SR-402-002 (8)
,
f
,
J
?fez ~C02--
I~-A
SEP 2 7 1988
C/ED:SF:Dez
council Mtg: September 27,1988
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Planning commission Denial
Review Permit 433 located at 1318
Applicant/Appellant: Mara Bresnick
cummings Buick.
of Development
16th street.
representing
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the applicant's
appeal of Development Review 433 and uphold the Planning
commission's decision to deny demolition of seven multi-family
residential units and construction of a surface level parking lot
located at 1318 16th Street.
BACKGROUND
On July 20, 1988 the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the application to demolish seven mUlti-family units
removed from the rental market through the "Ellis Act Process",
and replace the units with a surface parking lot serving Cummings
Buick at 1501 Santa Monica Boulevard. No proposal was made to
replace the units, nor did the units have a removal permit issued
by the Rent Control Board.
On a vote of four to three, (Ayes: Nelson, Mechur, Lambert,
Hecht: No: Pyne, Perlman, Farivar) the application was denied
based on the following findings:
- 1 -
12-A
SEP 2 7 1988
o The proposed development is not consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Santa
Monica Municipal Code in that the project will not
conform to the requirements of SMMC Section 4261 which
require the issuance of a removal permit by the Rent
Control Board for the demolition of the existing seven
units prior to the Planning commission granting
approval of a development review application to change
the use of the property, and in that the proj ect is
inconsistent with Program 10 of the Housing Element
which requires replacement of mUlti-family housing
proposed to be demolished..
o The proposed project is not consistent with Ordinance
1321 in that the physical location and placement of a
commercial parking lot is not a compatible land use
within close proximity to existing mUlti-family
residential developments to the north, south, and east
of the subj ect property and in that the parking lot
will negatively impact the residential uses by reason
of increased traffic and vehicle circulation by
cummings Buick employees and customers, and increased
noise and commercial intrusion from automobiles
entering and exiting the parking lot.
o The use of the parking lot has the potential of
becoming inconsistent with the municipal code in that
the use approved would consist of a parking lot for
employee and customer parking, however applicant
testimony presented at the Planning Commission hearing
indicated that the parking lot could be util i zed for
storage of new or used automobiles which is not a
permitted commercial activity in the CP District.
When the application was originally filed with the Planning
Division, Planning staff was not aware that the application would
require a removal permit since the units were removed under the
provisions of the Ellis Act. The application was submitted just
after the court decision in Javizad v. City of Santa Monica and
it was not clear to Planning Staff what the procedures would be
for accepting applications involving rental units removed as a
result of the Ellis Act.
The City Attorney subsequently
determined that applications could not be accepted for filing
until such time as a removal permit was granted. However, this
- 2 -
.
~
application was accepted for filing and therefore was required to
be processed.
Analysis
The project is inconsistent with Program 10 of the Housing
Element which states:
"Demolition of existing multi-family residential dwelling units
shall not be authorized unless provisions have been made for
replacement of those units."
The applicant is not proposing to replace the seven rental units
that currently exist on the site.
The project is inconsistent with SMMC section 4261 which states:
n..no department, commission, board, or agency of the city shall
accept for processing or issue any new permits or applications to
demolish, convert, or otherwise remove a controlled rental unit
from the rental housing market unless the owner has first secured
a removal permit under Section l803(T), an exemption
determination, or approval of a vested rights claim from the Rent
Control Board.1t
Based upon information given to Planning Staff from the City
Attorney's office in light of the recent court decision
concerning the Javizad case, the City Attorney maintains that the
demolition of the units requires a Rent Control Removal Permit
until such time as the Court decision becomed final.
Apart from the inconsistencies with the General Plan and
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission found that the use was
not compatible with surrounding residential uses. The north and
south side of this property directly abut muti-family residential
uses and the majority of the 1300 block of 16th Street is in
mUlti-family residential use.
A surface level parking lot
- 3 -
between two residential buildings is not a compatible land use.
Typically, such as in the case of ItA" designated parcels, surface
parking provides a buffer between commercial and residential
uses.
In this case, the proposed parking lot will not buffer
commercial uses from residential uses but in fact will contribute
to commercial intrusion into a predominately residential
neighborhood.
Athough the parcel is zoned CP (Commercial
Prfessional), the district is intended to permit residential uses
and medical related commercial uses that are not detrimental to
exisitng residential development.
~UDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the appeal
and uphold the decision of the Planning commission based upon the
following findings:
o The proposed development is not consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Santa
Monica Municipal Code in that the proj ect will not
conform to the requirements of SMMC section 4261 which
requires the issuance of a removal permit by the Rent
Control Board for the demolition of the existing seven
units prior to the city Council granting approval of a
development review application to change the use of the
property, and in that the proj ect is not consistent
with Program 10 of the Housing Element which requires
replacement of multi-family residential units proposed
to be demolished.
o The proposed project is not consistent with Ordinance
1321 in that the physical location and placement of a
commercial parking lot is not a compatible land use
within close proximity to existing mUlti-family
- 4 -
residential developments to the north, south, and east
of the sUbject property and in that the parking lot
will negatively impact the residential uses by reason
of increased traffic and vehicle circulation by
Cummings Buick employees and customers, increased noise
and commercial intrusion from automobiles entering and
exiting the parking lot, and in a predominately
residential neighborhood in the 1300 block of 16th
street.
o The use of the parking lot has the potential of
becoming inconsistent with the municipal code in that
the use approved would consist of a parking lot for
employee and customer parking, however testimony
presented at the Planning Commision hearing indicated
that the parking lot could be utilized for storage of
new or used automobiles which is not a permitted
commercial activity in the CP District.
Attachments: Exhibit A: July 20, 1988 Planning Commission
staff Report
Exhibit B: July 19, 1988 Letter from Lawrence
and Harding
Exhibit C: Parking Lot Plans
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
SF:Dez
PC/dr433cc
03/03/88
- 5 -
,
EPt/srr A
tf,D
.
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 20, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: planning Staff
SUBJECT: Development Review Permit 433
Address:
Applicant:
1318 16th street
Cummings Buick
Action: Development Review Permit to demolish seven mUlti-family
residential units and change the use of the property to a surface
parking lot for cummings Buick.
Recommendation: Denial.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 7500 sq. ft. parcel located on the west
side of 16th street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona
Avenue having a frontage of 50 feet. Surrounding uses consist of
multiple family dwellings (CP) to the north, multiple family
dwellings (CP) to the south, multiple family units to the east
(CP), and a parking lot (CP) to the west.
Zoning District: CP
Land Use Districts: Hospital Area
Parcel Area: 50'x 150'
PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant proposes to demolish seven multi-family units,
removed from the rental market through the "Ellis process", and
replace the units with a surface parking lot serving cummings
Buick at 1501 Santa Monica Boulevard. The units have not
received a removal permit from the Rent Control Board.
The applicant does not propose to replace the units that current-
ly exist on the site.
- 1 -
,
.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
is not in conformity with the General Plan in the following
respects:
Section 4261 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code which states that
1I...no department, commission board, or agency of the City shall
accept for processing or issue any new permits or applications to
demolish, convert, or otherwise remove a controlled rental unit
from the rental housing market unless the owner has first secured
a removal permit under Section l803(T), an exemption determina-
tion, or approval of a vested rights claim from the Rent Control
Board. It
Section 9113B of the Santa Monica Municipal Code which requires
at least a 20 front yard setback.
Program 10 of the Housing Element which requires replacement
housing when mUlti-family residential units are demolished.
CEQA STATUS
The project is Categorically exempt from CEQA Class 11(2).
FEES
The project is not subject to any Planning Fees.
ANALYSIS
Background
When the application was originally submitted to the Planning
Division, Planning staff was not aware that the application would
require a removal permit since the units were removed under the
provisions of the Ellis Act. The application was submitted just
after the court decision in the Javidzad v. City of Santa Monica
and at that time it was not clear what further action the city
would take. In that the application was not deemed incomplete on
the basis that the project lacked a removal permit, the Planning
Division is required to process the application under the terms
of the Permit Streamlining Act.
However, under the provisions of SMMC 4261 the application before
the Planning commission may not be approved without the issuance
of a Removal Permit by the Rent Control Board due to the fact the
matter is currently on appeal to a higher court. with this ac-
tion still pending, a removal permit is presently required by the
City when units are removed from the rental market.
Apart from the removal permit requirements, the project is also
inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan with
respect to the front yard setback and Program 10 replacement re-
quirements. The parking is setback only 5 feet from the front
- 2 -
t
.
property line, and a 20 foot front yard setback is required. The
seven units currently existing on the site are not proposed to be
replaced.
The Planning commission must make a determination on the project
by July 20th in order to comply with the Permit Streamlining
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission deny
Development Review Application 433 based on the following
findings:
Finding's
1. The proposed development is not consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the santa
Monica Municipal Code in that the project will not conform
to the requirements of SMMC Section 4261 which requires
the issuance of a removal permit by the Rent Control Board
for demolition of the existing seven units; the project is
not consistent with SMMC Section 9113B 2a in that a 20
foot front yard setback is required and the project plans
indicate that only a 5 foot front yard setback will be
provided: and 1n that the project does not provide re-
placement units under Program 10 of the Housing Element
which requires replacement of mUlti-family units when such
units are proposed to be demolished.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
PC/ZDR433
SF:Dez
06/03/88
- 3 -
.~
~
.
}A u I .. 5 -. · ~ ~ Ml
i :
...
i~-o
~'I'T S.
· .~'~~''':N
.. '
.. .. ..
..
.
1-- '. .. ,.:.. Tg)-,r:" 1 .. - .. ! or . .. ~-
~l ~ I C o~., & II i ~
r 111I ~; ~ II .... Ii .. ': . ~i . ,. . I . I: .. III. I WI ~
.. .. I .. ; .. @) 2l- . .. ': tr i ..~
k -0 ~ E. F . ~II . I . ~ j ~ ~! l
'Il:l ... .. ~ \.. '1.:III".!iII IIlI :lie
I!!I'11t -'I I
~-:<i: ~~<<<1 J~<'~'Jt~'~"; C~~ r:t:'~i ~W
.. ;.. '.. ..: ..~~ ;.. "," 011 .. . .. . or : .. . .. . .. !I.. .. .. .. . .. ll.. ~.. , .. ," ~ }J'\~'
. .
11~ Sl1ttr I I
~.. ; .,.. .1l~ 50 :.. .. .. ~ d -j.,--r; , ~ Gt: I ~.... .;" -I" ; fFi'Af ~ ! 'fr' ~ 1< ~ ~1
D t "G II' \ ,1 " l .... " to c ~~"f" to \\' I ~~ I ~~ t. Cl
. I I ~ ~ . ~ II" ... I; _. . . I . . !I fI ~ I ll!l !II!! ji
I I. :.-a, ./ / r- ~ r . ~ I I
1II1'tG.- 1M ....1....,. w._._ ~ :..:11I..... ...... _ IO.....!. "I4.",1O!;o w: 'IQ ....
;~ .. ~ .. , '"B: .. ".!II, ,. ~ "; .... "(JJ~.~~~ Ii. ~'I~~';;ll .. . (lirA. II"l J'{2=I. ~!I:!t:.. W
~ UTI' , P . Q ; "~! 1 , '/11'1 y ~lPrl". i Q 'P o'7t~ ~~ 2 ~lj
, ". . / .-f AI .., ~ " /, I, I I a
" I'" . I ... -. III _! -- ~.. - W" ~'\ . I. .. . . I . ~" . ~ ... " 11 I .. I ~ K- n ~
: ,. . - I \ '..
i(;~)tft>Ct I ~ '. I
.. fi:;:!.... i ..~; ~ i "/:: L~~~ flO :;tij. ~ ~ ..~~
A . . J C f) 6 I" I {J ~ I ~ A I. CO'! .~
J .1 .. .. ,.. ~ J :: .. :.. ,,!,.. J IV ~: " ~ . ~ . \ ~ .:
J.:.. ~.. ~ -L:.. It!! -I.~' ~~"1 ~(t~~. .. ~ ~ ~
.1.:~~;-~:.!' .. r.,.;'I,l\
..-I..wl..!.. tll...,w .:.. ISII~- _.'" ... 'IIl~1it 'If
1!.4 ~71.I~~ a / i
;J< .. i rt:' .~fS!\i i -j. ~~ ..:..; or ." j ..~(;r: ..~... f"l: "~~f' ~ - ..
.: ~' ,~If"4\l..J Il. Ii.! : C , o. . F G. ~ j ~"fif'i
..? ..~! : I : t!' J ~ J .. -; _ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ) .. ~ ., ~ . · J : · ~ ~" _ .. ~ ~ i ~~: .. 1': " : ~ ~a
;.. .. ~ ., ~ .. tt-., .. I] .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ "u~l" ~ - : .. ~ .. - .. ! · 1 ,. ~ ~ (i=l K u~ L" . II" ~ \"!' ~ b
;i Vi' ! S : : 0 M i'" <!it I: w 1 Y I U ~Jf I : Q ,.I., o~'""-t z r l~~ U . ri};lD
I ' I . .;;c. , I ,.1+- I ~... ~ ~~
...:..i,., ..... ..:.. ...i..,.... i.i_'..:..:.... .:'..i...'.....-'"=
I I
, .:~
~i. ~ ~ 1
M I 1f !II 'III '10 .. w::
LEGAL DesCRIPTION Lot J 31k 134 tolo.n of Santa : DlUca
~
CASE NO
STREET ADDRESS 1318 16th Street, S.M. 90404
:;D
'-
ZONE
10/1/87
Cumm~ngs Bu~ck, Inc.
APPLICANT
DATE
RADIUS MAP FOR
F'UBLIC
HEAAING
DATE
[p[Wi\~lMalM@ {Q)~!;>M~~~[M~
ern Of
S-t- Jh-.~
Cl~DlFCI~~lIA
R.f_nee
Atlas Map
Sheet No
'I
~4
I ;
I
E.xJ+lu"T B
.
CHRISTOPt-tER fOol .....RD...G
"'Ct-tARD.... ~A""RE"'CI!:
Kt: Ir9N ETH -;.. I(UTC"E:R
......R....J I!IRES Nlelt
.JO....N It h'lACKi!:L. m:
I'(E\lIN v I(OZAL
L-\'fRE~CE & HARD~ OF J ...
A "AO'1[5S'O"A~ CO....OIII...T,OH CITY pI StJ ,I ! J 1.1,"';H1r 1
t &.r~ ~ :.:~;,.. ~
....TTORNEl'S ....T ~AW ' --
.aso SIXT.... STiI:U:E....
.Ot;
Ci_ IfI["'1 SA'<TA "ONICA CALI'OR..'A Q040
U'.J_ L ;' ~E';E):lHONE '2-.3; 3g3.IOC7
SUITE: 300
-E_ECOP-ER 1213i- 458-ISHJQ
July 19, 1988
VIA MESSENGER EXPRESS
Planning commission
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Development Review Permit 433
Address: 1318-16th street
Applicant: Cummings Buick
Our File No. 317.2
Dear Commissioners:
This office represents Cummings Buick, th~ Applicant
under DR 433 for the property located at 131B-l&th street,
Santa Monica. Applicant proposes to demolish the seven vacant
residential units on this site and construct a surface parking
lot to service C1mmings Buick located at 1501 Santa Monica
Boulevard. As will be discussed below, the proposed project
is compatible with surrounding land uses and conforms to the
express development standards for this property contained in
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Staff is recommending denial of the applica-
tion for the following reasons:
1. The Rent Control Board has not issued a removal permit
for this property, and it is staffls position that Santa Monica
Municipal Code section 4603 prohibits issuance of a development
permit absent a removal permit in this case [notwithstanding the
fact that these units have been removed from the rental market
pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act (Govlt Code Section
7060 ~t seq.) and implementing Board regulations}.
2. The original plans submitted for the parking lot did
not show the required 20-foot front yard setback. [Subsequent
to the preparation of the Staff Report, the Applicant submitted
revised plans showing the required 20-foot front yard setback to
rectify this oversight.]
3. Planning Staff contends, without any legal authority,
that Applicant is required to comply with Program 10 of the
Housing Element.
.-
LAWRENCE & HARDIXG
f- A OROFESS.C""....i.. COr:tiPORATlON
ATTORNEYS A.T I..AW
Planning Commission
July 19, 1988.
Page 2
We disagree with Staff's recommendation of denial. As
you are aware, the Ellis Act grants owners of residential rental
units the right to remove those units from rental housing use,
i.e., go out of business. The clear intent of the Ellis Act is
to provide an alternative means, outside of the removal permit
process, for residential property owners within rent-controlled
jurisdictions to remove their units from the rental market.
Notwithstanding this clear intent, the Rent Control
Board has taken the position that a property owner must still
obtain a removal permit even after controlled rental units have
been removed pursuant to the provisions of the Ellis Act. The
issue of the preemption by the Ellis Act of the removal permit
requirement has been litigated in the case of Javidzad v. City
of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. WEC
114572. In that case, the Superior Court held that once an
owner has removed rental units through use of the ~llis Act,
that owner can proceed to develop his or her pr~perty in compli-
ance with local zoning laws without first obtaining a removal
permit from the Rent Control Board. A copy of Judge Rothman's
decision in that case is attached as to this letter as Exhibit
"A" for your information. The City and the Board have appealed
that decision and we are advised that the City Attorney has
recommended that the Planning Division require removal permits
prior to processing development applications for Ellis Act
properties.
We urge you to comply with Judge Rothman's rUling and
review this application for compliance with valid local land use
regulations (which may not include requiring a removal permit in
this case). In conformance with the zoning for this property
(CP) r Applicant proposes to place a surface parking lot on this
site to provide needed off-street parking for its dealership.
As you may be aware, Santa Monica Hospital has a parking lot
directly across the street from Applicant's property. There-
fore, use of this lot for parking purposes is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood, conforms with the permitted land
uses and will alleviate on-street parking in nearby residential
areas.
We further contend that the City cannot require compli-
ance with Program 10 of the Housing Element in connection with
this development application. As stated in our prior letters to
the Planning Division on this project, it is our position that
.
LAWRE~CE S: HARDI~G
-
.. A PIClOF"LSS~ONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT .......W
Planning Commission
July 19, 1988 -
Page 3
Program 10, as a statement of a policy objective of the city to
replace demolished residential dwelling units, is invalid and
unenforceable for the fOllowing reasons:
1. Program 10 is not self-implementing. According to the
Housing Element, this program was to have been implemented by
appropriate city action approximately eighteen months after the
adoption of the Housing Element in January 1983. We recognize
that an implementing ordinance is currently scheduled to be
discussed by the City Council at its September 13, 1988 meeting,
however, there is presently no ordinance in effect which identi-
fies the manner in which Program 10 will be implemented or stand-
ards for compliance. Program 10 is now subject to arbitrary
action by the City and constitutes a denial of substantative due
process. Further, Program 10 has not been uniformly applied by
the city in the past and therefore the City has not established
by action a recognized pattern of practice. [We have never
received a response from either the Planning Divdslon or the
City Attorney on this issue.)
2. Program 10 may violate the Ellis Act by requiring an
owner of real property to remain in the residential housing
business. The mandates of Program 10, because they may be
interpreted as requiring a unit-for-unit replacement of resi-
dential rental units, may be viewed more onerous than the Rent
Control provision (Section 1803(t) of the Rent Control Law)
challenged in Nash v. City of Santa MonicaJ 37 Cal.3d 97. The
ruling in the Nash case was superseded by the provisions of the
Ellis Act. It appears that the City, having been unsuccessful
in the trial court in limiting the breadth of the Ellis Act, has
decided to now raise Program 10 in an attempt to penalize owners
who exercise their constitutional right to go out of the rental
housing business. This does not appear to be a legitimate
exercise of local police power.
3. Finally, forcing the Applicant to construct housing on
commercially zoned land is contrary to the City's General Plan
and Zoning ordinance.
We believe the proposed project should be approved as
submitted. The Applicant has properly removed these units from
the rental market and the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Board
through use of the Ellis Act. The proposed project complies
LAWRE~CE & HARDlXG
) " lDRO,.ESSLO....A~ CCI=i'POFUlliOI'4
....TTORN..VS ....T L.A.W
Planning Commission
July 19, 1988-
Page 4
with all applicable zoning laws and would benefit the neighbor-
hood by reducing on-street parking. Lastly, the City cannot
require compliance with Program 10 of the Housing Element until
an enforceable implementing ordinance has been adopted.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
sincerely,
--....
t"fU-i.,L d.-.-) 6~~0 ~I cL-
Mara J. Bresnick
for LAWRENCE & HARDING,
a professional corporation
.
MJB17:ymk:CUMNGSl
cc: Cummings Buick
Suzanne Frick
Robert M. Myers, Esq.
. c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.ORIGINAI.: Rl.ED
'"
SE~ 15 fOOl
COUNrt CLERK
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 FARIBORZ JAVIDZAD, FARAMARZ
JAVIDZAD, MOUSSA JAVIDZAD,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
VS.
14
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, SANTA
15 MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD,
WILLIAM ROME, SANTA MONICA
16 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND
SAFETY, DOES 1 through 20,
17
18
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. WEe 114572
DECISION RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND PEREMPTO~Y
WRIT OF MANDATE
~
,
19
1.
Back9round
Plaintiffs Javidzad hold a long-term lease on parcels of
20
21 real estate along Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monlca, Cal~fornia.
22 The owner is Plainti ff Yarmark.
23
Pursuant to the -ElI1S Act- (Government Code S 7060
24 et seq.), Santa Monica Clty ordinances, and Santa Monica Rent
25 Control Board regulations enacted thereunder, plaintiffs were
26 permitted to go out of the business of offering for rent
27 residential accommodations in their property. All provisions of
28 the ordinances and regulations were complied with, and existing
"T5761- PS 12-&4
-1-
1 tenants were properly evicted. The buildinqs are now vacant, and
2 the plaintiffs have sought a Demolition Permit in order to
3 demolish some of the buildings on the property. No other use is
4 indicated.
5 Before issuing the Demolition Permit, the City required
6 plaintiffs to obtain a Removal Permit from the Santa Monica Rent
7 Control Board, pursuant to Rent Control Charter Amendment
8 S 1803(t).
9 The plaintiffs bring this motion for preliminary injunction
10 and petl tion for writ of mandate on the ground that the
11 requirement of the Rent Control Board Removal Permit is improper
12 under the Ellis Act, as would be any effort of the City to block
13 demolition of this property now that plaintiffs are out of the.
14 residential rental business. Plaintiffs see~'- Injunction and
15 mandate to the Rent Control Board and the City to bar application
16 of Charter S 1803(t) or a city ordinance known as .program 10. of
17 the Santa Monica Housing Element.
18 The matter came on for hearing, and the Court allowed am1C1
19 from the Callfornia Association of Realtors, California Hous1ng
20 Counc1l, Inc., and Apartment Association of Los Angeles County,
21 lnc. At hearing the Court also allowed Yarmark to jOJ.n 1n the
22 action as a plaintiff.
The Court takes judicial notice of all Charter provisions
23
24 and ordinances referred to by the parties in their papers.
The Court finds from the evidence that the plaintiffs'
25
26 apartment units have all been vacated, the units are now empty,
27 and plaintiffs have qone out of the residential property rental
28 business at this location.
-2-
76T~76T- PS 12.84
1
2
3 by .
2.
Decision
The -Ellis Act- provides that -no public entity . . . shall
. .
ord~nance, or regulation, or by administrative action
4 implementing any . . . ordinance or regulation, compel the owner
5 of any residential real property to offer, or continue to offer,
6 accommodations in the property for rent or lease.- Government
7 Code S 7060(a). Because this is a state general law on a subject
8 of statewide concern, it supersedes any conflicting city charter
9 or ordinance or regulation, and to the extent those city
10 provisions are 1nconsistent with it, they are invalid. Vial v.
11 San Die9o, 122 CA3d 346, 348 (1981).
12 Section 1803 (t) of the Rent Control Charter Amendment,
13 enacted by the citizens of Santa Monica, provides that -any
14 landlord who desires to remove a controlled reataI unit from the
15 rental housing market by demolition, conversion or other means is
16 required to obtain a permit from the [Rent Control] Board prior
17 to such removal from the rental housing market in accordance with
18 rules and regulations promulgated by the Board. In order to
19 approve such a permit, the Board is required to find that the
20 landlord cannot make a fair return by reta1ning the controlled
21
rental unit.-
The Charter allows the Board to approve such a
22 permit if the Board finds the unit 1S, bas1cally, uninhabitable
23 or the landlord intends to build multi-family units.
24
25 apply to plaintiffs' situation herein. Although plaintiffs have
26 not been refused a Removal Permit by the Rent Control Board, it
27 is beyond dispute that the Removal Permit would necessarily be
28 refused by the Board in this case since plaintiffs can provide no
None of the grounds set out in S 1803(t) to permit removal
-3-
76TS16T - PS 11-84
1 basis under S IB03(t) to receive it. Defendants have provided no
2 theory by which the Court can avoid this conclusion.
3 The requirements of S IB03(t) are thus in direct opposition
4 to the Ellis Act, and there is no way to read the ordinance as
5 consistent with the Ellis Act on this point. A Removal Permit
6 could not be given under S IB03(t} to a landlord who has gone out
7 of the rental business for any reasons other than those narrow
8 reasons expressly set out in the section. Under S 1803 (t) ,
9 landlords, such as plaintiffs, cannot remove their property from
10 the resident~al rental market in order simply to go out of that
11 business, absent a showing of uninhabitabili ty I lack of fair
12 return, etc. The plain effect of this Charter provision is to
13 compel the landlord to remain in the rental business at that-
14 particular location since it allows no mean~. e'o permit the
15 landlord to Just simply go out of that business. By contrast,
16 the Ellis Act contains no such limitations. The Court must
17 refuse to require a Removal Perm~t under S 1803(t}.
18 Under these circUJ1lstances defendants argue that this
19 provis~on is like any other city land use law, which mandates the
20 means for use of residential rental property as of the date the
21 Charter was enacted. This is not what S 1803(t} says, and,
22 indeed, nothing in the Charter so provides.
23 This, however, does not necessarily preclude the use of
24 other city ordinances to limit the use of plaintiffst property.
25 .Program 10. of the City Housing Element was enacted by the City
26 of Santa Monica and is not a part of the Charter Amendment
27 creating the Rent Control Board. The purpose of .program 10. is
28 to ensure that the City's housing stock is maintained. To
-4-
76TS16T - PS J2.84
1 accomplish this end, .program 10. prohibits demolition of
2 existing multi-family dwelling units. To ensure a one-for-one
3 replacement ~o maintain the City's housing stock, demolition of
4 existing units is not permitted absent approval of a .plan for
5 replacement of those units.-
6 Plaintiffs challenge .program 10. as another city ordinance
7 that is invalid under the Ellis Act. It is not at all clear that
8 this ordinance is invalid under Ellis because it may be possible
9 for -Program 10. to be applied by the City without compelling
10 plaintiffs to engage in the residential rental business. The
11 Ellis Act does not confer rights to use property in a particular
12 way, nor does it abrogate the City's police powers or land use
13 laws. As noted by defendants, plaintiffs can choose to leave
14 their property unused, or pay a sum to a fun4-to erect housing
15 elsewhere, neither alternative requiring them to rema~n in the
16 rental housing business.
17 The Court has concluded that the plaintiffs have not
18 exhausted their adm~nistrative remedies in regard to
19 .program 10,. and it 1S, therefore, premature to address th1s
20 ~ssue in the absence of a replacement plan, an app11cat1on by
21 plaintiffs, or some action by defendants to apply the program to
22 plaintiffs' property.
Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the City issue
23
24 a Demolition Permit since no basis exists not to do so. This
25 request is excessive since valid reasons under city law may exist
26 to deny it or place limitations on it, including, without
limitation, -Program 10.-
27
28 III
-5-
76TS76T- PS 12-14
l..or1Teo....".Y...~ lb; l!:IlH ~~uuw.1 \If' uunvDltA" \.V\mU 0" La): -~E5 - , -
. HONORABLE Il\VID M. ~ JUDGE I P. PAPPAS . Deputy Oerit
! J. Qu.',nJ Deputy Sheriff R:NE. Reporter
"." Cour1 A."endont . {PartIeS and counsel chedted If pres.entl
wa: 114572
F~ JAVID1AD, E1' AL.,
VB.
Counsel for G::RIXN P GlTJ.'Lf.N
Plaintiff (No Appearance)
CJ.'l't OF SANtA M:lUCA, EOC., EI'
1\L. ,
Counselfor ROBERT M. MYERS, City Attorney
Defendant (No Appearance)
JOEL M. LEVY, General Counsel
(No Appearance)
LAWRENCE & HARDING
(No Appearance)
PLAINTIFFS' ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION/PEREMPTORY WRIT
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
In this matter, heretofore taken under submission as of
August 19, 1987, the Court renders its decision as
follows:
The Court makes its order in accordance w1th the DECISION
RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
signed by the Court and filed herein on September 15, 1987.
Copy of this minute order together with copy of the DECISION
RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
is/are sent to counsel for the respective parties by U. s.
Mail this date. . ~
t
j
<#
.
1
i
1
J
MINUTES ENTERED
9../&-lr
COUNTY ClER.K
OEl'T We-~
1UI4I1402,.. N3I N:I
MINUTE ORDER
~