Kalaydjian v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 09 December 1983
• Citation: 149 Cal.App.3d 690,197 Cal.Rptr. 149
• Parties: Avedis KALAYDJIAN, an individual and Marshall Kalaydjian, an individual, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF LOS ANGELES, an incorporated municipality, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 68626.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 149

197 Cal.Rptr. 149

149 Cal.App.3d 690

Avedis KALAYDJIAN, an individual and Marshall Kalaydjian, an individual, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF LOS ANGELES, an incorporated municipality, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 68626.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

Dec. 9, 1983.

Klarfeld & Prescott and Michael R. Prescott, Beverly Hills, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Ira Reiner, City Atty. of Los Angeles, William B. Burge and Claudia McGee Henry, Asst. City Attys., for defendants and respondents.

THOMPSON, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff Avedis Kalaydjian appeals from a judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles finding that Kalaydjian was not entitled to recover amounts paid under section 47.06 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, entitled "Tenant Relocation Assistance Where Apartments Are to be Converted."

In December 1979, the Los Angeles City Council adopted several measures requiring landlords who converted apartments to condominium or other specified uses to furnish relocation assistance to displaced tenants. Section 47.06, subsection (C), of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides, in part, that "[i]n connection with the conversion of a building into a condominium, ... hotel or ... use permitted in any commercial zone, the landlord shall provide relocation assistance to each tenant in accordance with Subsection D." Subsection (D), subparagraph 1 a (4), provides for a two-level relocation assistance fee of $2,500 to "qualified tenants" and $1,000 to all other tenants. "Qualified tenants" are defined as tenants over the age of 62, disabled tenants and tenants with dependent minor children.

Kalaydjian purchased a ten-unit apartment house which he planned to convert to a commercial use. He paid $14,500 in relocation expenses to tenants in the building. Kalaydjian later sought reimbursement of the $14,500 from the city.

Kalaydjian contends that Los Angeles Municipal Code section 47.06 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. It is asserted that the means used to compensate tenants are unreasonable because the amounts exacted bear no relationship to each tenant's actual cost of relocation. It is further asserted that the measure creates an arbitrary classification, violative of equal protection, by excluding "luxury housing."

"So far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitutional restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied ...." (Nebbia v. New York (1934) 291 U.S. 502, 537, 54 S.Ct. 505, 516, 78 L.Ed. 940; Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 155, 130 Cal.Rptr. 465, 550 P.2d 1001.)

Imposition of relocation fees is within the power of the city. In Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles (1949) 34 Cal.2d 31, 42, 207 P.2d 1, the court suggested: "It is the petitioner who is seeking to acquire the advantages of lot subdivision and upon him rests the duty of compliance with reasonable conditions for design, dedication, improvement and restrictive use of the land so as to conform to the safety and general welfare of the lot owners in the subdivision and of the public."

Los Angeles Municipal Code section 47.06, subsection A, provides in its Statement of Purposes: "At the present time, there is a critically short supply of rental housing in the City of Los Angeles. Many rental housing units have been removed from the rental market through conversion to condominiums, stock cooperatives, community apartment projects, hotels and commercial uses. Tenants who are evicted due to conversion are experiencing serious difficulties in locating comparable replacement rental housing .... [p] Since the conversion of rental units to condominiums, ... hotels and commercial uses is a substantial cause of the rental housing shortage, the City Council finds and declares that it would be just and proper for the subdividers who may enjoy the benefits of such conversions to assist tenants who are displaced by the conversion activity ...."

The City could reasonably conclude that changes in use of residentially zoned property adversely affect the community's rental stock. The City could reasonably conclude further that the fee exacted from those benefitting from the changed use cushions the displacement...