SR-5-A (22)
.1-
e
e
I ot/ ;' ()66
6"A
AUG 2 8 1979
DATE
TO
FRn'>1
SUBJECT:
August 28, 1979
Nayor and Councilrnembers
elt)" Attorney
Law SUlt RegardIng Rent Control Amendnent InItlative
I~TRODUCTIOK
ThIS report transmIts information on hearIngs held in the SuperIor
Court on August 24th and 28th, 1979. It also transmIts a resolutIon
callIng for a SpeCIal ElectIon to be held on November 6, 19i9,
upon certaIn contIngencIes.
BACKGROUXD
On August 24th, LOKe1l Wedemyer, a tax payer and SIgnatory of the
petItIon, flIed SUIt against the Clty, the CounCIl, four CouncIl-
members Kho were not present at the August 23rd meetIng, the County,
and the RegIstrar of Voters. After a heanng, Judge Robert Well
ordered the County to accept a Santa MonIca consolIdation request
up to September 5th, the County's prIntIng deadline and the day
after a scheduled hearIng. He denied a request to compel the
CounCIl to neet and to vote on the consolIdation request; he
stated that the City had a duty to put the InItIatIve on the ballot
and that he expected that the CounCIl would perform that duty WIth-
In Its discretion.
On August 28th, Councllmembers Yannatta and Jennings, and Santa
}1onlcans for Renters RIghts, filed a cross-complaint and sought
a Temporary RestraInIng Order. Another hearing was held before
~A
AUG '2 8 '979
e
e
Well; the Judge Issued a Temporary RestrainIng Order enJOInIng
the City from transfllttlng a consolidatIon request to the County.
The County is enjoIned from acceptIng a consolidatlon request
from the City.
The IRO wIll last untIl a hearing before Judge Well on Tuesday
September 4th. At that time, the Judge will decide whether he
WIll permIt a consolIdated electIon to occur on ~ovember 6th,
even though the CIty did not file a consolidation request wIthIn
the tl~e lImIt of SectIon 23302 of the ElectIons Code.
The Council was authorized to pass a resolution calling an
electIon. It may call a SpecIal Election for any reasonable date.
Including November 6th. It may request that an election called
for Kovember 6th be consolidated with the Statewide ElectIon,
and risk that the Court will enJoIn the consolidatIon. Further,
the Council may direct the Clerk to hold a separate election and
request the County to cooperate as much as possIble, If consolidation
is prohIbIted.
The County Counsel Indicated that the County was WIllIng to
cooperate wIth the City, and that it had no obJectIon to consolI-
datIon provided that its prIntIng deadlines were ~et.
Should the Council adopt a resolution, the CIty Attorney WIll
transmIt It to the Court by noon, August 31st, together with hlS
response to the requests for inJunctIons. The papers will be served
on the opposIng parties and on the County Counsel.
- 2 -
.
e
e
Since the CIty Attorney represents Councilmembers Yannatta and
JennIngs in response to the Kedenyer conplalnt, and since those
Councilmembers are sUIng the remainIng Councllmembers In the
cross complaInt, the City Attorney IS representIng
conflIcting
interests. UntIl further dIrectIon, the CIty Attorney WIll present
the facts and governing law as obJectIvely as possible, and advocate
the goals of a ~aJorIty of the CounCIl.
ALTER~ATIVES
The Council may vote to set a speCIal election on the Rent Control
Amendment InItiative at a date of its choice. If the Council votes
to set an electIon for Novenber 6th, it may request that the electIon
be consolIdated wIth the StatewIde election, If pOSSIble. If
consolIdation is ImpOSSIble, the CIty may hold its own election and
enlIst maXImum cooperatIon of the County.
RECOMME~~ATIOK
The City Attorney recornnends that the CounCIl set the electIon at a
date of its chOIce. If the Council chooses to set the electIon for
November 6th, the Attorney recommends that the CounCIl adopt a resolu-
tIon requesting consolIdatIon and, alternatIvely, cooperatIon. The
Attorney also recoBmends that he be dIrected to respond in Court on
behalf of a maJority of the Council, and transmIt a copy of whatever
resolutIon is adopted to the Court.
Prepared by: RIchard L. KnIckerbocker, CIty Attorney
Stephen S. Stark, Assistant CIty Attorney
e
e
101/ ,-fJb6
~
Santa Monica, CalIfornIa, August 23, 1979
From:
Mayor and CIty Council
City Clerk
I
To:
AUG 2 3 1979
SubJect. Rent Control PetItion
IntroductIon
ThIS report outlines actIons taken to date and recommendatIons
regardIng a rent control petition.
Background
A charter amendment petItIon contaIning approximately 9,739
signatures and proposing an amendment to ArtIcle XVIII of the
Charter of the City of Santa MonIca concerning rent control
was submitted to this offIce on August 7, 1979. The language
of the proposed charter amendment is attached. Pursuant to
State Code reqUIrements the petItion was submitted to the County
RegIstrar's offIce for verIfIcatIon of signatures. 5,205
SIgnatures are required to qualIfy the petItion for placement on
a ballot.
The RegIstrar's offIce completed the signature examination on
August 15, 1979 and found it to contaIn suffICIent signatures
for placement on the ballot. A copy of the RegIstrar Recorder's
report IS attached.
SUffiPlary
Since the petitIon qualIfIes for ballot placement, It recommended
that the CounCIl take the following actIons:
1. Adopt the attached resolution callIng a speCIal munIcipal
electIon to be held on ~ovember 6, 1979.
-1-
I
AUG 2 3 ;979
e
e
2. Adopted the attached resolution requestIng the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors to consolidate the special
munIcIpal electIon with the statewide specIal elections
WhICh IS to be held on November 6, 1979.
CompletIon of arguments and rebuttals:
The Councilor member or members authorIzed by the CouncIl
has first prIority to wrIte the argument fOT or against the
proposed charter amendment. If the Council so desIres, it
will be necessary to take action on August 23rd. The deadlIne
for submittal of arguments IS September 4, 1979. The deadlIne
for submittal of rebuttals IS September 14, 1979.
-2-