Loading...
SR 05-08-2018 7B City Council Report City Council Meeting: May 8, 2018 Agenda Item: 7.B 1 of 5 To: Mayor and City Council From: Lane Dilg, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Making Clerical Clarifications To Tenant Protection Provisions In The Santa Monica Municipal Code and Adding Section 4.27.050 Limiting No-Fault Evictions Against Students and Educators During the School Year Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached proposed ordinance providing a substantive defense to any no-fault eviction of an educator or a family with a school-age child during the school year and making certain clerical clarifications to the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Executive Summary The City of Santa Monica is committed to maintaining an inclusive and di verse community, as well as a community where all children can learn and thrive. Studies have shown that evictions are on the rise, and that evictions of students in the middle of the school year disrupt relationships that are important to children, interfere with the learning process, and place an administrative burden on schools. The proposed ordinance would reduce harmful effects of evictions and promote continuity in education by preventing no-fault evictions of families with children and educators during the school year. The proposed ordinance also makes clerical changes to Article 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code by moving certain existing tenant protection provisions in Article 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to a new chapter titled Tenant Protection. These clerical changes are intended to promote transparency and ease access to the law. Background On February 27, 2018, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to limit no-fault evictions against students and educators during the school year. The request was made in the context of a continuing affordable housing crisis in the City, concern for 2 of 5 housing-related disruptions to children’s education, and guidance from a recent U.S. Court of Appeal decision affirming a similar law in San Francisco. As detailed below, no-fault evictions occur when tenants are evicted based on no fault of their own but due to a landlord’s decision to, for example, occupy the property or exit the rental market. Discussion No-fault evictions occur year-round, but those occurring for families during the school year are of particular concern due to the adverse effect on children. Studies demonstrate that moving or changing schools in the middle of the school year can be harmful for children. See, for example, “Moving Matters: The Causal Effect of Moving Schools on Student Performance” (2017) The MIT Press, Vol. 12, Issue 4, p. 419-446 (citing twenty-seven previous studies and articles); Veronique Dupere’s “School Mobility and school-age children’s social adjustment”, Developmental Psychology 51(2): 197- 210 (2015). Mid-year moves are more likely to disrupt children's peer networks and interfere with the learning process; and school year mobility is also linked to decreased proficiency rates on standardized test performances. The impact of no-fault evictions during the school year on school staff, especially teachers, also raises serious concern. School staff tend to be especially vulnerable to displacement due to salary limitations that can make it difficult to quickly or easily locate replacement housing. Moreover, the eviction of school staff during the school year can cause significant harm to a child’s education. Children need strong mentoring relationships to succeed and often turn to school staff, p articularly when they cannot find stability in their homes or in their communities. Academic performance suffers when teachers and other significant staff leave or are repeatedly absent during the school year. Thus, mid-year evictions of teachers and staff disrupt relationships that are important to children, interfere with the learning process, and burden our schools. The proposed ordinance draws on and is based upon significant work done by the City and County of San Francisco to study the effects of an d take steps to mitigate the harm 3 of 5 of school-year evictions of children and educators. In April 2016, following extensive study and findings, San Francisco adopted Ordinance No. 55-16 to create a substantive defense to no-fault evictions of students and educators. On February 14, 2018, the California Court of Appeal upheld that Ordinance in a published opinion; on April 25, 2018, the California Supreme Court declined to review this decision . See San Francisco Apartment Association et al. v City and County of San Francisco (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 510. See also, Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 149 (city's exercise of the police power creating a substantive eviction defense does not conflict with the state's unlawful detainer statutory scheme). The proposed ordinance is modeled after Ordinance No. 55-16 and based on similar and many of the same findings. It would create a new substantive defense to the following categories of no-fault evictions: (1) Owner-occupancy evictions pursuant to Charter Sections 1806(a)(8) and 2304(a)(8); (2) Evictions pursuant to properly obtained demolition and removal permits under Charter Section 1806(a)(9) and 2304(a)(9); and (3) Ellis Act removals of units from the rental market pursuant to Charter Section 1806(a)(10). The defense would be available in the event of a no -fault eviction when: (a) a child under the age of 18 or any educator resides in the unit, (b) the child or educator is a tenant in the unit or has a custodial or family relationship with a tenant in the unit, (c) the tenant has resided in the unit for 12 months or more, and (d) the effective date of the notice of termination of tenancy falls during the school year. 4 of 5 The proposed ordinance defines “educators” to include any person who works in Santa Monica at a state-licensed child care center, state-licensed family day care, and/or any public, private, or parochial institution that provides educational instruction for students in any or all of the grades from kindergarten through twelfth grade. The school year is defined based on the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District school year. The City of Santa Monica has a long history of dedicating public resources to benefit students and to stabilize housing for families. The City Attorney’s Office, Consumer Protection Division, enforces tenant harassment and antidiscrimination laws and also provides community education related to tenants’ and consumers’ rights. These efforts, and the proposed ordinance, support the City’s goals, articulated in its Strategic Goals and Framework, of maintaining an inclusive and diverse community, helping Santa Monica residents stay in their homes and build community, and strengthening youth connectedness and emotional health. Should Council adopt the proposed ordinance, the Con sumer Protection Division would initiate education efforts to inform families, educators, tenants, landlords, and legal aid providers about the availability of this defense. The affirmative defense would be cited by tenants to avoid initiation of eviction during the school year and raised by tenants on a case-by-case basis in unlawful detainer cases. Finally, the proposed ordinance makes clerical changes to the Santa Monica Municipal Code by moving certain existing tenant protection provisions in Article 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to a new chapter titled Tenant Protection. The proposed ordinance renumbers these provisions within the SMMC but makes no substantive changes or amendments to the provisions. The clerical changes are intended to promote transparency of the law and ensure that interested community members are able to find relevant provisions with ease. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. 5 of 5 Prepared By: Gary Rhoades, Deputy City Attorney Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Ordinance B. Written Comments 1 Vernice Hankins From:David Miller <millerdca7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 7, 2018 4:24 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Comment on Item 7B – Limiting Evictions Against Students and Educators Dear Members of the City Council,  I have been a resident of Santa Monica for over 30 years. I am writing to comment on Agenda Item 7B, which proposes to limit evictions against students and educators.  Can we have some facts before you adopt new laws? Is there an actual problem with educators being evicted in Santa Monica?  Adopting this new law will result in unintended consequences. This law will make it harder for educators to find apartments in Santa Monica. Educators are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Laws. Therefore, when faced with multiple applicants for an apartment, landlords will decide to rent to the non-educator who does not have special protections from eviction. Why make it harder for educators to find housing in Santa Monica? Just because San Francisco adopts a dumb law doesn’t mean that Santa Monica has to do so as well.  Sincerely, David Miller Item 7-B 05/08/18 1 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:24 AM To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Lane Dilg Subject:FW: No Fault Ordinance #7B Council‐    Please see the below email regarding the proposed no‐fault eviction ordinance.    Thanks,    Stephanie     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Craig zone [mailto:calitribe7@yahoo.com]   Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:54 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: No Fault Ordinance #7B    Dear Council     There are already enough restrictions in place within the rent control protections afforded to the citizens of Santa  Monica.  There are also citizens of Santa Monica that are property owners of rental housing and as such we bear the cost and  responsibility of providing and maintaining these properties.  The expenses are becoming greater every year and with annual rent control increases held to very low percentages,  seldom above three percent, its difficult to maintain a truly adequate operation fund. Older buildings require far more  maintenance and repairs, yet they are the target for “rent stabilization” under the myth that these property owners  have more financial flexibility than property owners with newer buildings and large mortgages. Anyone that owns an  older home knows the problems and cost of maintaining that home! Eventually the decision will be made to replace the  older structure with something new that the property owner would prefer to build onsite instead.    This No Fault Ordinance is another restriction that will have the potential to not only stall an Ellis Act procedure, it could  be on hold almost indefinitely! A student for instance can study any subject at anytime all year round! Regular school  schedule, summer school, Home school will most certainly qualify! How do we define studies?  Violin lessons? Tutoring? Then we should factor in the age of all the children studying under the age of 18 that live in the  rental housing. If they are very young children this No Fault Ordinance will certainly Stop the Ellis Act plan for the  property owner potentially for many years. It’s very unfair!!    We have Rent Control and it’s Unsustainable!   Now it’s morphing into Property Control!  Council beware! When the City enacted  Rent Control some property owners boarded up their buildings in protest, left them sitting vacant for years! They  became furious!    We are getting close to that sentiment now!  Item 7-B 05/08/18 2 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18 2 Rent Control, Vacancy Control and other affordable housing schemes are going too far and there will be negative  consequences!  I’m completely comfortable joining a class action law suit against the City for this latest effort and other pending rent  control schemes. This will be the final straw.    Council this Ordinance is not your answer!    Craig W.  Property owner     Sent from my iPhone  Item 7-B 05/08/18 3 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:27 AM To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Lane Dilg Subject:FW: # item 7b Council‐  Please see the below email regarding the proposed no‐fault eviction ordinance.  Thanks,  Stephanie   From: patrushkha@aol.com [mailto:patrushkha@aol.com]  Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 5:59 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Cc: janet@aagla.org  Subject: # item 7b  To the Santa Monica City Council: I read with surprise that the Council is considering a broad limit on the ability of owners to manage their properties under today’s ITEM 7b. As a filmmaker working quite a bit in Santa Monica during my early career, I aspired to save enough money to someday own a small apartment building in Santa Monica. I gave up vacations to Cabo and Tahoe, unlike my colleagues. It was a tough freelance life and it took a much longer time to save up. When I finally was able to buy a building, it was in Los Angeles, not the more desirable Westside. Hearing the ways owners are regulated and portrayed by city councils and elected officials has dampened my enthusiasm for building my business here, and now that I’m almost ready to retire I am at last GRATEFUL that I live on the Eastside, have my building still under my management, and not having to deal with the headaches there. My retirement plan was to have 3 apartment buildings that I actively manage and continue my philosophy of keeping rents below the market and having long-term, stable residents. Seeing how coordinated city attacks have been on building owners in Southern California, I’m taking my pension and retirement monies out of California and investing in buildings in my new retirement state. YOU are a big reason I am taking the money away. PM Los Angeles Item 7-B 05/08/18 4 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:29 AM To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Lane Dilg Subject:FW: City Council Proposed Ordinance re limiting no fault evictions. Council‐    Please see the below email regarding the proposed no‐fault eviction ordinance.    Thanks,    Stephanie       From: David Azouz [mailto:azouzd@1stlondon.net]   Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 4:24 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Cc: info@aagla.org  Subject: City Council Proposed Ordinance re limiting no fault evictions.    Dear Sir / Madam:    How can this proposed ordinance benefit anyone? It is an ill conceived ordinance that just hurts all other renters in the  city.     What is the number of no fault eviction cases involving this category of renters? – it cannot be very many over a space of  5 years – does this small number really warrant an ordinance?    Why should the city discriminate between tenants – just because one happens to work for the city and one does not?    If the city is allowed to discriminate and create different classes of tenants, then probably Landlords can too: They will  not rent to this group of people: Why should they when their rights are further limited by renting to them in the first  place.     Of course, this affects all Landlord’s in the city, but EXTREMELY few people will be delayed in their eviction because of  this law that will just delay the development of newer units even further. This is just another law to lead to the decline  of the City of Santa Monica…….    Has’nt the city learn’t from its past mistakes? Years ago there was no vacancy decontrol in the city. As a result few units  were built, and the city’s housing stock went in to decline and disrepair. The housing shortage got worse. So eventually,  the city realized this and had to reverse their previous ruling and re‐instate vacancy decontrol – now 30 years later they  are trying to bring it back. It does not alleviate the housing shortage, or the condition of the housing stock. It just  worsens it.    Sincerely,    Item 7-B 05/08/18 5 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18 2 David Azouz            Item 7-B 05/08/18 6 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 8, 2018 4:02 PM To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Lane Dilg Subject:FW: Item #7B - Limiting No-Fault Evictions Against Students and Educators Council‐    Please see the below email regarding the proposed no‐fault eviction ordinance.    Thanks,    Stephanie       From: Janet Gagnon [mailto:janet@aagla.org]   Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 2:30 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Cc: Bill Dawson <bdawson@linkline.com>  Subject: Item #7B ‐ Limiting No‐Fault Evictions Against Students and Educators  To the Santa Monica City Council, The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles represents thousands of small mom and pop (owners of 10 or fewer units) rental housing owners throughout Los Angeles County, including many in Santa Monica. Mom and pop rental housing owners enable renters to live and work in Santa Monica that would not otherwise be able to afford to do so. The economics of being a small affordable rental housing owner in Santa Monica are already extremely difficult given the existing rent control ordinance and the severe limits placed upon owners to pass through ever increasing costs of property taxes, parcel taxes, bond measures, sewer, trash removal, property insurance, repairs and maintenance. Further, as the rent controlled units are in older buildings, the costs are even higher for owners as these buildings require significantly more maintenance and repairs. This new ordinance proposes that for No-Fault evictions, tenants would be entitled to stay in the unit for the entire school year if they either have: 1) children under the age of 18 living at the unit or 2) the tenant is staff of any kind at a school or licensed day care facility in Santa Monica. No-fault evictions include "Owner-occupancy evictions". How is it fair to prevent a person from living at a building for up to 9 moths that they own despite providing proper notice to the tenant? Most owners need to stay at the property due to personal financial needs or other emergency situations. The owner is the one that is responsible for the mortgage on the property as well as the property taxes, repairs and maintenance. The owner should be entitled to live at the property they own, if they chose to do so. Thus, we urge the Santa Monica City Council to exempt this No-fault eviction from this ordinance. The new ordinance also defines an "Educator" to include anyone who works at a school or state-licensed day care in Santa Monica, including "administrative staff, custodians, cafeteria workers, community relations specialists and learning support consultants. This definition is extremely overly broad for the public policy that is stated as the reason for this ordinance. The staff report states that "children need strong mentoring relationships" and that "academic performance suffers when teachers and other significant staff leave or are repeatedly absent". While it is possible for children to form close relationships with teachers, psychologists and social workers, these other categories of staff have little to no significant interactions with students and should not be included in this new group of renters that can avoid eviction based on their jobs. Thus, we urge the Santa Monica City Council to remove administrative staff, custodians, cafeteria workers, community relations specialists and Item 7-B 05/08/18 7 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18 2 learning support consultants from the definition of "Educator" and limit the definition to only those positions that have substantial interactions such as teachers, social workers and psychologists. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Janet M. Gagnon --   Janet M. Gagnon, Esq. Director, Government Affairs & External Relations AAGLA 621 S. Westmoreland Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90005 t: 213/384-4131 ext 309 | f: 888/384-4131 www.AAGLA.org   Twitter   Facebook The Voice of Multifamily Housing Since 1917 ©  Item 7-B 05/08/18 8 of 8 Item 7-B 05/08/18