Search

By Jorge Casuso

May 20 -- The City of Santa Monica did not need to specifically warn an owner he could lose his dilapidated residential property after repeatedly failing to make the necessary repairs, the California Supreme Court ruled in a published decision Monday.

The decision paves the way for the City to tear down the three-unit building at 2438 Ocean Park Boulevard it seized from its owner, Guillermo Gonzalez, in January 2005 after years of chronic code violations.

The building, which had been turned over to a receiver, was deemed by a Superior Court judge too costly to repair and bring up to Code and would be worth more without the structure.

In a 35-page opinion, the seven-member Supreme Court upheld an Appeals Court decision that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by authorizing receiver” to contract for demolition of a property with known code violations that was uninhabitable.

“The evidence presented to the court amply demonstrated that the nature of the known code violations were extensive and supported its determination that the property was uninhabitable,” Justice Marvin Baxter wrote.

“The circumstances brought to the court’s attention also supported its conclusion that rehabilitation was not economically feasible.”

The court determined that Gonzalez did not have the “economic means and moral resolve to function as a responsible property owner,” Baxter wrote.

“Moreover, the property attracted the criminal element, as exemplified by evidence of 32 calls to police between October 2003 and October 2004 reporting alleged criminal activity there.”

The Sunset Park property -- which City officials said was illegally used as a flophouse -- was in a chronic state of disrepair and had become a dangerous blight to the community, the City argued in court.

Gonzalez had failed to make the necessary repairs after the City filed criminal charges against him in 1997 and again in 2002, to compel him to bring the building up to code, the court noted. Both times Gonzalez was convicted and served time in county jail -- nine months in 1999 and several weeks in late 2004.

“There was evidence the City had tried unsuccessfully for many, many years to compel Gonzalez to repair or abate the serious building, fire, housing, plumbing, and electrical code violations that existed on his property,” the court wrote.

“Despite a previous civil lawsuit that culminated in the City’s demolition of a structure on the property, and despite two criminal prosecutions that resulted in various contempt orders and jailing for over nine months, Gonzalez was persistent in his refusal to rehabilitate the property.”

Gonzalez, who was renting out beds by the week, was charged with violating a lengthy list of code violations for, among other things, having an outdoor dining area, no heat, illegal wiring and being "overrun with garbage, flammable materials, and junk," according to the City.

The court disagreed with Gonzalez that he could rehabilitate the property and continue to live there.

“Gonzalez himself informed the court that he opposed demolition and that it was his ‘fervent wish’ to be permitted to continue inhabiting the property with his family,” the court wrote.

“As for his financial condition, Gonzalez was on record as representing that, apart from the rents received from the property, he was unemployed and had no other income or assets,” Baxter wrote.