against public policy, unlawful and an unenforceable contract?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 33
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 34
Whether the city's action in fencing off the laundry room
and showers and turning them over to the Salvation Army to
operate a homeless facility constitutes a partial constructive
eviction?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 34
While the City indeed operates a homeless facility on a
portion of the 505 Olympic site, the city is unaware of any
instances in which your rights and privileges as a tenant have
been disturbed. While the laundry room and showers have been
enclosed, you have full access to these facilities at all times.
Your claim of partial constructive eviction does not seem well
taken.
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 15
ISSUE 35
Whether the Removal Permit Agreement impacted on the serious
housing crisis in the city?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 35
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 36
Whether the removal of 42 units of single family dwelling
units would have a serious disruptive consequences for persons in
need of protection and the supply of affordable housing in the
city?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 36
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSOE 37
Whether the project implementation on the site be suspended
or terminated pursuant to established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 37
The City does not believe there is any requirement which
would mandate that the project implementation on the site be
suspended or terminated.
ISSUE 38
Whether the Civic Center Trailer Park be returned to a
mobilehome park pursuant to established law?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 39
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 39
Whether another mobilehome park should be created on a
contiguous site?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 39
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
page 16
ISSUE 40
Whether any of the above described issues constitutes a
regulatory and/or possessory taking in violation of the 5th and
14th Amendment?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 40
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSUE 41
Whether any of the above described issues deprived, or is a
threat to deprive, us of our rights under the 5th and 14th
Amendment to the federal constitution, the laws of the state of
California, and whether any of the above constitutes unlawful or
criminal conduct by the city or others?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 41
This issue is not properly a subJect of this proceeding.
ISSUE 42
Whether funding for the 502 Colorado Avenue site was
included in the original LACTC funding approved in 1991?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 42
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
ISSOE 43
Whether the city improperly used $1,000,000.00 of
transportation trust funds to purchase the property at 502
Colorado Avenue?
RESPONSE TO ISSUE 43
This issue is not properly a subject of this proceeding.
Based on the above-discussed factual and legal analysis and
explanation, I believe that the efforts that the city has
undertaken to relocate you have been in compliance with
applicable state and local law. I further find that the
relocation assistance package that has been offered you to be in
conformity with the City'S legal obligations.
Benny Richardson
Pamela Summers
February 24, 1994
Page 17
You have the right to seek further review of your claim by
requesting a formal hearing before the City Councilor its
designee within forty five (45) days of the date of this
decision. To obtain a formal hearing before the City councilor
its designee, you must request such a hearing in writing with the
City Manager. You may include in the request, any statement of
facts within your knowledge or belief or other material which may
have a bearing on the appeal. The hearing will be scheduled
within forty five (45) days from the rec~'Pt of your hearing
request. (J 111. ~ A
Dated: February 24, 1994 I'l~~
.)f:FF MATHIEU
Director of Resource
Management
Enclosure
ATTACHMENT B
LAW OFFICES
HEDGES M CALDWELL
A PROFHSJO"^L CORPORATION
BE~NA~O ,JOHN BA~~ETT. ,JR
CHRISTOPHE'" G CA'-OWEL.'-
GEORGE ~ HEDGES
I"IIANCv C KIA!AyBILL
MICHAEl.. ~ '-ESUE
MA~Y NEWCOMBE
OAVIO pETTIT
606 SOUTH OLIVE STREET, SUITE 500
LOS ANGELES. CALifORNIA 90014-1507
TELEPHONE (213) 629.9040
TElECOPIER (213) 629-9022
FlA'-PH 1-1 NUTTER
0"- CouNSI!.L
Hedges & Caldwell, an eight-lawyer firm In downtown Los Angeles, specializes In complex
htlgation. We offer our clients sophisticated, creative and vigorous representation,
combining the skills of a large firm With the responsiveness of a small firm
In addition to Wide experience in commercial litigation, we offer particular expertise In
areas as diverse as environmental law, intellectual property and entertainment law,
municipal and land use law, white collar crimInal law, constitutional law, and banking,
Insurance and Insolvency litigation.
Our lawyers are experienced negotiators and trial lawyers, and have handled cases In
state and federal trial and appellate courts In California and elsewhere We strive to meet
our chents' goals and to manage senSibly the costs of litigation by uSing efficient staffing,
small teams, and early planning. Our profeSSional standards are the highest. Our
lawyers graduated at or near the top of their law school classes, and most served as law
clerks in federal trial or appellate courts.
Our chents Include Fortune 500 companies; small closely-held bUSinesses, major StUdiOS,
artists and production companies, cities, counties and state and local agencies, and
IndIViduals and community groups
Major cases recently handled by Hedges & Caldwell include:
o Representation of a California city in an environmental lawsuit
brought against a major oil refinery After obtaining and
analyzing millions of pages of documents from the refinery,
our firm negotiated an unprecedented seven year consent
decree that requires the refinery to submit safety and
environmental Issues to supervIsion by an independent Court-
appointed monitor at the refinery's expense. The settlement
also reqUires the refmery to phase out the use of a highly
tOXIC chemical by 1995.
o Representation of clients in complex litigation involVing the
apportionment of cleanup and response costs resulting from
environmental contamination.
o Representation of several State AgenCIes In complex
environmental litigation brought in both federal and state court
ansing out of the Huntington Beach Oil Spill.
o Representation of chents In obtaining Insurance coverage for
environmental claims.
o Representation of a California city In a RICO action brought
against an Insurance company which issued municipal liability
policies to local governments throughout California. Our
lawyers obtained a multi-million dollar settlement after the
insurer had been taken over by state regulators.
o Representation of a sittIng United States District Court judge
in litigation against the Adminlstratwe Office of the United
States Courts. Our work resulted In a precedent-settIng
deCision from the Ninth CirCUit Court of Appeals In our client's
favor.
o Representation of a major motion picture studio in an
international copynght infnngement action concerning the
unlawful dlstnbutlon of the studio's films In Europe Our firm
negotiated a comprehensive consent judgment wrth wide
enforcement powers vested in a special master.
o Representation of defrauded Investors In a fraud and RICO
action against the promoters, finanCiers and attorneys for a
failed reSidential hOUSing development In Northern California
Our lawyers tried thIS case to a multi-million dollar verdict,
resulting In complete recovery for our Sixty-two clients
o Representation of a California bank In parallel litigation
brought In United States and Taiwan courts resulting In
enforceable iudgments of $1.8 million in favor of our client
o Representation of a California mUnicipality In several parallel
actions to recover more than $6 million lost through the
fraudulent activitIes of the city's former Investment adVIsor.
o Defense of a State agency In a multi-million dollar lawsuit
Involving a fire at a State facility
o Representation of several local governments In drafting a
successful amicus brief in a major Unrted States Supreme
Court land use case interpreting the scope of the "takings"
clause of the Fifth Amendment
- 2 -
o Investigation and litigation of a case involVing the
disappearance of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of
gold and diamonds from an internatJonal jewelry dealer. The
case involved parallel proceedings in state court and before
the American Arbitration AsSOCiation, and ultimately was
settled In our client's favor.
o Representation of the former president of a failed mortgage
lender In concurrent civil and criminal proceedings. We have
represented our client in a federal grand jury Investigation,
SEe enforcement investigation, three state court civil actions,
and a civil adversary action in the bankruptcy court.
o Defense of a mSjor television network In a copyright
infringement action regarding ownership of a movie broadcast
by the network The case was resolved before tnal when the
Court entered summary Judgment In our chent's favor.
o Representation of one of the firm's financial institution chents
In a breach of contract and defamation case flied by a former
employee. When we came to the cllenfs assistance, the case
was SIX weeks Into trial. We immediately filed motions seeking
to dismiss the plaintiffs claims Before the motions were
heard by the Court, the plaintiff accepted our chenfs
settlement offer. Our subsequent interviews with the jurors
suggested that the settlement saved our client millions of
dollars. Later, we aSSisted our client in recovering suffiCient
funds from Its Insurers to cover both the cost of the settlement
and attorney's fees.
Not all of our cases prove to be newsworthy Much of our work arises from the
day-to-day operations of our varied clients What IS common to all of our work IS our
dedIcation to excellence In the representation of each client We are committed to uSIng
all of our Skills, energy and Ingenuity to assist our chents In obtaining their goals In the
most cost-effective manner
- 3 -
AlTORNEY RESUMES
Christopher G. Caldwell
Born, Kansas City, Missouri, 1957
B.A University of Kansas, 1979 (with highest distinction and
honors), Phi Beta Kappa
J.D. Harvard Law School, 1982 (Cum Laude)
Member, Board of Student Advisers; Teaching Assistant,
Federal Litigation
Law Clerk to Honorable A Wallace Tashima, U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, 1982-1983
Member, 1982, California State Bar and U.S. District Court,
Central District of California; 1984, U.S. Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit; 1985, U.S Court of Appeals, Tenth CircUit;
1986, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; 1987, U.S.
District Court, Western District of Texas; 1988, U.S.
Courts of Appeals, Fifth and Ninth CirCUits, and US
District Court, Southern District of California; 1989, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of California; 1990,
U.S. Supreme Court
Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of JustIce, Criminal Division,
Public Integrity Section, 1983-1986
Editor, ABA Complex Crimes Journal, 1993
Member, California Attorneys for Cnmlnal Justice
George R. Hedges
Born, PhIladelphia, PennsylvanJa, 1952
B.A University of Pennsylvania, 1974
M.A. University of Pennsylvania, 1975
J D University of Southern Calrfornia, 1978
Member, Southern California Law Review
Law Clerk to Honorable Lawrence T Lydick, U.S Dlstnct Court,
Central District of California, 1978-1979
Member, 1978, Calrfornla State Bar and US. District Court,
Central District of California; 1980, U.S Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit and U.S. Dlstnct Court, Southern District of
California, 1990, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California; 1993, US. Supreme Court
Member, Board of Advisors, Los Angeles Center for
Photographic StudIes, 1981-1985
Member, Board of Trustees, PacifiC Oaks College, 1986-1987
Member, Board of Directors, Mental Health Advocacy Services,
1982-present
Director, The Ubar fTransarabia Expedition, 1986-present
Member, Association of Business Trial Lawyers
Jack Barrett
Born, Butler, Pennsylvania, 1953
B.A, Dartmouth College, 1975
J.D., Columbia University School of Law, 1978
Law Clerk to the Honorable Gus J. Solomon, U.S. District
Court, District of Oregon, 1978-1979
Law Clerk to the Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1979
Member, 1980. District of Columbia Bar; 1982. U.S. Distnct Court,
District of Columbia, U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. CirCUit;
1993, California State Bar, U.S. District Court, Central District
of California, U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit
Associate Independent Counsel, Office of Independent Counsel
James C. McKay (In the Matter of Edwin Meese III), 1987-1989
Assistant Chief Utigatlon Counsel, Division of Enforcement, Secuntles
and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., 1982-1987
Ralph H. Nutter
Born, Norwood, Massachusetts, 1920
A B., Harvard UniVersity, 1948
LL.B., Harvard Law School, 1948
Law Clerk to the U.S Dlstnct Court for the Eastern Dlstnct
of New York, 1948
Member, 1948, Massachusetts State Bar (inactive); 1949, California State
Bar, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CirCUit; U.S. Supreme
Court; U S Dlstnct Court for the Central Dlstnct of California
Retired Superior Court Judge on Assignment, Los Angeles Supenor
Court, 1992-1993
Justice Pro Tern, California Court of Appeal, 1968
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court, 1961-1969; PreSiding Judge of the
Law Department, 1967
Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, 1959-1961
Attorney and Hearing Officer, National Labor Relations Board, 1948-1951
Contributing Author, California Trial ObjectIOns (2d ed.), C.E.B 1984
Author of published articles on Civil writs, receivers, injunctions,
cnmlnal and Juvenile law
Fellow, Amencan College of Trial Lawyers
Adjunct Professor of Law for 10 years teaching corporation law and
Civil procedure, Southwestern Law School, Beverly Law School,
Whittier Law School
Former Lecturer, Law and Psychiatry at U.S.C School of Law
and MediCine
Member, Los Angeles County Bar Assocation
Former Member, California Law ReVISion Commission on Arbitration <
Former Chairman, Los Angeles County Bar Committee on HOUSIng
Former Member, Los Angeles County Bar Committee on
No Fault Insurance
Former Chairman, Los Angeles County Urban Coalition, Legal Section
..
Nancy C. Krayblll
Born, Dallas, Texas, 1954
A.B. Princeton University, 1976
M.A. University of Delaware, 1983
J.D. University of California at Los Angeles, 1986
Distinguished Advocate, Moot Court Honors Program;
Teaching Assistant, UCLA Communications Department
Law Clerk to Honorable David V. Kenyon, U.S. District Court,
Central Distnct of California, 1986.1988
Member, 1986. California State Bar and US. District Court,
Central District of California; 1990, U.S. Court of Appeals.
NInth Circuit and U.S. Distnct Court, Eastern District of
California; 1993, U.S. Supreme Court
Member. Board of Directors, Harriett Buhai Center for Family
Law. 1991-present
Member, Women Lawyers of Los Angeles
Member, Lawyers for Human Rights
Michael R. Leslie
Born, Erie, Pennsylvania, 1957
B.A Dartmouth College, 1980 (Summa Cum Laude)
Phi Beta Kappa, Rufus Choate Scholar
J.D. Stanford Law School, 1985
Managing Editor, Environmental Law Society,
Project Editor and Co-Author, Land Use Regulation;
Edrtor, W"z/demess Preservation;
Mune Award In Environmental Law,
R. Hunter Summers Award for Excellence in
Trial Advocacy;
Law Clerk to Honorable A Wallace Tashima, U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, 1985-1986
Member, 1986, California State Bar and U.S. Dlstnct Court,
Central District of California; 1987, U.S. Court of Appeals,
Ninth CirCUit; 1993, US District Court, Eastern Dlstnct
of California
Member, Los Angeles County Bar AsSOCiation, American Bar
Association
Mary Newcombe
Born, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1955
B.A. University of North Carolina, Chapel HIli, 1976
J. D. Universrty of California at Los Angeles, 1984
Order of the Coif
Member, UCLA Law Review
Law Clerk to Honorable Stephanie K. Seymour,
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1984.1985
Member, 1985, California State Bar, U.S. District Court,
Central District of California; U.S. Courts of Appeals,
Ninth and Tenth Circuits; 1992, U.S. Supreme Court;
1993, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Volunteer Attorney, ACLU Foundation of Southern California;
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
ReCipient, Steve Kelber Courageous Advocate Award, ACLU
Foundation of Southern California, 1991
Recipient, Kenny Award, National Lawyers Guild, 1993
David R. Pettit
Born, Santa MOnica, California, 1950
B.A. University of California at Los Angeles, 1972
J.D. University of California at Los Angeles, 1975
Member, 1975, California State Bar and U.S District Court, Central
District of California; 1979, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and u.s. Court of Claims; 1985 U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California; 1990, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California; 1991, U.S. Supreme Court
Lecturer, UCLA School of Law, 1976-1979
Judge Pro Tern, Los Angeles County Superior Court, 1989-1993,
Los Angeles MUnicipal Court, 1983, 1984, 1988
Faculty, National Institute of Trial Advocacy Training, 1990
Trainer, Legal Services Corporation New Lawyer Training, 1977-1978
panelist, California Continuing Education of the Bar, Representing
Residential landlords and Tenants, 1979, 1982
Member, Board of Directors, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood
Legal Services, Inc., 1989-present
Member, Board of Directors, Community Corporation of Santa MOnica,
1991-present