El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Bd.

• Decision Date: 06 October 1980
• Citation: 110 Cal.App.3d 915,168 Cal.Rptr. 276
• Parties: EL PATIO et al., Petitioners, v. PERMANENT RENT CONTROL BOARD OF the CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al., Respondents. Civ. 58653.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 276

168 Cal.Rptr. 276

110 Cal.App.3d 915

EL PATIO et al., Petitioners, v. PERMANENT RENT CONTROL BOARD OF the CITY OF SANTA MONICA et al., Respondents.

Civ. 58653.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Oct. 6, 1980.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing November 4, 1980.

Hearing Denied Dec. 17, 1980.

[110 Cal.App.3d 917] Barry A. Fisher, David Grosz, Los Angeles, David Pettit, Pacoima, Stephen S.

Stark, Acting City Atty., Los Angeles and Robert M. Myers, Venice, for respondents

Robert M. Myers, Venice, for Santa Monica Fair Housing Alliance as intervenor.

Boren, Elperin, Howard & Sloan, William Elperin, Roger H. Howard, Tamila C. Jensen and Ralph B. Dash, Los Angeles, for petitioners.

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, William B. Campbell and Alan K. Steinbrecher, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioners.

L. THAXTON HANSON, Associate Justice.

INTRODUCTION

In this original proceeding in mandate petitioners seek to set aside respondents' decision denying petitioners' request for a vested right determination as to a conversion of an apartment building to a condominium.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

On July 10, 1978, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica (hereinafter City) approved a tentative subdivision map for the condominium conversion of a 34-unit apartment building. The approval of the tentative subdivision was conditioned upon the execution of a Certificate of Compliance, the furnishing of additional parking spaces, the installation and maintenance of smoke detectors, and one other condition but none of the parties contend that any of the foregoing conditions related to the need for a permit to remove the apartment from the rental market.

In October 1978 petitioners entered into a escrow to purchase the apartment building. ¹ Shortly thereafter petitioners and the sellers entered into a management contract in which petitioners were authorized to refurbish common areas and vacate units.

In March 1979 the California Department of Real Estate issued a preliminary subdivision report which petitioners had requested.

On April 10, 1979, the voters of the City passed a rent control charter amendment. That charter amendment establishes a Permanent Rent Control Board (hereinafter Board) and, in point here, gives the Board the power to issue permits for removal of controlled rental units from the rental housing market. (City of Santa Monica Charter, art. XVIII, § 1803, subd. (f)(10).) ² The charter amendment also requires that a landlord obtain a permit from the Board prior to removal of the rental unit from the market and set forth the findings required by the Board. (City of Santa Monica Charter, art. XVIII, § 1803, subd. (t).) ³

On May 8, 1979, the Santa Monica City Council passed as an emergency measure, Ordinance No. 1124, ⁴ placing a moratorium on the approval and processing of any application for a tentative map or parcel map for a condominium conversion filed after April 10, 1979, as well as a moratorium on new applications for new condominium conversions.

On May 25, 1979, Petitioners' escrow closed and the deed was recorded on June 1, 1979.

(Petitioners' allegation that the delay in closing the escrow was due to the sellers' delay over which petitioners had no control is denied by the Board and City. Petitioners also allege that 26 units had been reserved by prospective buyers by the end of June 1979, a fact which the Board and the City also deny.)

On June 29, 1979, the City Council adopted another emergency measure, Ordinance No. 1127, ⁵ whose stated purpose was to modify, clarify and implement the rent control charter amendment. In point here, section 4606 of Ordinance No. 1127 provided that a property owner is presumed to have a vested right to convert a controlled rental unit if the tentative map was approved prior to April 10, 1979, if the property owner submits evidence of good faith reliance upon the tentative map including the filing of an application for public report with the California Department of Real Estate and the obtaining of necessary building permits and approvals by the Architectural Review Board.

(The City and the Board admit that petitioners' tentative map was approved prior to April 10, 1979, and that the preliminary report had been issued by the California Department of Real Estate, but do deny, on lack of information and belief, petitioners' allegation that no building permits or Architectural Review Board approval was required. As this is presumptively within the On July 2, 1979, the tentative map was extended by the Planning Commission of the City on the condition that petitioners obtain a "Certificate of Exemption or a Removal Permit or a Determination of Vested Rights" from the Board prior to approval of the final tract map. The City Council upheld the attachment of that condition upon petitioners' appeal to the City Council.

City's knowledge, the denial does not appear to be in good faith.)

On July 9, 1979, petitioners requested that the Board find a vested right and the matter was before the Board on July 26, 1979, but was continued with petitioners' consent.

On July 12, 1979, the final subdivision map was filed with the City.

(Petitioners allege, and the City denies, that the delay in filing was due to the tardy and deleterious manner in which City processes all paperwork.)

On July 28, 1979, the Board amended its proposed rules and regulations and adopted new Chapter 6 of its rules and regulations regarding claims of vested rights. Under section 6014(b) of Chapter 6, the Board in determining claims of vested rights is required to consider if prior to April 10, 1979, the claimant obtained the final governmental approval necessary to remove the rental unit from the housing market, and if the claimant performed, apparently both prior to and after April 10, 1979, substantial work or incurred substantial liability in reliance on final governmental approval. If the claimant cannot satisfy all of the above requirements, no claim of vested rights would be granted. ⁶

On July 30, 1979, petitioners renewed their request for a vested rights determination in the form mandated by chapter 6 of the Board's rules and regulations.

On August 2, 1979, a hearing was held before the Board and the matter was taken under submission.

On August 8, 1979, the Board denied petitioners' vested right's determination. The Board commissioners stated orally their findings which were later incorporated into written findings. ⁷

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND POSTURE

Following the Board's denial of petitioners' claim of a vested right, they thereafter unsuccessfully sought relief in the superior court and then filed a petition for extraordinary relief in this court in which they did not seek review of the superior court's denial of relief but rather sought review by an original proceeding in this court. This court denied the petition on the ground that petitioners had not made a showing sufficient to establish that review by way of an original proceeding in this court was justified and that it appeared that petitioners had a remedy by appeal. The Supreme Court granted a petition for hearing and transferred the matter to this court with directions to issue an alternative writ of mandate. ⁸ The Supreme Court's order of transfer included citation to Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644, 150 Cal.Rptr. 242, 586 P.2d 556.

Intervenor Santa Monica Fair Housing Alliance has demurred by way of return. In that demurrer, it is contended that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for issuance of a writ in that the facts set forth in the petition support the denial of petitioners' vested rights claim by the Board. In view of the Supreme Court's action in granting a hearing and transferring the matter to this court with directions that an alternative writ issue and in the absence of any defects in the pleading of the petition if the allegations be deemed true the demurrer is overruled. (See Charlton v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 858, 156 Cal.Rptr. 107.)

As indicated above, this court originally denied the petition because petitioners had not established that review by original proceeding in this court was justified. The Supreme Court's granting of a hearing and transferring the matter to this court with direction for the issuance of an alternative writ requires that this court treat the present matter as an original proceeding. Accordingly, we do not undertake any review of the superior court proceedings.

All objections based upon a claim that any of the exhibits lodged in this court are not part of the administrative record before the Board are overruled in that no objecting party has furnished this court with a certified record of the proceedings before the Board and in that petitioners have not limited their pleadings to matters contained in the uncertified record furnished by petitioners. All objections to the exhibits on the ground of irrelevancy are overruled on the grounds that the objections either pertain to exhibits containing ordinances of the City or pertain to matters alleged by the objecting parties in the pleadings before this court.

ISSUES

Although the parties frame the controlling issue in terms of whether petitioners had a vested right to a final subdivision

map, we construe the determinative issues more precisely to be: whether or not the City can legally impose additional conditions after approval of a tentative subdivision map or after approval of an extension of a tentative map.

DISCUSSION

I

CAN THE CITY APPLY THE RENT CONTROL CHARTER AMENDMENT AFTER APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP? NO.

In Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 22 Cal.3d 644, 150 Cal.Rptr. 242, 586 P.2d 556, the Board of Supervisors approved a tentative subdivision map subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The general plan for the county changed between the approval of the...