COSTA-HAWKINS UNDER ATTACK

The Costa-Hawkins bill is under attack by Sheila Kuehl. Kuehl wants to put TORCA Condo Units back under rent control. This would be the Camel's nose under the tent. If the legislature starts amending the Costa-Hawkins bill now it will continue to amend it until there is nothing left.

Apparently Kuehl was upset that some buildings have converted to Condominiums and are completely price decontrolled for new tenants. In 1996 Action successfully argued with Santa Monica that if condos were not exempt from price control owners would be forced to sell the units. This would only further reduce the already tight housing supply.

Sheila Kuehl also wants to require that owners put their names and addresses on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. While it seems an innocuous change, it will be problematic for owners with old forms because their three-day notice would be defective if they omitted the name and address on their three-day notice. Many owners would not know that their notices were defective until they got to court. This would cost unsuspecting owners an enormous amount in legal fees and lost rents.

First we had asbestos; then there was lead; now there is mold. Apparently the mold issue came to light in a large apartment complex in Sacramento. The mold grew out of the walls and underneath the buildings and professionals were unable to abate it. It got into the furniture of the tenants and the entire building had to be evacuated. No other landlord in town would rent to those tenants and take in their furniture, so most of the furniture had to be destroyed. Apparently the mold issue has spawned a new form of litigation against landlords. Senator Ortiz has proposed a bill to address the mold issue. However it is extremely onerous and basically classifies all molds as being toxic. The presence of any mold would be a health and safety violation, which precludes you from perfecting an unlawful detainer.


The Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed SB 732 (Ortiz) last week. The bill now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee to further address various sections of the bill, with specific emphasis on the disclosure and damages component of the measure. Though Senator Ortiz has committed to work with CAA and the other interest groups, CAA nevertheless expressed at the hearing concerns about the bill. Specifically, CAA lobbyists told the Senate Health Committee that if SB 732 were to become law and add mold to the substandard housing law, it would require code enforcement officers to make a determination whether the tenant sustained any serious or permanent bodily injury resulting from mold. CAA staff also told the Committee that a "health based standard" should not be the focus for SB 732. CAA publicly encouraged Senator Ortiz to develop protocols for remediation of mold from property along the lines of the Federal Environmental Agency and the City of New York.

Senator Ortiz has requested that CAA coordinate the interest groups opposed to her bill. Working with CAA on this issue are the Builders, REALTORS, BOMA, CHC, Bankers and the Business Properties Association. Additionally, CAA has formed a Mold Task Force comprised of a number of the largest owners in the State, including Equity Residential, Fairfield, Avalon-Bay, Western National, and Archstone. The Task Force is providing technical and legal assistance with the bill as well as working to put together an Operation and Maintenance Plan for use by the members. CAA also plans to present to the State Legislature the industries "best practices" to address this issue. Continue to watch the CAA website at www.ca-apartment.org for additional information.

The second court of appeal has tossed out Santa Monica's "Granny Flat" rule. Santa Monica had passed a law that allowed owners to build an apartment in back of their single-family homes. However, it restricted the occupancy of the Granny Flat to Family members or a domestic employee. The Second Court of Appeal in the case of Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica has recently ruled against Santa Monica. The Court stated "since the ordinances distinction among permissible users of second units violates both privacy and equal protection rights, under established constitutional principals, the judgement upholding the ordinance must be reversed". The appellate court also determined that the State's need for housing nullified the City's contention that "Ordinances relating to purely municipal affairs prevail over State laws on the same subject". "If a matter is of Statewide concern, Charter cities must yield to applicable general laws," the justices wrote. Thus Santa Monica is being required to do its share to help increase the housing supply in California.