Loading...
SR-7-A (13)( iby -DD~. ~,r, /~ /`i ~~;~ ~ ~, ;~~; LUTM:PB:DKW;DS/tp183cc.pcword2.~,lan Santa Monioa, California Council Mtg; June 16, ~992 J~~ ,~ [~ ~4~~ T0: Mayor and City Council -- FROM: City Staff SLI&7ECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Tenant Participating Conversion 183, 2110 Fourth Street Applicant: HR Capital-Rossmore Appellant: D. Longstreet, L. Aukar, M. Hale, L. Gale, L. Privo This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal to overturn the Planni.ng Commission's approval of TPC 183 and VTTM 50638 for a 27-unit Tenant-Participating Conversion at 2110 Fourth Street. BACKGR4UND On March 14, 1991, HR CapitaZ-Rassmore filed Tenant Participatzng Conversion (TPCj 154 for the conversion of a 27-unit apartment building into condominiums at 2110 Fourth Street. On August 25, 1991, TPC 354 was withdrawn by the apglicant af~er claims were raised regarding the actual tenancy of two ca-signers, 12on Kane and Sam Randazzo, and after tenant L~dmilla Pxivortskaya (spelled "Privo" in the appeal) withdrear her support for the project. The current appZication for the saMe building, TPC 183 and vesting Tentative Tract tiap (VTTM) 50683, was submitt~d by HR Capital-Rossmore on September 13 1991, and approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1992. ~r - 1 - f~~4~ ~ '~ '2~^ .. ~ _ ~ JUi~ ~ ~, ~s~i f On May 22, 1992, an appeal was filed by five residents of the subject apartment building, B. Longstreet, L. Auker, M. Hale, L. Gale and L. Privortskaya. The appellants base their appeal on several claims which were also made at the the Planning Commission gublic hearing. (Attachment A.) The appellants question the validity of Ron Kane's tenancy, who signed Agreement to Conversion ("Agreement") and Inten~ to Purchase ("Purchase") forms on July 30, 1992. The appellants claim that Mr. Kane did not begin residency until May of 1991, less than the required szx months before signing the Agreement and Purchase forms. Furthermore, the appel].ants believe that Mr. Kane has not paid rent for the apartment, which would disqualify him as a"Participating Tenant" under the provisions of the Tenan~ Ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA). If Mr. Kane's signature were found to be invalid, the number of tenants signing the Purchase forms would fall below the minimum of 50~, thereby requiring denial of the application. In response to questions about ~3r. Kane's tenancy, the applicant has provided staff with a sworn affidavit by Mr. Kane, a letter from a neighboring tenant, a lease agreement, and records from Southern California Edison Company (SCE}. (Attachment D.) Tn the affidavit, Mr. Kane states ~hat he "had possession of unit # 23 for six months prior to signinq" the Agreement and Purchase forms. A neighboring tenant, Stephanie Gordon, affirms Mr. Kane~s affidavit by stating that she has "witnessed occupancy in apartment #23 since the beginning of 1991." The _ 2 _ applicant-provided lease agreement calls out a starting date of January 15, 1991. The SCE documentation provided by the applicant casts an element of doubt on the date Mr. Kane began to reside at unit no. 23 because it indicates a service start-up date of February 14, 1991, 15 days after the ear~iest day Mr. Kane must have begun residency for a valid signature, and almost a full mon~h after the January 15, 1991, date of the lease agreement provided by the applicant. The applicant was also unable to provide canceled check statements from Mr. Kane, statinq that he had paid his rent in cash which is a violation of the apartment manaqement policies stated in a September 5, 1990, letter included as an attachment to the appeal statement. Althouqh these issues raise doubts regarding the validity of Mr. Kane's tenancy, the Planning Commission concluded that the applicant has provided enough evidence to find that Mr. Kane resided in his unit the minimum time required to be a cosigning Participating Tenant. The appellants have also provided a withdrawal of support from Ludmilla Privortskaya, a tenant who signed the Agreement and Purchase forms. Ms. Privortskaya stated she signed in order to get her apartment painted and carpeted, and, in a further explanation filed with the appeaz, that she did not understand what she was signing. The City Attorney's affice states that, because unit improvements such as painting and carpeting are customary bargaining points when negotiating tenant approval, Ms. Privortskaya has not demonstrated that she was coerced into signing, and that her support at the time the application was - 3 - filad should therefore stand. A subsequent change of heart does not invalidate the applicatian. Frior to the Planning Commission public hearing, two of the appellants also brought to staff's attention a question regarding the validity of a statement signed by Gary Murakami. Mr. Murakami initially signed the Agreement and Purchase €orms, withdrew his support for the project on October 10, 1991, and subsequently reinstated his support for the project on January 22, 1992. {Attachments C and D.) The appellants infarmed staff that Mr. Murakami's letter reinstatinq support was written after he had vacated his unit. Howaver, because he had not demonstrated coercion, misrepresentation or fraud by the owner in his ariginal letter of withdrawal, staff believes that Mr. Murakami's original support for the project should stand. Finally, the appellants claim that the the owner threatened tenants with eviction pursuant to the Ellia Act if they would not support ~he conversion, which woul~ be in violation of TORCA. However, this claim is contradicted in the correspondence of one of the appelZants, David Longstreet, who states that "...Ellis was never threatened by the Applicants, {although] it was mentioned by the former owner and in meetings for the former owner if her efforts to dispose of ~he proper~y to the Associates failed." (Attaohment C, Correspondence dated OCtober 10, 1990, page 10.) With the exception of the appellants, no other tenants have reported the threat of Ellis eviction, and the applicant has made a sworn declaration that the tenants were not so threatened. A transcript provided by the appellant of a July 2, 1990 meeting - 4 - contains no reference to the E11is Act. Staff believes there is insufficient evidence to deny the application based on the claim that signatures were obtainsd based upon threat of Ellis evictians. In another sworn affidavit, the applicant claims that, at a meetzng held prior to the Planning Cpmmzssion hearing, appellants attempted to make a"dea1," offering their support for the project only if he would sell their units to them for prices in the $30,000 to $50,000 range, and if the applicant would guarantee permanent tenancy to Beverly Longstreet. Furthermore, the applicant statad that Mr. Hale said that "$200,000 would buy [the applicant) four votes." If the applicant's statements are true, they may have a bearing on the Council's decision in weighing each side of the case. TORCA provides an opportunity for tenants to negotiate the price of units, improvements, atc., before the application is filed and Agreementi and Purchase forms are signed. However, TORCA does not provide a mechanism for this type of negotiation after an application has been filed. Conolusion The appellants have failed to demonstrate ~hat there was any fraud, misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the owner. Furthermore, the applicant provided sufficient evidence of Mr. Rane's tenancy. Therefore, sta~f recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's 5-1 vote ta approve the TORCA conversion at 2110 Fourth Street. - 5 - Public Notification Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9131.5, notice of the Planning Commission and, upon appeal, City Council public hearings was mai~ed to ali owners and residential and commercial tenants of property lpcated within a(30D foot) radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment F. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget ar fiscal impact. It is respectfully recom~aended that the Council review the facts and hear the appellants' and applicant's tastimony, and, barring any evidence which may be presented indicating a violation of TORCA by the applicant, staff recommends that the Council uphold Planning Commission's approval of TPC 183 and VTTM 50638 for a 27-unit Tenant-Participating Conversion at 2110 Fourth Street based on the findings and conditions contained in the Planning Commission Statement of Ofticial Action. (Attachment G.) Prepared by: D. Kenynn Webster, Principal Planner Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner Planning Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department ATTACHMENTS A. Appeal Statement B. Planning Commission Staff Report C. Correspondence in Opposition to the Application - 6 - D. Correspondence in ~avor of the Application E. Staff Correspondence F. Pubiic Notice G. Planning Commissian Statement af Official Action DB:db PC2/tp183cc _ ~ _ ATTACHMENT A ~-~r-r~c ~t~ rnrr city of Santa Monica :~ Commurnty ana Economic Development Depart~rR --- Planninp and Zontrp DlvWon (213) 458-8341 A~PEAL FORM FfE:i~40.D0 ~~;~ May 22, 1992 Rec~ved by ~ ~ Z2 ~~t ~L Rece~pt ~io. Name D. Longstreet, L. Auker, M. Hale, L. Gale, L. Privo qddress 2110 4th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405 ContactPersan L. Auker or ~. Longstreet Phone 396-1341 or 396-78fi1 respective7y Pleasedescnbetheprqectanddeasanbbeappealed renant Partic7pating Conversion #183 (27-un3ts)~ Decision for Applicant, TORCA permit granted Case Number TPC 183 YTTM 50638 pd~~ 2110 4th St., Santa Momca, GA 9040~ p~,~ N-R CaPital - Rossmore pr,g~ ~~ ~~ May 13, 199Z Ongmaladan TORCA Permit Granted Please sta~ ~e speNtk raaaoe(E- la rie apQea! 1 Approval of the TORCA application m th~s matter was based on misrepresentauon, d~stortion of fact and errors of law 2 There aze several unresolved material issues of fact in this matter regarding the validtty of three - possibly four - signatures, or withdrawal of signatures, any one of which would ~nvalidate the Applicanon. a) The Commission accepted as true, the naked unsubstantiated statement of Ron Kane (Umt 23) that he pays rent zn cash, while ignoring the fact that neither he, nor applieant could support this allegauon with records or recetpu, and d~sregarding testimony and documents in the record which demonstrate that apphcant DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH for rent. Mr Kane has never paid rent to the manager and has a special relationship with the owner The va3idity of th~s signature was Improperly based on a utility bi~l and not on the ~ssue of whether or not the umt is actually a"rental umt" eligible for a vote under the TORCA prvvisions. b) The CommitteE disregarded the testunony that coersion, mtisrepresentanon and unusual pressure placed on Ludmila Pnvo (L1nit 6) by applicant to obta~n her signature, as wel( as demed her right to withdraw her s~gnature when that coersion and misrepresentation wera exposed c) Gary Murakami withdrew h~s signature and he and the developer re-mstated the withdrawal months after he moved from the umt. 3 A~plicantc' ec~unse! submitted documents and declarations to the Plann,ng 5taff grior to the hearing and to the Committee durmg the hearing, which were not disclosed to the opponents, who were therefore unable to respond to those alleganons. Several members of ihe Committee ut~l~zed mformation from those docunnsnts when discussing thelr vote and evidendy weighted that informat-an as true. In fact, the declaration of Mr Schwartz is a complete d~stortion and misrepresentauon of the meeting described. 4 'The documentary evidence in the possession of the staff or Committee demonstrates that Rod Delson was a partner and associate of HR Rossmore at the tune he made an Ellis remark to tenants. Th~s evidence was ignored by the Committee on the bas~s of oral tesumony from one tenant that the remark was harmless These iss will be addressed ec~fically in deta~l and supported by documentauon to be presented S~~~~~~~~~~.~ , ~ May 22, 1992 v ~ ~ l -- v forms for t3nits 1, 9, i2, 16, 20 and 23. (Additional documents will be introduced for the upcominq hearing to demonstrate applicant's misrepresentation concering Unit 9.) Application withdrawsl because of coercion and misinformation, and subsequent misrepresentation in this final application demonstrate significant number of major violations of the TORCa Ordinance. Based on the showing of cosraion and misrepresentation whict~ has been demonstrated in this raatter, declarant requests that if the City Council denies this application it include a ruling in its decision that applicant is estopped from future efforts to convert the 2110 4th Street premises. Each and eVery fact and issue as set-out ahove, is based on my persanal knowledge or observation, or upon such information and belief as this declarant has been informed of by the person or persons named herein, and based on such personal knowZedge and observation, and believinq such information as received ta be true and correct, ~ have set out such facts and informatian herein withaut change or distortion. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Iaws of the State af California that the foregoiT~g is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. L J ~.~, ~~ ~ ^ L~ _ ~ ~ I ~t ~ f R9 ~8- May 20, I 992 Ciry Councd Members Sarrta Mornca City Hall Re: Appeal of TPC I 83 for 21 I 0 4th St. 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 904Q1 This appeal requests Gty Council review of the Planning Commission rulrng approvmg the TORCA application for 21 I 0 4th Street I believe the Planrnng Commission wrongly validated several signatures, without regard for overwhelming ewdence of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation The signature of Ron Kane was accepted despite matenal ev~dence provided to the commission. I. Mr. Kane oraffy testifred that he made rent payments in cash since I/15/91 2. A 9/5/40 memo (attached) from the applicant's property manager entitled "Management Policies & Procedures" issued to all tenants states (paragraph 4) "Please be advrsed that Delson Management can only accept rerrtal payments in the form of a check, money order, or cash~er check, no cash payments wdl be accepted for rent....Please use your cancelled check or carbon receipts from money orders and cashier checks as proof of payment " 3. Kane, the owner, the developer, and property manager have testified repeatedly that no receipts or records of these "cash payments" ewst 4. Lackmg evidence of paymerrt changing hands between the occupant or other party and the landlord no tenancy is established under law. 5 Commissioner ponald Nelson argued corredly that the legitimary of Kane's tenanry must be held to the same burden of proof as eligbiliry for other aty services, such as school enrollment, which requires documented proof of res~dency. b Other ewdence conta~ned in my May I letter (rev. version attache~ aJso challenges this tenanry The developer {abncated this tenanry after-the-fact when he was not able to achieve the quota of signatures any other way. The ewdence pertammg to Murakami's (# I 2) withdrawal also merits reconsideration. Mr. Murakami signed the conversion papers handed to him, at ti~e request of the budding manager, who was being pressured herself to come up with a minimum quota of signatures As Ms. Knegs testified, Murakami was a her housesitter with no long-term nght or interest in the apartment, who signed without regard to the consequences or consultation with her as the rightful unit occupant. Despite Ms. Kr-iegs recent reversal, she was at the time an outspoken opponent of conversion and had refused to sign any documents herself Fvrthernlol'e, the Murakam~ ietter submltted by the develaper rea~rm2ng conversian support attemp£ed to rn~slead the Planning Cornmissron by falling to reveal that the tenant had ended his resldency several months earl~er. Overt threats to the livelihood and domicde of the on-site manager herself is detaled in my letter attached. G~ty Councd Re. 21 I 0 4th St. May 20, I 992 The Planning Commission's ruling was also not supported by the evidence concerrnng the withdrawal of Ms Privo's (#6) signatures I. Ms. Pnvo signed and withdrew her signature tw~ce. Ms Prrvo's letter to the Commission of 4/17/91 (attached) clearly stated that she originally had been pressured into signing, and Mr Longstreet testified that he witnessed managemerrt's bullying tactics in pressing the cornersion paperwork on her m the courryard of the bwlding 2. Ms Prno is a natural~zed cibzen of Russian ongin who lacks confidence in her English ability and feels vulnerable to landlord manipulation. After the speafic guarantees made to her were only partially fulfilled she v~nthdrew a second time When the applicant asked for more prwate meevngs to regain her support, she asked several of us to meet together because of her fears of intimidation and susceptibility to renewed exploitation. [Mr. Schwartz has submitted an affidawt characterizing this meeting in a bitterly self-servmg way, and my response to his observations follows.] Mr. Schwartz is not being candid when E~e denies that he discusses "option" sales w3th tenants In fact, Ms. Privo relates that Schwartz told her she could "name her pnce" if she would resubmit her signature immediately Contrary to h~s declaration that she demanded an option sale, she declmed his eleventh hour wmdfall offer because of her sense of unity with other tenants simdatiy opposed to this hostde conversion takeover. Schwartz's strategy has been to make "arrangements" with indroidual tenants and to pit tenants agamst each other. His rancor at having to face a group of tenants who sought a settlement which woufd beneft a larger community of tenants was palpa6le. Schwar~'s outrage that we might offer $50,000 for these units certainly matches ours at seeing h~m quadruple the sales price over his purchase costs. Schwartz flled his affidawt vwth out-of-context comments and examples from hypothetical scenanos raised by Mr Gale. Schwartz harbored the illusion that he could buy four votes that evernng. My signature (or Mr. Longstreet's for that matter} was not for sale. No "deal," as he calls it, was ever possible since other tenants who were not present had to be consulted I ended the meeting after Schwartz became abusive with sarcastic and belittling commerrts. In addition to the above challenges, the attached letter ra~ses several other cogent issues refated to this TQRCA applicat~on and prov~des a rebuttal to a4legataons made by the appl~cant 6efore and at the May I 3 Plann~ng Commissron hearing, but which were not made known to opposing tenants in a timely manner. ynn Auker d Attachments 4 DELSON ~- ~ ~ ~ W~t_~ftifFN1 rx~m~rrnr. ovc M E M O T O: 2110 4th Street Tenants F R o M: Valerie Healep; Property Supervisor D A T E: September 5, 1990 S U B J E C T: Management Policies & Procedures This letter is to advise you of the day to day management of your buildinq policies and procedures that we request each of you to abide by and cooperate with. 1) For your convenience we have installed a door mail slot in John Moore's unit #3 the on-site tnanaqer. Rent payments and any other written correspondence or maintenance request may be deposited there. 2) Your on-site manager may be reached via phone at (213) 346- 6956 anytime. If he is unavailable please leave your name and number and he will return your call as soon as possible. Should an emeryency develop and an immediate response is needed you may call Delson Management office at (213} 458-9905 or beep the property supervisor at (213) 707-0988. 3) For those tenants that have expressed a concern of delivery of UPS packages that are dropped off during working hours, please contact John Moore to make arrangements for deiivezy to be made to a deleqated tenant. 4) Please be advised that Delson Manaqement can only accept rental payments in the form of a check, money order, or cashier check, no cash payments will be accepted for rent. Also, no receipts will be given to you each month for rent. Please use your car-celled check or carbon receipts from money orders and cashier checks as proof of payment. 233 N'dsh~re I3oule~•ard, Sui~e 5?S, Sarna ;~1omca, Cahforma 90h01 (2I1) 45A-99115 FA?C (2131 ~95-7844 April 17, 1991 Attention: Drummond Buckley - TPC 154 Planning and Zoning Division Santa Monica City Hall, Room 212 1685 Main Stireet Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Sir: Please take my signature off of the ToRCA application for conversion of the building at 2110 4th Street. I was pressured into signing the agreement by Delson without understanding the situation and I am ca~celling my approval. I do not believe the property owner's promises. My apartment is in terrible condition -- it has not been painted in 10 years, the stove and oven don't work, the floors and bathtubs are very bad and the owners are not planning to fix my unit. I am not able to buy my apartment, and I c~o not want the building to became condominiums. I do not vote for conversion. Thank you. Ludmilla Privo Apt. #6 May 20, 1992 (Ttus is a shortened revision of my May 1 letter to the Plamm~g Commission to incWde information rebutting allegataons by the applicant but not available to tenants prior to hearing.) Plamm~g Commission Members c/o Drummond Buckley, Asst. Planner TPC No. 183 5anta Monica City Hall, Raam 212 16&5 Main Street Santa Monica. CA 90401 Re: 2110 4th St. I want to respond to the Plauning Div. staff report relating to uiformation I gave in letters dated October 8, 1991 (attached to the report) and Apri120, 1491 (not attached) and reiterate my oppos~tion to the conversion. The developer's rebuttals fail to put many pertinent matters to rest. A. CHAI.LENGE TO SIGNATURES 1'he tenants cha.llenged several signatures on grounds that they ilIustrate abnse of process by this developer Al. Fheibihry ta vote for conversion Issue of Ran Kane's tenancy. The developer is weII-positioned to generate sworn statements and paperwork to validate a January 15 tenancy, since Mr Kane is personally connected to the owner. The fact that there are no utility bills or rent receipts to confirm the start of tenancy speaks for itself. Even if the 1/15/91 date were true, the length of tenancy was dehberately misstated on page 2(Section II Unit/tenant Information) of two TORCA filu~gs, i.e. the 3/22/91 fihng states 6 month length of occupancy as of 2/1/91 (actually 2 weeks), and the 9/18191 filing states 6 months as of 7/1/91 (5'/z months), both of which the developer l~ew was untrue I live adjacent to unit 23 and i fix the move-~n date later. My recollect~ons are. a) around March of that year I was toid by the building manager that a broken window of mine could be replaced with one fmm #23 since the unit was unoccupied; b) a bedroom devoid of furrushings and an empty clothes closet was visible through the windows; c) mqu~rers interested in rentu~g the unit were told that it was being held empty; d) the gas company notes the start of new billings on the meter, and the notation for #23 is dated 4/11/91 (see photos attached to 10/8 letter). [Also attached are examples of other recent utility hook-up notations for comparison.] The developer filed the latest application 5 months a£ter this date [The daveioper provided additional photographic evidence to corroborate the accuracy of gas campany datings. Connsel nptes a 4-1-92 markmg on the meter for umt #24 which roughly coincides with the move-out of M Gordon, who reluiquished the apartment to her daughter, S. Gordon, hence the change of billing. Snnilarly, unit #1, #20 and others have altered notations as hilling parties change without changing the lease holder.] City Counc~ Re: 2110 4th St. May 20, 1992 A2. Ccercion of sienatures Issue of on-site manager dismissal. The Desantis explanation regarding the dism~ssal of the on-site manager, Ms. Bnen, is completely disingenuous. The statement that she was fired because "the new owner did not know anything about Ms. Brien at the tune" is false smce the "new owner" was a property consultant (Delson) for the "old owner" pnor to the sale and had contact with Ms. Brien in her employment capacity dunng lengthy pre-TORCA negotiations. In addition, Ms. Brien enjoyed the highest recommendat~ons for reliability and integrity from the former owner based on her seven-year tenure here. Ms. Brien has worked selflessly for a TORCA solut~on amicable to tenants and management, without letting personal sentiments mterfere with professional duty. Neveztheless, the tenants rejected conversion In retaliarion, the new owners replaced her with another tenant, J Moore, who they lrnew not at all except as someone who had emerged as a sohd conversion proponent, and Ms Brien was ordered to vacate her unit. Mr. Moore was quickly relieved of duties for performance problems (as related to me by his employer) and because of tenant outrage over the injustice to Ms. Bnen Ms. Brien remains subject to the threat of lass of livelihood, wYuch serves as a powerful inducement to sign for conversion and as a"gag" to speaking out. A3. Ouid nm auo for sienatures Case of Umt 6 The developer has offered consideration to tenants for signatures and to bolster support. Ms Ludmila Privo (#6) is one who refused to sign and received new carpets and paint in return for her signature. She also escorted a potential buyer (sent by the developer) through her apartment, who expressed interest in purchasing the option ~f Ms Privo agreed to the conversion. Ms Privo recently has been pressured by the developer to write a conversion support letter, but on the contrary she no longer wishes to be a party to the conversion because she no longer feels assured that the developer's promises will be kept with respect to uncompleted aparhnent repairs. Her signature below aff'u~ms that these are her e7cperiences and thoughts and not my own, and that she wishes to withdraw her support for conversion. [Signed on 5/3/921etter] No one asked or came to paint my apartment or replace my rugs, nor anyone else for whom such tactics aze futile. A4. Withdrawal/reinstatement of signatures Case of Unit 12 Mr. Murakaini's 1/22/42 reaff'irmation of support for the conversion attached to the staff report is irrelevant since he moved out months before that date Muraka-ni was a temporary occupant City Council Re• 2110 4th St. May 20, 1992 housesittmg for Ms. Kriegs who was out of the country, and should not have signed the conversion agreements for her without her laiowledge, particularly as he r~~as unaware of her strong prior opposit~on. Since her return Knegs has reversed herself and agreed to ~~acate in exchange for cash, and the applicant has encouraged her to endorse the conversion in pursuit of that goal. Opt~on sales have always played a prominent role m securing signatures. I have tape recordings of tenant meetings at which Delson assured tenants that they will be approached by many buyers after the "White Slip" is issued (many other pnvate conversations on the tapic ensued). At one of those meetings he also raised the spectre of Rllis, though whether this constitutes a"threat" in a legalist~c sense I'm not qualif'ied to say. The very mention of the Elhs altemative creates an aura of apprehension that once mtmduced is difficult to dispel. B. F[JNDAMF,NTAI, ISSLTES B1. Poll of tenants siQnine intent-to-nurchase forms I interviewed all but two of the 14 tenants who signed the intent forms personally, to learn their true mtentions regazding purchase Others' intentions were related by roommates or close associates (exceptmg R. Kane discussed above}. As indicated in my Octaber $letter, I discovered only two interested in purchase, neither at the hsted prices. That places the trae (potentta~ intent-to-purchase closer to 7 ~. These statistics make a st~am of the 50~ intent-to-purchase requirement. Tenants completely mdifferent to the fate of the building or desu~ous of windfall option momes to vacate ox extenor bu~lding paint aze in a legitimate position to decide the issue adversely for other low-income and dedicated tenants who have a stake in a solution which promises affordable Santa Momca home ownership. Under the present system, a developer is able to stack the building's tenant rolls with employees, relarives and other associates who occupy units for the eacpress purpose of sapplying conversion signatures. The mdiv~duals are installed to subordmate their tenant nghts to developer contml m the disposition of the umts. The non-bmd~ng aspect of the intent-to-pUrchase is a signif'icant shoztcoming of the TORCA regulations which a rejecrion of this application can begm to remedy. Since the revival of this application, tenants who signed for conversion have been subjected to a barrage bordering on harassment for letters in support of the pettrion Some responded, others flatly refused. For example, William Arms is one whose apartment received a new coat of paint comcidental with his letter of support contained in the staff report (written by the developer and presented to him for signature, he tells me) The developer's attempts to sway the commission with a letter-writing campaign (i.e., form letters provided for rubber stamped signatures contained ~n the report) is a desperate act. B2. Subversion of Rent Contml This developer's plans are preclicated not on sell;ng the apartments to tenants, wluch I beheve City Council Re 2110 4th St. May 20, 1992 is the point of tenant parClcapating conversion, but on the current pool of overwhelmingly low-income tenants vacating in favor of ontside buyers. Thus, a conversion slip for this building authorizes a monstmusly e~ensive version of vacancy decontrol, with over-pricerl condominiums replacing affordable rental units as normal attrition, developer-arranged option deals and other tecluuques clear everyone out for gent~cation This system makes TORCA a tenanx conspiring evasion of the city's rent control ]aws Our situation sends a clear signal to other owners that physical degradation of their properties pays off in the long run by pmducmg tenants so frustrated by adverse and uns~ghtly huilding conditcons that they can be persuaded to cooperate in removing a building from the rental market just to get it painted or collect relocation monies. B3 A speculator's bonanza The developer asserts that these units are a bargain at less than half the median Santa Monica figure of $350,000. This is patently absurd The units just auctioned two blocks away at 2311 4th St started at a$109,000 asldng price wluch incorporated a reported $30,OOd move-out ailowance as well as thorough unit renovations which are not anticipated here (and at tt~at some didn't sell). The above-market real estate prices offered to us are beside the point. The issue we raise is whether TORCA should he initiated by non-owning fast-buck speculators who take tenant votes to test the market and then purchase solely for conversion. Tlus developer insisted to tenants at the first pre- purchase presentahons that if the "straw poll" failed the developer would not buy tYce building [see transcript excerpts attached] The acuon was defeated, and before tenants could orgaruze an alternarive purchase offer to enable affordable ownership without a quadrupling of prices ta line third-party pockets, we discovered the developer had misled us and that the deal was already done This conversion certau~ly couldn't go down as a TORCA success story. C. PHYSICAL PLANT Cl. Common area stmctural repa~rs The building's structural and systems problems detailed in previous letters continue to concern me. To give one example, the developer has assured tenants repeatedly that all plumbing w~ll be replaced. The TORCA documents show only that galvanized hot and cold water supply Iines will be replaced with copper. We have emphasized that plumbers make a distinction between plumbing lines (supply) and dram lines It is the latter that is in dire need af replacement at this site. At a tenant meeting assembled by the management company, I extracted a verbal promice (which was resisted) from Delson that drain pipes from the unit fi~ures to the street also would be replaced and appropriate wording would be included in the TORCA application forms as a guarantee. This has never been done, and leaves tenants without recourse to sue if these promises are not kept. 4 City Council Re 2110 4th St. May 20, 1992 The tenants are also shocked by new inforrnation seen for the first time in the staff report (despite assurances to the contrary) stating that unspecifed future unit and common area capital improvements can an certcun carcumstances be passed on to tenants on a pro rata basis. I join others who don't want economic responsibility five years fmm now for reconstructmg ttus agecl building's infrastructure in the name of capital improvements -- benefits which would be dictated by and accrue to a few unit owners and the developer. C2. Parlang space reduction My October 8letter details the parking problems. The Desant~s position that there aze "121ega1 parl~ng spaces on the srte which are all that are required by huildu~g codes and all that will remain after conversion° is typical of lus careless misrepresentat~on of fact. There are currently 27 covered carport parlang spaces and 12 additional open spaces being ut.ilize,d in fmnt of some garages between the sidewalk and the bu~lding setback for a total of 39. The developer proposes to eliminate the Iatter 12, which will unpact the whole neighborhood as well as tenants. I have no doubt that, through sustained use of divisive influence tactics, tlus developer eventua~ly will achieve a sufficient nurnber of signatures needed for conversion Therefore I beg the Commission to make a judgement now on the misuse of TORCA in this case, well as of the subversive effect of TORCA abuse on the emsion of Rent Control. Sincerely; ynne Auker #22 (396-1341) . ~ F~cerpts from tape recordings of tenant meeung called by owner~partner Rod Delson on 7!2;~90 (ellipses indicate barely intelligible secnons or ~rrelevant matenal) "I am Rod Delson I have a local investment company I broker apartment houses in Santa Monica right here on 3rd and l~ilshire So, I'm one of the partners, I'm the one that does the negotiarions Then I have a ~oint venture parmer called Homestead, a very large m West L A that does developments thei bas~cally put up the money and do the work and I do the negotcanons and put the package together There's na quesaon that if TORCA goes tE~rough on this building I stand to make manej~" "The reason my partners and I are a good team to do this we do every-thing ~nternally I dQ all the negotiat~ons and brokering, my partners do all the construcnon. they have the money" "You gotta remember this program was set up to make affordable housing for people to buy It wasn't for speculation " "[The building] is m escrow subject to aur getting the votes So if we don't get the ~ otes we ~von't compiete the transaction " 'Just quickly again, it's myself and a partner that are potenrially buying the building I dodt want to be redundant but basically unless we get the approval from ~ou folks to convert it -- not to buy, but to convert it, we will not purchase the building We have to get the votes before we would go through with it " ATTACHMENT B i ~ ~~~~~M~~ ~ _ PLANI~iING AND ZONING DIVISI6N Land iFse and Transportation Management Department M E M O R A N B U M BATE: May 13, 1992 T0: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report for TPC 183, VTTM 50638, 27- Unit Tenant-Participating Conversion Address: 2110 Fourth Street Zoning: OP2 owner(s): HR Capital-Rossmare BACKGROUNb Since the original staff report was prepared for the May 6 meet- ing, staff has received informatian from tenants in opposition to the project as well as information from the applican~ which may' have a bearing on the Planning Commission's decision. The opposing tenants have provided a withdrawal of support from Lndmilla Privortskaya, a tenant who originally supparted the project. Ms. Privortskaya states that she siqned in order to get her apartment painted and carpeted. The City Attorney's office states that, because unit improVements such as painting and car- peting are customary bargain~ng points when negotiating tenant approval, Ms. Privortskaya has not demonstrated that she was co- erced into signinq, and, barring any further claims on her part regarding coercion, misrepresentation or fraud, her original decision to sign ~he Agreement to Conversion and Intent to Pur- chase should stand. The opposing tenants have also brought to staff's attention that Gary Murakami did not live in his apartment when he re-instated his support for the project. However, since his original withdrawal was made without any conclusive statements regarding coercion, misrepresentation, or fraud, the City Attorney states that his original decision to sign the Agreement to Conversion and Intent to Purchase should stand. Staff believes that the primary ~ssue raised by the opposing ten- ants is the tenancy of Ran ("ROn"} Kane. Mr. Kane signed the Agreement to Conversion and Intent to Purchase forms on July 29, 1491, and the applicant has not been able to provide objective evidence that he resided there for the required six months prior to the signing date. The appl.icant has provided a sworn af- fidavit by Mr. Kane that he had resided in his unit for six months prior to July 3Q, 1991, and a neighbor has confirmed that he has lived in the unit since the "beginning" of 1991. However, - 1 - ~ a in a letter and computer print-out provided by the applicant, Southern California Edison Company states that his electric ser- vice began on February 14, 1991. This date is a full 15 days after the earliest day he must have begun residency for a valid signature, and almost a full month after the January 15, 1991, date of the lease provided by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planninq Commission consider this evidance during the gublic hearing, at which time the relevant parties may be questioned. DB:db PC2/tpl83sup - 2 - ~ ~ PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION Land Use and Transportation Management Department M E M 0 R A N D iT l+i DATE: May 6, 1992 TO: The Hanorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: TPC 183, VTTM 50638, 27-Unit Tenant-Participating Conversion Address: 2110 Fourth Street Zoning: OP2 owner(s): HR eapital-Ftossmore Background: This is an application for approval of a Tenant- Participa~ing Conversion {TPC) submitted under the provisions of the Tenant ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA) approved by the voters of the City of Santa Monica in June 1984. As required by the provisions of TORCA, the public hearing held by the Plan- ning Commission on the TPC application is held simultaneously with the heari.ng on the tentative map for the conversion. '.~he subject building was constructed in 1958 and consists of four 2-bedroom units and Lwenty-three 1-bedroom units. The existing 27 parking spaces exceed the minimum of 14 parking spacas re- quired at the time of construction. HR Capital-Rossmore originally submitted a ToRCA application(TPC 154) for 2110 Fourth Street on March 14 of 1991. On August 26, 1991, TPC 154 was withdrawn after claims were raised regarding the actual tenancy of two co-siqners, Ron Kane and Sam Rondazzo, and after tenant Ludmilla Privo withdrew her support for the pro~ect. The current TORCA application was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Division by H}3 Capital-Rossmore on September 13, 1991. On October 10, 1991, tenant Gary Murakami withdrew his support for the project. Three tenants wrote letters opposing the project. These objections are based on essentially three main points, as follows: 1) Lynne Auker states that co-signing tenant Ron Kane did not move into his unit until May of 1991, less than six months before signing the Agreement ta Conversion and In- tent to Purchase forms. 2) Ms. Auker states that the owner has threatened to withdraw the building from the rental market pursuant to - 1 - ~ ~ the Ellis Act, althouqh this claim is contradicted by an- other ob7ecting tenant, David Lonqstreet, who states that "Ellis was never threatened by the Applicant" but rather "was mentioned by the former owner." 3) Nir. Longstreet and Ms. Auker both raise questions regarding the adequacy of the Building Inspection Report done for this property as required under Ar~icle XX. The objecting tenants voiced additional concerna regarding the intentions of co-signing tenants, pressure made by the applicant to obtain signatures, the fact that another tenant had been re- cently evicted for "just cause," the proposed maximum purchase prices, the effect of the proposed conversion on parking demand, the ability or actual intention af signing tenants to actually purchase their units, and various other objections contained in Attachment G. After receiving the objection letters, staff responded ta the tenants and mailed a copy of the objections to the applicant. The applicant has responded to each af the allegations, paint by point, as sYfown in Attachment G. On January 22, 1992, tenant Gary Murakami wrote a letter to Plan- ning and Zoning staff reinstating his signatures on the Agreement to Conversion and Intent to Purchase forms. This resulted in a tota}. of 70.4g of the tenants signing the Agreement to Conversion form and 51.9~ af the tenants signing the Intent to Purchase form. In response to concerns regarding the tenancy of Ron Kane (he also spells his first name "Ran"), the applicant has provided the follawing: 1) A sworn statement by Mr. Kane that he resided in his unit for six months prior to signing the Agreement to Can- version and Intent to Purchase forms on July 30, 1991; 2) A rental agreement for unit no. 23 between the owner and Mr. Kane dated January 15, 1991. 3) A statement by Stephanie Gordon, the tenant in the apartment adjacent to Mr. Kane's, that she has "witnessed occupancy in apartment ~23 since the beginning of 1991." The applicant was unable to provide any utility bills in Mr. Kane's name or any canceled rent checks. However, given ~he aforementioned evidence, and barring any further evidence to the contrary, staff believes it should be assumed that Mr. Kane's tenancy and co-signing status are valid. (Attachment I) Regarding Ms. Auker's claim that the current owners threatened eviction pursuant to the Ellis Act at "an introductory meeting with the developer" in 1990, no other tenants have made this claim and the owner has signed a sworn declaration (required for all ~'ORCA applications) that no Ellis threat was macte. - 2 - ~ ~ Finally, regarding the questions relating to the building inspec- tion report, none of the co-signing tenants, representing 70~ of the units in the building, have reported any fat~lts with the re- port. If there are any conditions which may be a threat to the health and safety of the residents, then they may make a com- plaint to the Building and SaPety Division. The conditions cited by Ms. Auker and Mr. Longstreet did not appear to constitute a threat to the safety or health of the tenants. The applicant has submitted 10 letters of support for the conver- sion, as contained in Attachment G. The Planning Commission may deny this appliaation ONLY upon a specific finding that the proposed conversian fails to meet the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter (TORCA} or the State Subdivision Map Act or is the result of fraud, misrepresen- tation, or ~hreat or similar coercian. Based on the existing evidence, staff has found no basis for de- nial of this application and therefore recom~ends approval with the findings and conditions set forth below. Summary Information Number of Total Units Units wi~.h Cosigning Tenants Units with Tenants Signing Intent to Purchase Units with Senior or Disabled Tenants Estimate of Conversion Tax 27 19 (70~ of tatal units) ~4 {52$ of total units) 4 $145,800 on sale of all units Owner(s) Last Hearing Da~e per Sub. ~Iap Act HR Capital-Rossmore May 17, 1992 (by extension) Building Qualification: The subject building is a Qualifying Building per Sec. 2001 (1) of Article XX of the City Charter, as declared by the applicant and confirmed by the City Planning Di- vision, the Building and Safety Div~sion and the Rent ~ontrol Administration office. Objections: Several objections to this Tenant-Participating Con- ver-sion were filed with the City within the 25 day objection period following notification to all building tenants of the Ten- ant-Participating Conversion Application. One of the tenants, Gary Murakami, withdrew his signature on October 10, 1991 and later reinstated his signaturE an January 22, 1992, as shown in the correspondence contained in A~tachment G. Attachment G also - 3 - ~ ~ contains other tenant ob~eotions and the staff response to ten- ants. Several letters of support have also been received and are also contained in Attachment G. Additional 2nformation: Additional informati.on may ba found in the attached portions of the Tenant-Participating Conversion Ap- plication and Tentative Map Application. Analysis~Recommendation: A Tenant-Participating Conversian, a~ong with any required tentatiwe map, may only be denied if it fails to meet the requirements of Articie XX of the City Charter, is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, or threat or similar coercion, or fails to meet any mandatory xequirement of the Sub- division Map Act. In that this application meets the requirements of Article XX and all mandatory requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, staff respectfully recommends that Tenant-Participating Conver- sion 205 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50638 be approved wi~h the following findiMgs and conditions: Tenant-Participating Conversion Findings 1. This Tenant-Participating Conversion Application meets the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter of the City of Santa Monica along with alI raandatory requirements of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. [reference Sec. 2004 (a), Ar'ticle XX] 2. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Application has been deemed complete and accepted for filing. At ~he time of filing it met the requirements of Section 2002 of Ar'ticle XX of the City Charter for a complete application. ~he subject application: (aj Identifies the buil.ding, its owner and its tenants and contains a declaration that such building is a Qualifying Building, the specific details of which are incorporated into these findings by reference. (b) Sets forth, for each tenant occupied unit, the follow- ing sales information, which is incorporated znto these finclings by reference: I) The maximum sales price for each unit. 2) The minimum down payment for each unit. 3) If seller financing is offered, the minimum amourit to be financed, the m~ximum rate of inter- est and the minimum term of the loan offered by the seller. (c) Sets forth, for each unit, the foliowing common area, maintenance and budget information, which is incorpo- rated into these findings by reference: - 4 - ~ ~ 1) The plan for the assignment and use of all park- ing spaces. 2) The pian for the use of aZl common area facilities. 3) The occupancy and management plans and policies. 4) A~.ist of all repairs and alterations, if any, which wil1. be performed befoxe the c~ose of the first escrow. 5) The plan for allocating costs and expenses for the building. 6) A prepared monthiy maintenance budget based upon actual maintenance expenses for at least the pre-- ceding two years plus a reserve fund which states the monthly maintenance assessment for each unit. 7) The procedures for the allocation and use of such reserve funds. (d) Contains a declaration with the following information: 1) That there has been a building inspection report of the accessible portions of the entire build- ing, including but not limited to, the roof, walls, floors, heating, air conditioning, plumb- ing, electrical systems or coiuponents of a simi- lar or comparable nature, and recreationa~ facilities of the building prepared by a Building Inspection Service or similar agency within the preceding three (3) months. 2) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a written statement setting farth any subatantial defects or malfunctions identified in the building in- spectiQn report regarding the unit and the eommon areas has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. 3) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a copy of the complete building inspection report has been delivered to the unit or a teaant occupying the unit. 4) No eviction has occurred p~xrsuant to Government Code Seotion 7060 et seq. (the Ellis Act) within a five (5) year period prior to the filing of an application for Tenant-Participating Conversion. 5) No eviction has occurred pursuant to Section 1806 (h) of the Charter (relating ta eviction for pur- poses vf owner occupancy or occupancy by relative of the owner} within a two (2) year period prior to the fi7.ing of an application for Tenant- Participating Conversion. 6) In obtaining the signatures of cosigning tenants and intending to purchase tenants, I/we, as owner(s) of the building described in this ap- plication, neither offered nor agreed to pay mon- ey or other ~inancial consideration to par- ticipating tenants if the tenants would release aIl rights that they had to purchase a rental unit in the buiZdi.ng. - 5 - ~ ~ (e) That the form of tenant ownership for which the application is submitted will be a Condominium. (f) Is signed by cosigning tenants occupyinq 70.4~ (not less than two-thirdsJ af all the residential units in the buiiding. (If the~e is more than one tenant in a unit, the signature of only one tenant is req~ired.) (g) Identifies the cosigning tenants and tne units occu- pied by such tenants and lists all other tenants known to the owner in the building and the units they occupy. (h} Contains a declaration that the signature of each cosigning tenant was obtained only after the delivery, in writing, to such tenant of the information required in subsections (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of this Section. (i) Contains a declaratzon that all lawful notices have been given of the application for conversion. (j) Has attached to the application Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase, signed by Intending to Purchase Tenants occupying 51.9$ (not less than fifty percent) of the totai number of residential nnits in the build- ing. (If there is more than one tenant in a unit, the signature of only one tenant is required.) (k} That, for each tenant occupied unit, a Tenanti Intent to Purchase has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. 3. The following procedures have been foliowect in the pro- cessing of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application: (a) A Tenant-Participating Conversion Application was ac- cepted for filing by the City and meets the require- ments of Section 2002 of Article XX of the City Charter. (b) The Tenant-Participating Conversian Application was filad by the owner on 9/18/91, not less than forty (40) days prior to the filing of the application for the tentative subdivision/parcel map on 2/28/92. (c) Within five (5) days of the filing of the Tenant- Participating Conversion Application, the City sent notice to every tenant in the building stating that a Tenant-Partieipating Conversion Application had been filed and that any objections thereto may be filed with the City within twenty-five (25) days from the date of the notice. - 6 - ~ ~ (d) Upon the filinq of the application for the required tentative subdivision/parcel map, the Tenant- Participating Conversion Application and required map were sCheduled for hearing and processed in accordance with the procedures for the processing of subdivision maps. Tentative Map Findings 1. The proposed subdivision, together with its pravisions for its design and improvements, is cansistent with the ap- plicable general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica. [Referenae Califarnia Gavernment Code Sec. 66473.5 and Santa Monica Municipal Code Sec. 9362 (a)] 2. The owner(s) and each tenant on the subject property received copies of this staff report and recommendation at least three days prior to this public hearing. 3. Notification of this hearing has been in conformance with Section 9360 oY the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 4. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project has received, pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.9, written notification of intention to convert at least 60 days prior to the filing of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452. Each such tenant, and each person applying for the rental of a unit in such residential real proper- ty, has, or wi~.l have, received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required by the Subdivision Map Act. Each tenant has received or will receive 10 days written notification that an applicetion for a public re- port will be, or has been, submitted to the Department of Real Estate, and that such report will be available on request. The written notices ~o tenar-ts shall be deemed satisfied if such no~ices comply with the legal require- ments for service by mail. 5. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project has been, or will be, given written notification within 10 days of approval of a final map for the proposed conversion. 6. Each of the tenants of the proposed candominium project has been, or will be, given 180 days written notice of intention to convert prior to any termination of tenancy due to the conversion or proposed conversion. This will not alter or abridge the rights or obligations of the parties in performance of their cavenants, including, but not limited by Sections 19~1, 1341.i, and 1941.2 of the Civi2 Code, and set forth herein as conditions of approval. 7. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project has been, or will be, given notice of an exclusive right -- 7 - • i to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit upon the same terms and conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general publio or terms more faoorable to the tenant. The right will run for a period of not less than 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professions Code, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his or her intention not to exer- cise the right. This will not alter or abr~dge the rights or obligations of the parties set forth herein as condi- tions of approval. 8. This project has been faund to be categorically exempt from the CaZifornia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (5ection 1530I.J and from the City of Santa Monica Guide- lines for Implementation of the Caiifornia Environmental Quality Act (Article 5.a) as a Class 1 exemption. Note: Individual findings required for approval of non-Tenant- Participatinq Conversions specified in Santa Monica Municipal Code Sec. 9122F either are inconsistent with or redundant with the requirements of Article XX and therePore are not applicable to or necessary for approval of Tenant-Participating Conversions. Conditions 1. The owner shall agree ta each condition imposed in connec- tion with the approval of a Tenant-Participating Conver- sion Application. Written consent shall be filed prior to the approval of the required final parcel/subdivision map and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. The filing of such written consent shall constitute an agree- ment, with the City of Santa Monica and each Participating Tenant, bindinq upon the owner and any successors in interest, to comply with each and every aondition imposed in connection with approval of this Tenant-Particigating Conversion Application. The City and any Particigating Tenarit shall have the right to speczfic enforcement of this Agreement in addition to any other remedies provided by law. 2. The owner sha1Z offer and continue to offer the exclusive right to purchase each rental unit in the building to the Participating Tenant thereof upon the terms set forth in the application, wi~hout change, for a period of nat less than two (2) years from the date of final approval by the California Department of Real Estate or the date the first unit in the building is offered for sale, if no approval by the California Department of Real Estate is required. Unlass a partici.pating tenant has already provided the owner with written acceptance o€ the offer, the Tenant Sale Price may be adjusted according to any change re- flected in the Price Index [as definad in Section 2001(j) of Article XX of the City Charter] occurring during the praceeding year. Upon the written acceptance of the offer by the Participating Tenant at any time within the two - 8 - ~ ~ year period, escrow shall open within thirty (30) days from the written acceptance by the Participating Tenant. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the period of the escrow shall not exceed sixty (60) days. 3. No Participating Tenant shall at any time after the ap- proval of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application be evicted for the purpose of occupancy by the owner, oc- cupancy by any relative of the owner, or for demolition of the unit. In the event the Participating Tenant does not exercise his or her right to purcha5e within the time period set forth, the owner may transfer the unit without any price restriction to the Participating Tenant or any other person. However, in the event such transfer is to someone other than the Participating Tenant, the transfer sha~l be expressly made subject to the rights of the Par- tiicipating Tenant to continue to oocupy the unit as pro- vided for in Article XX of the City Charter. The provi- sions of California Government Code Section 7f360 et seq. ("The Ellis Act"j shall not be used ta evict any non- purchasing Participating Tenant. 4. Each unit shall at a11 times remain subject to all terms and conditions of Article XVIII of the City Charter, ex- cept Section 1803 (t], before, during and after any Ten- ant-Participating Conversion. If any unit is rented, the maximum allowable rent for each unit shall be no greater than the maximum allowable rent allowed under Article XVIII of the City Charter. 5. Prior to the approval of the required final parcel/ subdivision map far the Tenant-Participating Conversion, each partioipating tenant shall be informed in writing, in a form approved b~ the City, of his or her rights under Article XX of the City Charter. 6. All non-purchasing Participating Tenants who are senior citizens or disabled on the date of filing the Tenant- Participating Convex~sion Applioation and who personally occupied a rential unit a.n this qualifyis~g building con- tinuously for at least six (6) months immediately preced- ing the date of the filing of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application shall have a right without t~me limitations to occupy their units sub~ect to the provi- sions of Article XVIII of the City Charter and shall be given the non-assignable right ta continue to peraonally reside in their unit as long as they choose to do so sub- ject only to just cause avictions provided that the evic- tion is not far the purpose of occupancy by the owner, occupancy by any relativa af the owner, or for demolition of the unit. In addition, should the maximum allowable rent provision of Article XVIII of the City Charter no longer apply, the rent for each such unit may be adjusted annually to a11ow an increase of no more than the increase in the Price Index [as defined in Section 2001(j) of Arti- cle XX of the City Charter] plus a reasonable pro rata - 9 - Drummond Buckley Apnl lb, 1992 Page - 5 interest was there. As Mr. Longstreet lumself pomts out, they were used as a"straw vote". The results did mdicate that there was substantzal interest on the part of the tenants Eo proceed with a TORCA. Mr. Longstreet alleges that favors, pronuses and misrepresentat~ons were made to tenants to obtam s~gnatures. These are allegat~ons for which Mr. Longstreet offers no proof, evidence or even specific examples. The owner has made a good faith effort to address concems about the improvements to be made with individuals and with the entire tenant populatian of the building. Most of the unit impravements that are needed are cosmedc in nature. Some repairs and improvements have already been made to specific units, but the large capital impmvements cannot be corre~ted immediately. Contrary to Mr. i.,angstreet's asserUOns, however, improvemenu have been made to uruts of both consigning and non consigning tenan~s. Repairs and improvements were made to those units where the management received specific requests from tenants. The owner has attemptad to respond to all direct requests for reasonable repairs anc3 im~rovements. It is also important to remember that the current owner did not create those condit-ons. There is no dispute over the fact that the building was not m excellent condition when it was purchased by the current owner. This has made the negotiations with specific tenants more involved than m huildings that have been maintained more zealoasly. The bui~ding inspection :dentified the common areas as needing the most wark. The TORCA apphcat~on inciudes impmvements that are consistent with the recommendations of the report. As an e~cample, the roof and all water hnes will be replaced as part of the TORCA. The owners wili also install a new mtercom system and separate security garage doors to mcrease the safety of all of the tenants. These improvements will benefit all of the umts and are certainly not merely cosmetic m nature. Among Mr. Longstreet's other allegations aze repeatsd statements that those tenants desiring to remam as tenants would be "displaced" for owner occupancy. He goes so far as to hypothesize that purchasmg tenants would initiate a court challenge to remove TORCA's tenant protections. In reality, TORCA provides tenant protecdons thai are greater than those secured through Rent Control. As an example, 'PQRCA actually prevents evictions for owner occupancy, as a condition of approval. Mr. Longstreet xs apparently unaware that TORCA Conditions of Approval for all approved TQRCA's are recorded against the property, in the Consent to Condihons document, pnor to finai map approval. These condit~ons of approval, includ:.~~ all tenant protections, run with the land and are unaffected by changes in ownership and would also be unaffected by subsequent changes to the Charter Amendment. ~ ~ Restrictions, or equivalent doouments, prior to the ap- proval of the required final parcel/subdivision map. To the ex'tent applicable, the requirements of Article 7CX shall be made a part of the rental agreement with the Par- ticipating Tenants. 8. The awner sha3.1 pay the Tenant-Participating Conversion Tax in the manner required by Section 2008 of Article XX of the City Charter. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Tax shall be paid by the owner to the City Treasurer on each Tenant- Participating Conversion unit in an amaun~. equal to tweive (12) times the monthly maximum allowable rent for the unit at the time the tax is due and payable. If there is no monthly maximum allowable rent, the tax shall be computed on the basis of tha mon~hly fair rental value of the unit. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Tax shall be due and payabla at the time of appraval of the required final. par- cel/subdivisian map. Payment of the tax may be deferred until sale of the uni~ by the owner executing a lien in the form approved by the City. Upon payment of the tax, or upon a determination that a unit is exempt from the tax in accordance with subdivision (c1) of Section 2008 a release of lien shall be filed by the City with respect to each unit for which the tax has been paid or which has been determined to be exempt ~rom the tax. 9. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions, or equivalent document, shall cantain a non- discrimination clause in substantia~.~y the following form: "No unit owner shall exacute or file for record any in- stirument whiah imposES a restriction upon the sale, leas- ing or occupancy of his or her unit on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, ancestry, na- tional oriqin, age, pregnancy, marital status~ family com- position, or the potential or actual occupancy of minor children. The association shail not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, reliqion, sexual orientation, ancestry, national origin, age, pregnancy, marital status, family composition, A.I.D.S., or the potential or actual occupancy of minor children." lo. Approval of the Tenant-Participating Conversion Applica- tion shall expire zf the required final parcelJsubdivision map is not approved within the time period set forth in Condition 11. 11. The tentative parcel/subdivision map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provi- sions of Califarnia Government Code 5ec'tion 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the Santa Moni.aa Municipal Code. During this time period, the final map shall be presented - 11 - i i to the City of Santa Monica for agprovaZ. If the tenta- tive map is a vesting tentative map pursuant to California Gavernment Code Section 66474.2, the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9325 also shall apply. 12. The applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth i.n Governmen'~ oode Section 66427.1, including notifioation of tenants regarding application for a public report to the Department of 12ea1 Estate and notification of tenants regarding approval of a~inal map for the conversion. 13. The developer/applicant shall provide the Engineering De- partment of the Ci~y of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print reproduction and microfilm af each sheet of the final map after recordation. 14. The effective date of this action shall be ten (10) ca2en- dar days from the date of Planning Commission determ~.na- tion or, if appealed per Section 936b (SMPiC), at such time as a final determination is made by the City Council. 15. F'or information purposes, the following persons are iden- tified in the application as participating tenants: Shari Granrath and Gina Osti, Sill Kappleman, Jahn Moore, Culver Niahols and Larry Nichols, Adrianns Maras and Andras Maros, Ludmila Privo, Doug Brown, Chris Vigil, Mfchele Brien, Alfred Nelson, Jacob Yashar, 3abrina Kriegs and Gary Murakami, William Arms, Beverly Longstreet and David Longstreet, Jon Hall, Eric Anderson and John Ellis, Steve Gates, ~oyce Houser, Ricriard K~.ein, Anthony Saidy, Amelia Ryan and Bill Ryan, Lynn Auker and Saarin Auker, Ran {or "Ron") Kane, Melinda Gordon and Stephanie Gordon, Deeann Davidson, Mary T~ale and Lawrence Gate, Dafaie Lazer and Tzipe Schiner and Mima Megolnik and Deeni ~ber. AT'I`ACHMENfiS: A. B. C. I} . E. F. G. H. i. J. Summary Cover Sheet Unit/Tenant Info. Seller Financing Info. Parking Plan Summary CC+R's Tenant Notice Correspondence (if any) Radius Map Evidence Regarding Mr. Kane's Tenancy Tract/Parcel A2ap Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner PC2/tp183pc - 12 - ATTACHMENT C pt -t`~~c ~} M ~ r~i" G ~ ~ David W. Longstreet 2110 4th Street, No.14 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 396-7$61 May 18, 1992 ~ [oql.lfZ£S~N1DENe£ 1N b~'(~Oyt~f~oK 'CD T~~ Santa Monica City Planning Commission 1685 Main Street, P.O, Box 22DD 5anta Monica, CA 90407-22Q0 RE: Tenant-Partici.pating Conversion 183 2110 4th Street, Santa Monica Heari.ng Date: May 13, I992 Evidence qf Pqssible Perjury, Error in Counting Votes and inlithheld Evidence pear Chairpersan and Commissioners: k p~,1CA~Ttor~~ I believe it is imperative and in the interest of justice tl~at your decision of May 13, 1992 in the above-referenced matter be re- examined in Iiqht of the following: (1) evidence of perjury on the part of Ron Kane, or, conversly, that Unit 23 is an owner occupi.ed or controlled uni~; (2) failure of the Planning Staff to provide or the Committee to cons~der doaumentary evidence in their passession which woulc3 have exposed that perjury; (3) misconception of the issue relating to whether or not the vote for Unit 23 was valid; and, (4) an error in counting the vote of Ludmila Privo (Unit b) whose signatures had been withdrawn far "good cause" on two oceasions more than eight days prior to the scheduled hearing. Consideration need be no more extensive than reviewing evidence which was al.ready in possession of your Planning Staf£ more than eight days prior to the hearing, but apparently not included in the Committee packet. On May 3, 1992, i submitted a 10-page Objection with nine exhihits attached. Pages 4 through 7, and exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 pertain to Ron Kane's alleged tenancy ar residency. In particular - see Exhibit 9. H-R Rossmore purchased the property on August 31, 1990. Since that time, neither management companies {2110 4th Street Associates or Homestead Group Associatesj, HAVE GIVEN RENT RECEIPTS, NOR DO THEY ACCEPT "CASH" FOR RENT PAYMEtdTS. Tenants must pay wi.th checks or mor~ey orcler. Tenants are required to pay their rent tn the premises manaqer who then transfers it to the management company. Apparently ~Ir. Kane does not pay his rent to the manager. Hnwever, he did state and reaffirm during his testimony that he pays his rent in cash, but has no receipts. zn fact, if you read pages 4- 7, and examine the exhibits I have outlined above, I believe you will f~nd a that there is a serious question regarding that alleqation that Unit 23 is a rental unit. Conversly, if Mr. Kane does pay rent in cash, he apparently pays it dirctly to H.R. Rossmore, since his rental agreement was made with one of the two partners in H.R. Rossmore, not throuqh the management co~pany. ~hat should put the oneous on the applicant, not on Ron Kane, as the Assistant City Attorney determined, to prove that rent was actually paid. If H.R. Rossmore cannot do that, and the Planning Staff stated that they cannot, then Unit 23 should be considered an ~WNER OCCUPIEB OR CONTROLLED UNIT, rather than an actual rented unit. The City Attorney issued an opinion several years aqo that such units are not eligible Por a TORCA vote. The Assistant City Attorney present at the hearing confirmed my ~laim that when rent is not paid an a unit thsre is no tenancy and hence no residency. The other issue of i~portance is that it did not appear the staff member knew that Ludmila Privo had withdrawn her signatures for good cause since the Septemtaer application was filed. Bare in mind that Drummond BucklBy, the staff inember who handled this matter since its inception, was not present at the hearing. The staff who was present informed you that the only signature issue was that of Gary Murakami, and that a denial of his signature meant one vote short for 5~$ purchase requirement. HOw~v~xr the TORCA application in our packet, and I assume in the Committee's paoket, lists Privo as signing both the conversion and purchase forms. It did not contain the full history of documents such as was provided with Gary Murakami's signature. Ms. Privo originally siqned the documents under stress and pressure and on the representation that improvements would be made an her unzt. When those improvements were not made, she withdrew her szgnature. T~e owner then partially carpeted and painted and promised a buyer fox hez unit. Although the owner denies that, Ms. Privo belied that promise was made. She resigned the farms. However, because the owner failed to provide the full carpeting promised, and subsequent events led her to believe the owner had aqain made misrepresentations to obtain her signature, she withdrawing her signature a seoond ti~e, statinq good cause in her statement. bur packet DOES NO'~ CONTAIN THE Tn1ITHDRAWAL LETTER OF LUDMILA PRIYO, nor were her withdrawals discussed, That means the vote may have been insufficient even with apgroval of Murakami's signature. The staff inembex who was present, requested tY~at the matter be continued because of a fiood of "new evidence,'~ that the Staff had not had time to deal with. That request was not granted, although their was no specific denial rendered. In addition, because I only had 3 minutes to speak, i rec~uested that you review the evidence I submitted on May 3, 1992, priar to rendering your decision. That request was not ruled on, but apparently ignored or forgotten. One Com~uittee member stated that I hac~ a two page, non-dated statment in the Committee pack~~. As stated above, my May 3, 1992 statement consisted of 10-pages, contained 9 exhibits. Also, it was dated. Pertinent evidence regarding ~he status of Unit 23 is contained in that document. -2- T was both surprised and dismayed when the Commission rendered a decision before considering the new evidence. I was also confused about Privo~s signature until T realized that you had Privo listed as an appraving tenant, but not her two withdrawal letters, both based on gaod cause. Commissian rules state that, "written materials submitted at least eight day~ in advance of the meeting will be included in the Commission's meeting packet." It does not appear that the items mentioned here were included in the packet, and if not, are sufficiently pertinent to a proper decision to require reconsideration of this matter by the full Commission. Sincerely, ] Q 1 J ~ ~~er.) !5?~~ David 4d. ~.ongs#~-eet ~J cc: Drummond Buckley ~g_ May 31, 1992 Santa Monica City Council City Hall T685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Appeal of Deeision by Planning Committee Tenant Partiaipation Conversian, TPC 183 Hearing Da~e May 13, 1992 Appeal filed May 22, 1992 Applicant sub~itted documents and declarations to the Planning Staff on the niqht of the hearing which were not disclosed to apponents. Commission members and appellant r~ferred to information in those documents and declarations fluring the hearing, but opponents were not given an opportunity to respond. Further, members of the Commission inclu@ed that material in their remarks prior to casting votes, which demonstrated that they considered the materia]. true and correct. In fact, some of applicant's doc~inents actually supported the oppasition to the TORCA application. Some declaratory statements were not even applicable to the issue which they addressed. Other statements, made under penaity of perjury, were total and complete distortion of the actions and remarks attributed to the tenants in opposition. Based upon my understanding that this appeal to the City Co~ncil wi~l be accompanied by the full record in this matter belaw, and is a trial de novo, I wish to incorporate by reference each and every fact and issue contained within my statements dated April 24, 1991 (18 pages), October 1Q, 199[lj (10 pages), and May 3, 1992 (10 paqes with 9 exhibits), as we12 in my Ietter of May 18, 1992, requesting the Commission to reconsider its decision, as if fully set out at this point. In particular, I wi$h tio stress the information and exh~bits cantained in the May 3 statement and May 18, I992 letter. I wi11 therefare center my statements he~e primarily on the decisian of the Pianning Commission with all references also applyinq to each of tihe documents set out above. THE ISSUE OF RON KANE'S VO~E WAS INCORRECTLY DETERMINED BY STRETCHfNG RESIDENCF AND DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT UNIT 23 COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO BE A RENTAL UNIT Wehster's New World Dictianary, College Edition 1957, defines a Tenax~t, as follows: (1) e person who pays rent to occupy or use land, a building, etc; (2) a person who possesses lands, etc., by any kind of title. While it de€ines and distinguishes a Resident as, (1) a person residinq; living in a place for a long time; having a residence {in). (2) living or staying in a place while working, carrping vn official dutzes, etc. A tenancy is created by paying rent, or holding temporary gossession and control of another's property through prearranged legal obligation or consideration. A guest, unlike a tenant does not acquire a possesso~y legal interest in property. The official "Tenant Tn~ormation S~eet~' distributed to tenants in this matter contains the following information: „This inforn~ation pertains to you if your landlord is applying to convert the bui~ding...All tenants in a buildinq at the time...are participating tenants." {Page 1, paragraph 2.) "All tenants, both cosigning and non-cosigning tenants whv are rentina -2- units in the building ara defined as Participating Tenants,~~ regardless of how long they have lived in the building and regardless of whether or not they have signed any conversion forms...To be eligible to sigs~ either of the above (conversion or purchase) forms you must have rented your unit for at least 6 mont2is prior to the date o€ t3~.e signinq." (Emphasis added.) (Page 1-2, paraqraph 6.) `the TORCA ozdinanae, then, is based on the same definitian of tenancy as exists in all other areas of Iaw. Regardless of whether or not someone has sufficient time in residency to sign TORCA forms, that signature is not valid unless the unit is a rented unit. Indeed, the Deputy City Attorney assigned ta the P~anning Commission hearing did adv~se the Commit~ee that i~n order to find Ron Kane's signature valid they had to satisfy a two pronqed test: (i) That rent was paid for the unit; and (2) That Ron Kane had resided in the unit for at least six months prior to signing the TORCA forms. She also advised the Commission that it was appiicant HR Rossmore wha bore the responsibility to prove those elements, nat residet~t, Ron Kane. The Planning Staf€ report and Staf€ memher present at the hearing put the Commission on notice that neither the applicant nor Ron Kane could produce cancelled checks, money arder receipt, or business records af any kind to show that Ran Kane actua3ly has paid, or does pay rent on Unit 23. when the Committee questior-ed Ron Kane, he testi.fied that he pays ha.s rent in cash, has never asked for a receipt, and has never been given a receipt for his payment, iii -3- Even more compelling, HR Rossmore's own counsel acknowledged that althouqh they had sought to uncaver some record fram their client, there were no reaords which wauld show rent was paid. Therefore, neitrier HR Rossmore, the managerial company Homestead Group Associates (an HR Rossmore company~, the on-site manager, nor Ron Kane himself, could show that rent is paid for his unit. Despite that failure, the Commission voted that Ron Kane'S signatures on ths conversion and intent tp purchase form was va~id because he had most likely lived in the unit fro~ February 14, 1991 through Juiy 31, 1391 when he signed the conversion and purchase forms - only two weeks shy of the time he could have legally signed the forms. In addition to the rental issue, the Commission ignored or disreqarded other pertinent facts in the record concerning Ron Kane's unit - Unit 23: (1) The rental agreement for Unit 23 is unique in that it was entered into between a single partner of HR Rossmore and Mr. Kane; (2) HR Rossmore "ONLY ?-CCEPT(S) R$NTa~i. PAY1~Ei~iTS IN THB F())R!I OF 2- CHSCR, ~IONBY DRDffit, OR CASHIER CHECK, NO CASA PAYMENTS WILL BB AGCBP'~ED FOR RSN'P." HR Rossmore established that po}.icy by notice to tenants an September 5, 1990, attached here as Exhibit "10". That notice was issued by 2110 4th Street Associates, a partnership foz°med by the Delson Investment Properties Corporatian. Delson Investment was the first manaqer of the buildinq following the purcltase by HR Rossmore, and ori.ginated the TORCA work. €7elson is agparently a partner of HR Rossmore and applicant continues to provide pelson with copies of cammunications relatinq to the property at issue here. Both my Mav 3, ]992 statement to the Plannincr Commission and Exhibit "9", attached to _e}_ that statement, demonstrate that the current managerial company, Hamestead, an HR Rossmore company, continued the policy of not accepting cash fos rent payments. A third corroborating fact is that Ron Kane does not pay ren~ through the on-site manaqer as other tenants are required to do. Several tenants have always understoad that Ron Kane was an i~migrant, who lived rent-€ree in Unit 23, because he was in some way related or connected with the owner and was employed by either the owner or management company. He was brought into the building after Ludmila Privo had withdrew her vote the first time and it became apparent that the vote count for conversion was goinq to be insttfficient or marginal at best. Additional statements and exhibits contained in ~y statement of May 3, 1992, demonstrates that a ToRCA Application circulated in January 1991, iisted Unit 23 as vacant as of January 1, 1991. Ron Kane's r~ntal agreement is dated, January 15, 199I. In March 1991, however, a second TORCA Application was circulated which lfsts Ron Kane as having resided in Unit 23 for six manths as of Februarv 1. 1991, and as havina sianed both conversion and purchase forms. The only evidence of residency which the applicant can stsow for uni~ 23 is an electric company statement that electricity for that unit was turned on February 14, 199Z. The third TORCA application, filed in July 1991, continued to carry Ron Kane's sic}natures. The date on the cover letter of that application indicates that even if he had signed new forms on that date they were still provided four days before the six month periocl ended and were also prematur~. HR Rossmore acknowledged to me that -5- using Ron Kane's signatures was a mistake. In other words, app~icant most likely had Ron ISane siqn the T~RCA forms at the same time he signed the rental agreement, and he ~ontinued to sign forms for every attempted applicatian thereafter. Despite the fact triat i submitted each of ~hose applications as marked exhibits with my May 3, 1992 statement, and they should have been before the Commission, the only forms the Co~nmission considered were the ones accompanying the final Application, signed on July 32, 1991. Sach of the exhibits I submitted re}.ating to the signatures of Ron Rane clearly indieate misrepresentation in this mattier. Ron Kane's residency aannot be shown to have areated a valid vote for Uriit 23. The Committee, ignored the Deputy City Attorney's advice that it was HR Rossmore. not the tenant, who carried the burden to prove that rent was paid on the unit. The Committee had the statements of both its Pianning Staff, and HR Rossmore's own counsel that the aAnlicant could not nroduce ~~y evidence of rent havina been Aaid. The Commission disregarded the fact that even though a person livinq in a unit may qualify as a resident, unless an actual tenaney can be established for that unit, the resident is not eligible to cast a TORCA vote. Commissioners based their votes to appro~ve i2on Kane's si.gnatures on his unsuppqrted s~atement that he pays rent in cash. By using the electric company statement as a move-in date (February 14, 1991), the Commission determined there was only a two week difference between when Ron Kane siqned the forms ~n July 31, 1941, and when he would have been legally eligible ta szgn. Therefore, disreqarding all other evidence before them on that issue, the Committee voted tp accept the key signature -6- and grant the conversion permit. The Planning Staff, using the same in€ormation and docu~ents, and having taken the time to investiqate the issue, placed the actual difference in time at one fuli month, rather than two weeks. Either time differenee, however, when based on the speeifzc requirements of TORCA, and the factual material hefore the Com~ission should have invalidated the signatures. Under the law, if Ron Kane lecks proof of tendering rent, he has no possessory interest in Unit 23. Legally, HR Fiossmore ean move to evict Ron Kane on a 3-day notice to pay a11 rent owning from January 15, 1991, or quit, and can place a lien on his assets and income to caklect that sum. Absent a showing of rent receipts, cancelled checks, or money order receipts no court in the State of California would accept a claim that rent was paid in cash. Is it even logical or reasonable to believe that HR Rossmore, a mu3.ti- million dollar real estate corparation, accepts cash rent from a tenant and does nat provid~ a rent receipt, and has no busi.ness records to show that ren~. was taken in on that unit? Not even a record for tax or accpunting purposes? Does this mean that HR Rossmore cannot provide any proof that they are receiving rent from any of the units? Should that not disqualify all of the signatures on the application? In the face of such testimony denial of records, the only possible result could be a determinatinn that although residency may exist on the part of Ron Kane, because of t~e failure of the applicant to prove rent has been paid, Unit 23 is not a rental unit under the Iaw. Ron Kane's votes for the conversion or purchase are invalid. /// -7- WITHDRAWAL OF LUDMiLA PRIVO'S SIGNATURES WAS VALIA AND BASED QN G~OD CAUSE, DEHIAL WAS A MATTER OF MISUNDERSTANAING AND MISINFORI~SATION Artiele XX, Section 20o4(a) states in pertinent part that: "A Tenant-Participation Conversion Appiication ...shall be denied if [it] fails to meet any of the requirement of this Article, was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, or threat, or similar ooercion...° (Emphasis added.) The wording in this section of the Ordinance is clear and unambiguous. Under the law, when the terms and provisions of a statute or ardinance are clear and unambigu~us they must be applied in accordance of ~he meaninq of those terms and provisions. A trier of fact may not apply their own interpretation, nor chanqe the purpose and intent of the Leqislature throuqh their application and use of the provisions. Ludmila Privo is a Russian immigrant. She is neither praficient nor comfortable in interpreting written documents, and has a difficult time understand~ng the nuances and meaning in our business practices. Hs. Privo relies on friends to lielp her with analysis and interpretation. Ms. Privo's difficulty has not gone unnoticed by applicant. She has been a prime target of HR Rossmore tt~raughout this conversion process. 2 testified in my written statements and orally bePore the Commission that I saw two representatives for HR Rossmore pusYting conversion, purchase foL~as and pens on Ludmila urqing her to sign the forms. She continued to protest that she did not understand what happening and what she was -8- being asked to sign. I saw that occur on two different ocaasions followinq tenant meetings. Apparently, they did get Ms. Privo to sign, because they convinced her, or misled her, into be~ieving improvements and repairs would be made in her unit even thouqh she co~ld not purchase and that people would line up to buy her option. HR Rossmore has always made it clear that tenants who do not sign the forms will have no impravement or repair, other than emergency patch work, made in their unit, and drummed into the heads af tenants that buyers would be fal~ing all over themselves to buy their options. Ms. Privo specifieally believed they had promised to carpet her entire unit and fix her oven which has not worked for several years. When the promised impravements and repairs were not made, and Ms. Privo's inquiries were waived off with statements that she was a~~trouble maker," Ms. Priva, properly reasoned that HR Rossmore had misrepresented their intention merely to get her signatures. sa, she withdrew her signatures. HR Rossmare representatives were angry. They brought in workmen to paint Elnit 5, and carpet the living raom. Of particu~ar note, applicant brought an '~alleged" potentiai buyer to look at her uni.t, kls. Privo admitted to other tenants that she was disappoznted with the work, because it was not what they promised. Her oven was not fixed, and oniy the living room was carpeted. Nevertheless, she now felt obliqated to the owner, and afraid of what would happen if she did not re-sign the f orms . During this time, the on-site manager had al5o been fired, withou~ nptice because of hex failure to wrorlr with the applicant to obtain signatures. Tenants, chipped in to pay her rent for an -9-- additional month and actively protested with the managing aqency ta reinstate her. While that pratest was successful, a great deal more anxiety and pressure and was glaced on the manager ta solicit and tiarget Ludmila Privo and other suscegtible tenants for votes. Ms. Privo reinstated her signature. Another tenant, Gary Murakami, sub-leasing an apartment while the tenant was in England for a year, was also targeted and signed. Both of these individuals wo~ld later withdrew their signatures. The Committee also denied Mr. Murakami's withdrawal, without comment or discussion. Subsequent conversations with HR Rossmoze, arid othe~s, caused Ms. Privo to fear she had been deceived again. After observing actions and tactics on the part of the applicant as the hearing on ths application drew nearer, and abtaining advise on the TORCA question from friends and legal professionals served to confirm her fears. Tn additian, HR Rossmore now adamantly denied the arrangement she believed they made, for someone to buy her option. Ms. Privo felt that even her potential for remaining in her unit as a renter was in jeopardy. Therefore, Ms. Privo wfthdrew her signature a second time. Z`he Planning Commission relied on a letter from the attorney for Applicant to deny Ms. Privo's right ta withdraw her signature. As stated earlier, this was one of the documents submitted which opponents were neither made aware o£, nor given an opportunity to respond. In that letter Applicant relies on section 2003(c) of the Ordinance to discredit Ms. Privo's withdrawal on the grounds that the 25 day periqd tp objeat to the applicatian began an Saptember 18, 1993 and ended on october 12, 1991. Since Ms. Privo submitted her second withdrawal statement, which was dated April i, 1992, on -lo- May 4, 1992, ~er withdrawal was invalid, and her second ~zgnature an the forms remained valid. Apparently the Commission agreed, although they never specifically discussed Ms. Privo's withdrawal othex than to remind her she could "sti~l se11 her option." Both apgeilant and the Commission missed the issues in this instance. Ludmila Privo's withdrawal is not based on an objection to the conversion. Because of her trouhle with nuanae and distinctions in our lanquage, however, she did utilize that language in her statements and withdrawal letter. She, withdrew her signatures beeause she firmiy be2ieves that HR Rossmore had used coercion and deception to obtain her signatures both times. She is also frightened that TORCA will not protieat her from being evicted for trumped-ug "just cause," charges, or that she could be tricked again into doing something that will cause her to be displaced. Nor is she alone in that fee~ing. After converting the unit, it would be warth more to HR Rossmore if sold to a third person than it would be with Ms. Privo, re~aining under rent control. HR Rossmore was specific and clear, with tenants that they had no intention of being landlords, and expected to sell every unit within a short time after converting. In addition to her own experiences, Ms. Przvo has witnessed, or been told by tenants, of some of the coercxon and pressure used to obtain the last signatures, and she has witnessed the anger Ieveled against her by applicant when she withdrew her signature. She is also acquainted with tenants who are in as much, or more fear than she is, but who will not speak out. The current terms and provisions of the TORCA ordinance do not place a restriction on withdrawal of signatures, as long as it is -11- prior to the hearing on the application. The Commission and the City Attorney, hflwever, have placed a working restriction on withdrawal which is that a person cannot withdraw merely because they have changed their mind. The reason must be based on the graunds of actual misrepresentation or fraud in obtaininq the signature. But, in fact, if Ms. Privo did not discover the grounds which made her withdraw her signatures a second time until sometime shortly prior to the hearing, and at a time later than the working restriction, why should the restriction on the time to object to an application apply, sinc~ such restriction is not contained in the current provisions of the orc3inanae. And, where the ordinance specifically permits fraud, misrepresent$tion, threat, or similar coercion as ground for withdrawal, those clear and unambiguous terms should be npheld and not subverted by a more limited, arbitrary standard limited to fraud or misrepresentation. Ludmila Privo had good cause to withdraw her signatures for misrepresentation, threat, or similar coercion. Her withdrawal was ti~aely and based on good cause under the current provisions of the TORCA ordinance and should have been upheld. IN ItESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF RONHIE SCHWARTZ, I~AMED PARTNER IN HR ROSSMORE, THOSE STA'FEMENTS ARE INTENTIONAL AND TOTAL DISTORTION OF FACTS AND EVENT The declaration of Ronr~ie Schwartz is typica~ of the manner in which those tenants who questian, disagree or oppose the real estate speculation of HR Rossmore an 2110 4th Street have been attacked. It is also part of the reason that there are opponents of the applica~ion in this matter. -12- 2he tenants who are "openly" opposed to this conversion were under the impression that Ronnie Schwartz and Ludmila Privo had arranged a last minute meeting ~o negotiate price. Specificaliy, ~s. Privo related that she was invited to ^name her pricen after she had withdrawn her signature a second time. She was worried and frightened to meet wit~ the owner alone, so she arranged a meeting which included the ather opponents. At no time did any of the opgonents give Laurence Ga~e their power of attorney to speak or negotiate for them, as Mr. Schwartz states. In fact, Ms. Frivo, herself made it perfectly ciear, in no uncertain words, that no one at that meeting, including Mr. Gale was speaking for her. At no time did any of the opponents sit silent and not engage in the discussion at that ~eetinq. We met as individua~s, although we did have the same belief and had individually calculated a similar fair price based on escrow records, the condition of the building, and potential for costs we would inherit if we purchased. Whatever ons person said was not intended to be attributed to ~he others. That was made clear and certain during the meeting, and is specifieally distorted by Mr. Schwartz in his declaration. Specifically r~sponding to paragraph 9 of the declaration: "Mr. Longstreet said that he felt his pric~ should have been in the hiqh $30,00o range. He also said he wanted his wife ta have some permanent protection aqainst eviction, if they chose not to buy, that disabled and senior citizens have, even though she did not qualify as either one. Ms. Hecht, stated that it would not be proper to provide benefits for Mr. I,ongstreet's wife that other tenants did not have.~~ -13- Those statements are absolutely false and made with maliciaus intent to distort and d~scredit my testimony at the hearing. Apparently it was successful, since the remarks of Commission m~mhers directly indicated that they believed the major interest of the opponents was that their low income status should entitle them to obtain units at prices compatible with th~ir means to pay. I never said that I should nbtain my unit in the high $30,OOU range. What i did say is that HR Rossmore had obtained the units ~or $41 per square foot, or $33,625.00, and were trying to sell it to me for $155,000 to 165,000, without repairs. My unit has structural damage from when the northeast corner of the building fell, glus there have been no repairs or improvements in trie unit since at least 1977, and likely not since rent controZ became effective. Since if S purchased, I would be responsible for any and all repairs to my unit, I felt the selling price should take that additional oost I faced into consideration. It stlould aisa allow HR 12ossmare a reasonabie and nozma~ profit over thair ozzqinal purchase price. When Mr. Schwartz stated that he would have an average of $65,000 tied up in each unit after conversion, and we could make offers of that range after eonversion, I suggested that I was willing to accept that price ri.ght then, to i~e effective after the hearing, and I would withdraw my qpposition, as i was sure we would all do. Ms. Hecht immediately stepped in to advise Mr. Schwartz that the price set in the ToRCA application cannot be changed prior to the hearing. Ms. Schwartz also failed to infor~n the Commission that I had once before offered him $85,Q00 plus a pro rata share of i.mprovements on the building, which he reftzsed -14- to accept. HR Rossmore has nn intention of negotiating or lowering their price under the stated amount. Nor, would any tenant be wise to hold their breath waiting for that event. In fact I did not state that I wanted my wife to have the same protection as senzor and disabled. I specifically sazd that T have protectian against unjust eviction even if I do not purctsase beeause I am disabled. My wife, however, is not a senior and not disabled. If I should die, she would have no protection, and I was concerned about her status to remain as a renter in the building since I did not trust TORCA to protect, nor HR Rossmore to respect, her rights. Tt was Mr. Schwartz who then offered to give me assurance, in writing, that my wife would have the same protection as I~ad as a disabled tenant. I informed Mr. Schwaz'tz that Z only wanted the same privilege as other tenants - the ability to purchase and own my unii~. Ms. Hecht, interjected to inform Mr. Schwartz that ~g, could not aive me any greatar privilege tl~an other tenants had. That, of course, does not fit in with the qift HR Rossmore qave to William Arms, a senior living in our building. Mr. Arms signed the conversion form after HR Rossmore promised to provide the special pratection he requested far h.is vehicle. He later signed an approval letter far the Commission after HR Rossmore promised him that he coulc~ remain in his unit as long as he chose to do so. 2 assume that means despite violations of just cause for which other tenan~s could be terminated. If not, the consideration is meaningless. However, HR Rossmore has not qiven those assurances to other s~niozs in the buiiding who did rtot sign. /!/ -15- In its summary the Commission stressed its appreciation that a run down building in Santa Monica wouid be renovated, housing improved for tenants and that non-purchasing tenants woulc~ be protected under the TORCA provision. Laudable as that fs, however, TORCA is not designed to achieve renavation of the City's buildings. It is designed to maintain IandZord-tenant equity, and to grotect aqainst Ellis removal of rental units from the Santa Monica market. This suqgests reasoninq which will skirt crucial issues ta "ru~ber sta~p" applications, regardless of strict TORCA provisions. Had the Commission truly understoad the opponents ailegations, reviewed all documents ir- the record, or even had the entire record before them, which they themselves acknowledged they did not, they would have known that there will be no corrections or improvesents made ih the units of non-purchasing tenants. Even purchasing tenants will only obtai.n repairs and i.mpz-ovements in their units for extra cost. The purchase price includes paint and carpets in addition to the four walls of each unit. All of the plumbing and electrical problems, decay, mildew and dry rot, structural damage, wirinq defects, etc., will remain in the units of renters, or become the problem of those who purchase units. it is true, however, that EiR Rossmore has agreed to make many minor and non- required cosmetic alterations to the outside of the building and in common areas. Rehabilitation is not inclu8.ed as ane of the specified qrounds in the ordinance far determining wnether or not to grant a permit. If applicant did not respect the terms and pravisions of the ToRCA ardinance in obtaining the pex'mit, w37y shpuid tenants believe -16- applicant will respect the safeguards of TORCA after conversion. If the Commission does not see the TORCA ordinance as prntecting tenants against land speculation and unethical practices, and they care more far achieving cosmetic improvements on buildings, why should tenants believe tne Ordinance will protect them against improper evictiion or farcible buy-out, after the conversion. sincerely. , • r ~ • r ~(.~1.9~ J -~~- A~'T'ACHM~NT D ~~ ~ r ~-- --- • -prTTftL~MF_nrf' ~ DECGARATION OF RONNIE SCHWARTZ r~o~~~S~a,,,n~Nc~ l ~N ~HVo2 0~ I, Ronnie Schwartz, declare: -(-~} GV A 1°~`IL ~T !0 N> I. Approximately 45 days ago, Ludmila Privo, a tenant in unit 6, of 2110 Fourth Street, Sar~ta Monica, California, began to ask me to reduce the price of her umt. She stated that she wanted to make more money on her anit when she sold it. 2. On May 4, 1992, I leamed that Ms. Privo had sent a ietter to the City of Santa Momca Planning Drvision stating that she no longer supported the TORCA applicahon for this buildmg. 3. On the evemng of May 5, 1992, I met with Ms. Privo to discuss her ob~echons to the conversion Ms. Pnvo told me that she wanted to "sell her option" on her umt for $3Q,000. I mformed her that I was not in the business of bnying and selling "Options" and would not discuss this with her. 4. Dunng the afternoon of Monday May 11, 1992, in the presence of Eileen Hecht, I placed a caIl to Ms. Privo and arranged to ~neet with her that evening. Ms. Pnvo said that she was now "part of a group" and that they had decided what they wante~. She could not discuss anythmg on her own. We agreed to meet at 7:OOPM in unit 22 of 211~ Fourth Street. 5. On Monday evemng, May 11, I met with Ms. Privo and addinonal tenants: Lynn Auker of unit 22, Dav~s Longstreet of umt 14, and Lawrence and Mary Hale of unit 26. Eileen Hecht was also present. 6 Ms. Privo asked Lawrence to talk about "the deal". Lawrence said that the tenants m attendance had united and wme to an agreement. He said that he was speatdng for all of the tenants present. He said that the tenants in these four umts decided that they wanted to pay $50,000 for each of their units. He said that he did rtot care if the remaining tena~us in rhe brrilding paid .ES00.00~0 for each of their units. 7. He said that $200,000 wonld buy me four votes. He said the tenas~ts present. at the meet~ng would all sign the Intent to Purchase and Agreement to Corwert forms if we could make this deal. Ms. Auker confirmed that this was "the deai". Lawrence said that he did not want to be~ast happy with the pnce af Yus unit, but that he wantad to be ectatic about it. He said that he knew that unUl the Planmng Commission approved the project he had "leverage" . 8. Lawrence said that he could not lose. Either I would sell him the umt for $50,000 which he said would be a"6~g wm", or if F did not get Planning Commission approval, I might default a~ my loan and lose the property to the original owner who would then seli him his unit for $SO,OOQ. He said that the worst case would be if the TORCA were granted, but that would still leave him m the same position he is in now. 9. Mr. Longstreet said that he felt his price shoald have been m the high $30,000 range. He also said that he wanted his wife to have the same permanent protection agamst ev~ct~on, if they chase not to buy, that disabled and seniar cit-zens have, even though she did not qualify as either one. Ms. Herht stated that it would not be groper to provide benefits for Mr. Longstreet's wife that other tenanu did not have. 10. The tenants said they wantecf ine to sign some kind of bmdmg sales agreement that night that would guarantee that they wuld purchase their units for $50,000 if the TOTtCA was approved. I said that when the un~u were ready for sale they couid make any offer they wished. 'I'he tenants said that they wanted the agre~ment before the Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Hecht said that we could not do that. i 1. Ms. Privo said "So there is no deai?" i2. Ms. Auker confirmed that there was no deal and said that the cneeting was over at which Ume Ms. Hecht and I left. I declare under pesialty of per~ury under the laws of the state of California that the foregomg is true arid correct. Executed on this [~ day of May California. c , 1992, 1t ~2 !1 ,~. /l~7 ~_~la~` Ronnie Schwartz uu.,Nr1E'VCfiw.nx.m ~ ~~ ~~ ~'~~' ~ PAUL C. DESANTIS Pnu~ C DESANTIS• 3002 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE C SALLVANIV L MO~LOV SANTA MONiCA, CALIFORNIA 90404-2506 •AL50 MEMBEN OF NEW YORK B~A TELEPi10NE (3101 453•SS68 TELECOPIER (310) 829 1476 M~y~3~I~~z ~ OF COUNSEL MALLEY 1cOFFMaN ANO MESHEK $hNT4 MONICA GILIFORNIA de1s03 Mr. Drummond Buckley, Project Planner Honorable Members of the Santa Monica Planning Commission City Plannmg Drvis~on 1685 Mam Street, Room 212 Sanra Momca, California 90401-3295 Re: 2110 Fourth Street. Tract Man 50638. TPC-183 Dear Mr. Buckley and ~ommission Members: Section 2002 of Amcle XX -of the Santa Monica Crty Charter, staies that "an apphcation for a Tenant-Participating Conversion shall he complete if it meets the following requirements: (~ Is signed by wsigning tenants occupying not less than (2/3) of all Ehe residential unFts m the building. If there is more than one tenant in a umt, the signature of only one tenant shall be required"; "(j) Has attached to the application Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase, signed by Intending to Purchas~ Tenants occupying r-ot less than (50%) of the total number of residenUal un~ts in the building. If there is mare than one tenan~ in a untt, the signature of oaly one tenant shall be required." Section 2003 (c) allows for a 25 day ob~ection penod that commences 5 days after the applfcaUon is filed. T'his apphcation was filed on 9/13/91 and the nohce to tenants of the filmg and 25 day object~on penod commenced on September 18,1991. The tenant ob~ect~on penod expired on the weekend of October 12, 1991. Ludmila Pnvo submitted a statement (dated April 1, 1992) ob~ecting to the TORCA on May-4,I992. Therefore, L~dm~la Pnvo's signed Intent to Purchase and Agreement To Conversxon are both ~alid. Very uuly yours, `V~ " ` ~/~ W ~~ Pdu CT~~anhs ;~•~.~~~,.~m~ ~ ~~~. ~ PAUL C. DESANTIS 9002 SANTA MOfVICA BOULEVARD, Si1ETE C PAUL C DESANTlS~ OF COUNSEL SALLYANN L MoL~oY SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404-2506 MALLEY NOFFMAN ANO MESHEK ~AL50 MEMBER DF NEW 1'ORN BAR 7ELEPHOkE (370) b531888 FELECOPtER (370) 829 ]a76 SANTA MONICA GLIFORNIA ~~y I3< <~~~ ,~ de1s03 Mr. Drummond Buckley, Project Planner Honorable Members of the Santa Momca Planning Commission City Planning Division 1685 Mam Street, Room 212 Santa Momca, California 9Q401-3295 Re: 2i10 Fourth Str~et, Tract Man 50638. TPC-1$3 Dear Mr. Buckley and Commissivn Members: Enclosed you will find these additional documents and items related to the abave TORCA. I. Documents related to Ran Kane's tenancy. We have already submitted docaments provmg that Ran Kane took possession of his unit 3an. 15, 1991 (as per his signe~ lease), and began decorahng and prepanng the apartment at that time. These items are related to the status of his ut~hty services for that umt. Water, and the associated heat~ng costs, as is the case for all of the buildings units, are included in the rent for this unit. 1. A pnnt out from the Califomia Edison Company addressed to Ran Karie at 2110 Fourth Street, Santa Monica Ca 90405. The bill is for urat 23 for the penod fmm 1/29/92 - 2/28/92. A letter from Southern California Edison 5tating Mr. Kane's service date. 3. Photos of two additional gas meters at the site. Ms. Auker has claimed that the handwritten dates an these meters record the start date for gas sernce. You will note that the date 41-92 appears on the meter for unit ~number 24 even though the tenants in this unit have resided in the unit for approximately 6 years. Similarly, the meter for uuit number 1 bares the date 4-12-90 and that tenant had beeu in nesidence for approximately 7 years on that date. ~--- This clearly indicates that the dates inscnbed on the meters do not always indicate the date service was begun but rather may indicate the date of last repair or serviciag by a gas company representat~ve. Drummond Buckley May 13, 1992 Page - 2 Il. A copy of ttte recorded Statement of Partnership for HR Capital-Rossmore, A Califomia General Partnership showing the partners to be Haskel Iny and Ronnie Schwartz. III. A copy of the Asbestos report done in 1994 showing no evidence of asbestos in the buildmg. IV. A copy of the page of the TORCA Apphcation that states that tt~ere will be no pass through of capital improvements associated with this TORCA application. These items document our previous responses to these issues and should serve to complete the d~scussion on these issues. Please mform us if there are any other issues that nced to be responded to. We can be reached at 453-1888. Very tivly yours, `~~*~,~ Eileen Hecht Land Use Paralegal Enclosures cc: HR Capital-Rossmore Partnership Haskel Iny, Homestead Group Associates lCFlidE , f~:i1Pa :~1i0 4T'F~ al' S-AMNiI~A ~:~ 5'44U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IiILI.i'hlC, I~f17L•,~' S)f /:'.~i'i 4':? ~:'/;'.!~/9: ri 4:' :'rb .x/;~A .3{.~ ~'3 M TI~ 7--'">~i5'h. c5b C;F<0;3 31 ~--:~y~~- 794,~ ~z~.iW~r~r in~r~rr~~rro~ r~~va r. f,L:F~D~' P9111 1 ;iU 7:? :i41 E3 f lJS(1(rl: 'Ftfl:?~ TC)1+1L.S 1)r1Il Y LlSAGL X f' f1t'; 1(ll~ NF1S'E:l 7 hIE" -~ £1. bU ~l`i£t X . i Of+f~h i ~lF~r~S~L.INE- ` E38 X .1446t3 I:C: f t11:TI:YI; {~:/S4i~,~1 F~'li 0? RE1TE [)Eli~1l:STf.I: C,F1[:Z iV[]~!E F'~:N1}!~lt; Jl~if:FNT ~rAl_F~M1li'~:, ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +t i:t~S'E~I.I.~II., ~a- Isq;;l I Itdl: tUfF^~I ,1' ~?`_if! ;311 ,;~~;~ ~'P.~i a2.4E) 39.95' L;]Yl' ~AX 5'.500 "/. ;3.FlU ~1Tf~~'I~ 7'F~X .404?0 , 0 7 r~~i~~G ~:~~rsr;~_rrr itri,i.. ~~.f~E~ t~ca ar DFlYS~ .io zii.. ni...i._ac,- :t~t~ Df1ILY' f1VG, (;(757- ,, i .:~A ~'F<E:1f]:Gl1S F'~~I.ANC~' IJSAGE•- 1 4, a f'AST ~'F~I::VICIUS ~+n~.~~r.~~ Yk AGt:I- E,.7 fiC:GIS f~E:CE.lUF1~~k.F` Clt)/4()/OU C:HE• C;K q J(,1 T - A Fi l I_I_ C()I71: - f1(:C:(lU~! I F:tF11 A~~lf;h: q3. t36 E:t~! I E~I•: T F;~~d,~' F51: f 1(7~f C:111)#. ~ ~` 43/~!U/~':y i A. F6. i 5 QF~X1~=N1(#, uSE'fi~Y C~dil1 ~i:,'~C'I",M~ 44A" VTA~1-=UOO~42A ,~1F~f~L. CA='CiCSTC3~~' € ~ Southern California Edisan Campany p. O BOX 470 LCN(} qEACH CaLlFpAN1A p0001 M8TC21 31, 199~ Ran Kane zlia 4th Street ~23 Santa Moniaa, CA 90405 Re: Account No. 71-42-276-3?64-30 We ar• hnppy to varify tl~is iatasmatiau fcr ~-au Dear Ms. k~ne~ In response to ycur requast, we are providing iaformntion regarding your service with SoutMern Califarnia Edison Ccmpany. Customer Name: Service Address: in-service Dr~te: Ran Kane 2110 dth Street ~23 santa Monica, CA Fobruary 14, 1491 we appreciate the a~po:tunity ta aerve you as s curstataer af Sauthern Californie Edisan. If we can provide additional information, please call Ms. Mstzgsr at (310) 432-9411. sincerely, 11i . D. METZGER Cu~tomer 3grvfce spscialiat DM/qw:G~003 - d Q'~=~153WGH WdES'?~' ?~. ti ~ ~-tlll ~'=Y~~~n[L7{ _RLC011btD lUIL '~~'-_- '_ _ ~,w~ ~T:`~,~L_> __ _ ~;-,~.,.~~r _ -_ _ _ ' ~ ~~EVIHi t SC7iRLi1[~ . _ ~ ~.._....._ ~ • -°--`::."""'~,~_"~~ +:s ~-r_~ [.flC~n ~r.v• - If~RD[OINOfF1Wl1~ECORLS- ~. ~w ~[COROCR 5 OiF1CE "" sev~rly Ni.-s. G.:•crnla 9Qi10 - '~N1([l[SCO4Ni7 : i-~.ss ' ' ' - - (f~~IiORNl4 - ' _ 1_S~~i...'~ V:l~l~~ :. '..~vlna 1~W _' : 21 r.st 9 aY iE6 2 t9i5 -_ s:x:t~~.r nr aAa-ticn,Hir FEE i9 iR or 3 xa cariru. - xossnexc I• qr~era p~z[neca tp) n C~7:'AL - R~sSnCa[ d~elare^ that it ~• a patcn~ra~ip .^d ~ tvt Y 1. Tna q~me o: iht partnanhtp i• IIR GIPITA.. - ~CSSMCAE - 2 :ha ~emet of eseh o[ tYe pertner~ of the p.rcaursn}~-.scd'cheir r~~peceive p~rtn~rshlp in[eross~ are •s ` : o::~rs ` ~h'L PARTNEASIISP INT£RES~ ~waRSt .t;Y, an •ndividual 7l.7~1 votiv:~ SCH.A4-2. ar 1n3.•::dw: 61.34~ - \_ 7 T•.e partmers rta~ed in [1is Stscem~nt o( :3c-:-crahap ue e1: of tha ?nrtners ot the partn~rsnfp. '- l` - ~ _ ~ u ,_.- ~~ -t~o-oonvnY~lnea~ ~ala, a~vmhnnc~, aiiiqnarnt or ~ - "~ - - :r.n~ter ot any in~er~~t in [h~ prop~r[y hald !n th~ p~Ytn~nhip _~'~s,j~ °~ ' n~r+e, or an} Saea n~t thereln, ~ha11 Le valid unlcn~ sueh con- -- xr.z_ -~ ~ - - p:y_=_ , ~~yance. s~l~, enevmbr~nce, e~aSqament or eranil~r has besn °---- ~' •xec~ud or eon~~need ta hy all oE ehe p~ztnsra. _-- '= ~-_ -_ G`._ ~i-~ "-:..;:.~--- - ' • ~- --_ ` =N. ' : _.:_`in:.`~"qY.E -~~~ =$_:'~~~;y ~a~euted on DscemOer X9 , 1987, ^! ypa MqaleaZ~liforei~. '3v`.i~~- ~s: -_- ' _ -- _ -~- _ p.\' .t ~~ L~~ _ ' , HR CAPLTAL - I103 ORL~ "~-. ~ -`*"~"" ~~~_-- -~-°- -- ~' Ia qenerat ahip) --3j~'~'=~~,Y~.,~ ~ - / - - - `j~ -- , P~:= _= - - ~ y- -- _-_~_~ _~;, --- : -_ ---_~ B ~ '~=7ifc. ,~~' . " ~ ' ~_ ~ - _a.~ ~ ~ - ~` j ~ _'~' ~ ~~ _ _ __ ~Y~~' - l~ - . .~ ' ~'--- ~i = ~ ~. ~ LINCOLN TITLE COMPANY . ~ n s~n.~a~an or Old Rspublic T'rtle Ins~erance Grou~, In~. ~~ 707 EA87 QtENOAI(S BOl1LEVARO ~ P O 80X 29003 ~ OLENDALE. CALIFORNIA 9120Y 9003 18161 247-2877 ~ f8001 22-TRLE (22848631 7otl F~selSauth~m GYfomi~ ~ FAX: f8181 24BA06B UPDATED PR~LIMINQRY REPQRT DELSON INVESTMENTS 233 WILSHIRE BLVD. 525 SANTA MpNICA, CA. 90401 ATTENTION ROD DELSON YOUR N0. TR OUR NO. 546207-33 IN RESPONSE TO 7FfE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION FaR A POLICY OF TI'CLE iNSURANCE, LIi11COW TITLE COMPANY HEREBY REPORTS THAT IT IS PREPARED 70 ISSUE, OR CAUSE TO BE ISSUE, AS OF TME DATE HEREOF, A POLICY OR POUCIES OF T17LE INSURANCE DESCRIBING THE LAND AND 7HE ESTATE OR I~fTEREST THEREIN HEREII~fAFTER SET FaRTH, INSURING AGA[NST LOSS WHICH MAY BE SUSTAINED BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT, LIEN OR EIVCUMBRANCE NOT SHOWN OR REFERRED TO AS AN EXCEPTION IN SCFEEDULE B OR NOT EXCLUDED FRflM COVERAGE PURSUAN7 70 THE PRINTED SCHEDULES, CO(V~ISIONS AND STIPVLATIONS OF SAID POLICY FORMS. THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM THE COVERAGE OF SAID POLICY OR POLICIES ARE 5ET FORTH fN THE ATTAC}tED LIST. COPIES OF THE POLICY FORMS SHOULD BE READ. THEY ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE QFFICE WHICH ISSUED THIS REPORT. THIS REPaRT IAND ANY SUPPLEMENTS OR AMENDMENTS HERET0) IS ISSUED SOl.ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE tSSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE iNSURANCE AND NO LIABILiTY 1S ASSUMED HEREBY. IF IT IS DESIRED THA7 LIABILITY BE ASSUMED PRIOR TO ThEE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR COMMITMENT SHQULD BE REnUESTED. DATED AT 7:30 A.M. ~13 APRIL 23 , 1992 /; ~ ~ ~- ~ DAN READ , TITLE OFFICER THE F~RM OF POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE CONTEMPLATED 8Y THIS REPORT fS• A CLTA STANpARD COVERAGE - 1990, OWNER'S POLICY. ORDER NO. 546207-33 THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THfS REPORT IS A FEE. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE ~ATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: HR CAPITAL-ROSSMORE, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE EKCEP'fIONS AND EXCLUSI4NS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. NO REPRESENTATION I5 MADE AS TO THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AFFECTING THE LAND(S) DESCRIBED HEREIN. TAX RATE AREA 8604 2. A SUESi3RFACE OiL AND GAS LEASE OF THAT PORTION OF SAID LANp LYING MORE THAN 50fl FEET BELOW THE SURFACE (WITHOUT THE RIGE•PI' ~F SLTRFACE EN`t1~Y~ , FOR THE TERM AND UPON THE TEF2M.S AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREEN, DATED . APRIL 16, 1.968 LESSOR . LILY L_ DEBRITTO, A MARI2IED WOMAN, HER SOLE AND SEPAR~ITE PROPERTY AND GERDA L . S CHULNlAid LESSEE . STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A CORPORATION TERM . 10 YEARS RECORDED . MAY 15, 1968 AS IPiSTRUMENT N0. 2598, OFFICIAL RECORDS THE PRESENT OWNERSHIP OF SAID LEASEHOLD AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING T~IE INTEREST OF THE LESSEE ARE NOT SHOWN HEREIN. 3_ A LEASE UPON THB TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, TYPE OF LEASE . LAUNAR~ ROOM LEASE DATED . flCTOHER 7, 1977 LESSOR . LILY DE BRITTO LESSEE . WEB SERVICE COMPANY, INC. TERM . 10 YEARS RECORDED `~ . SAID LAND AFFECTS . DECEMBER 8, 1977 AS II3S`TRUMENT I~O. 77-1353621, OFFICIAL RECORDS LINCOLAI! TITLE CQMPAl~tY z ORDER NO G4c2'~ -_~ 4. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN IIVDEBTSDNESS ORIGINALLY STATED AS . $1,260,000.00 DATED . ALTGUST 27, 1990 TRUSTOR . 2110 4T~i STREET ASSOCIATES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION TRUSTEE . TICOR TI1'LB INSUi~ANCE CONlPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIOI3 BENEFICIARY . LILY LANG DE BRITTO, A WIDOW AND JACQiTELINE DE BRITTO STERN AKA JACQUEI~INE HELEIdE RIBEIRO AE BRITTO, A MARRIED WOM7-N AS HER SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPSRTY, AS JOINT TENAN'fS, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE HAI,F IN3'EREST AND GERDA I,ANG SCHULMAN, A WID~MT A5 TO AN ZJNDIVIDEA ONE HALF INTEREST, ALL AS TENANTS IN COMMON RECORDED . AUGUST 31, 1990 INSTRUMENT NO. . 90-z515805, OFFICIAL RECORDS LOAN NO. IF SHOWN . N/A 5. A DEEB OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS ORIGINALLY STATED AS . $740,000.00 DATED . OCTOBER 1, 1991 TRUSTOR . 2110-4TH S'PRfiET, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARZNBRSHIP TRUSTEE . ADVISORS, INC., A CALIFORI3IA CORPORATION BENEFICIARY . MLC PROPERTY ADVISORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPOR.ATION RECORDED . OCTOBER 4, 1491 INSTRiTMENT NO. . 91-1573162, OFFICIAL RECORDS LOAN ND. IF SHOWN . 4064 6. THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE BE FURNISHfiD WITH A COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT` AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR OUR EXAMINATION ON 2110 4~'Fi STREET, LTD. - 7. THE EFFECT OF INS'TRIINlENTS, PROCEEDINCsS , i~IENS , DECREES OR OTHER MATTEi2S WHICH DO NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY BUT WHICH MAY AE~FSC?' THE TITLE . THS NAME SEARCH AI3D REPORT CANNaT BE COMPLETED UNTIL A STATEMENT OF IpENTITY IS SUBNIITTED FROM ALL PARTISS. LINCOW TETLE COMPANY s ORDER Np. 546207-33 8. 1~TOT8: NO KNOWN MATTERS OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE TO BE SHOWN HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THIS REPORT, WHICH IS NOT A POLICY OF TITLE INSiJRANCE, BUT A REPORT TO FACILITATE THE ISSLJANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSUR.ANCE. FOR PURPOSES OF POLICY ISSUANCE, I30 ITEMSS) MAY BE ELIMINATED ON THE BAS25 OF AN INDEMNIT'Y AGREEMENT OR OTiiEi2 AGREEMENT SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY A5 INSURER. LINCOLN TI7LE COMPANY ORbER NO 54o2C~-33 iFiFikiEiiF#iEiFi#i!#~NiF#MiFiF~]Fi~F~1F~F##~F~il;~FiFl~iFRliFiFNi~dF4iFlFiiiF~1Fli'iitf~~iFi~iE*1F* NOTICE (WIRING FUNDS} 1F YOU ANTICIPATE HAVING FUNDS WIRED TO LII~[COLN 71TLE COMPANY, OUR WIRING INFORMATION IS AS FOLLOWS CALIFORNIA UNITED BANK, 16030 VENTURA BOULEVARD, ENCIN4, CA 91436 ! ACCOUNT N0. 01-017-713 / ROUTING N0. t222391 ~5 WHEN IIVSTRUCTING THE FtNANCIAL INSTITUTION TO WIRE FUNDS, IT 1S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU REFERENCE LINCOLN T1TLE'S ORDER NUMBER. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN THE REGARD, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR TITLE OFPICER IM1/IMEDIATELY +t+r+r**arir~rw*r*+tat***3tr~it+rir**~t+-~-~t*~tww~t*~t*w*~-~t~~r~t+e~*«it~ws«~t~rir+rw**rww~• LINCOLN TITLE COMPANY ORDERNp 5462G7-~3 SAID LAND IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, S7ATE OF CALIFORiVIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 1 AND 2 AND THB NbRTHWESTERLY OI3E-HALF OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 3, OF THE LUCAS TRACT, IN THfi CITY OF SANTA MONICA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CAI,IFORNIA, AS PSR MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6 PAGE(S) 221 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY_ EXCEPTII3G THEREFR4M TFiOSE POR'~IONS OF LOTS 1, 2 ANl1 3, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 39° 52' 21" EAST ALONG THE NORTF-EEASTERLY LINE dF SAID LOTS, A DISTAPiCE OF 150 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWESTERLY HALF OF SAID LOT 3, TIiEIQCE SOUTHWESTE1tLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LIPiE A DISTANCE OF 5.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40° 04' 20" WEST, A DTSTANCE OF 150 FEET, MOi2E OR LESS, TO A POINT IN TF€E NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAZp LOT 1, SAID POINT BEING DISTAN'i' S.63 FEET SOU'I'F3WESTERLX ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE FROM THE NpRTIiERLX CaRNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 5.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNIIVG. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 1 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONIl~~NCING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOLT'~'HWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 15.63 FEET TO 'i'HE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNTNG; THENTCE NORTFIEASTERI,Y ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40° 04' 20" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10 FEE'T; THENCE W~SfiEItLY IN A DIRECT LINE A DISTANCE OF 14.12 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 22, 1967 AS DOCUMENT N0. 205 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. GC/PLATS ENCLOSED SUBDIVISION RATE CC: LAW OFFICE OF PAUL DE SANTIS LINCOIN TITLE COMPANY SCHEDULE 1 GILIFORNtA I~WD T1TLE ~iSSQCIA710N STM[DARD COVERAGE POtILY - ~990 !he followmg matters ase express~v excluded from if~e coverage oi this puhc.} and the Compan~ w~ll not pay loss or damage, costs a[lomevs' fees or eapenseo which arise ~y reason of 1 (a) An~ law•, ordinance or gUVernmental regulation (induding but no~ hmned tu budding or mnmg laws. orc~inances, or rrgulauon~) restnumg, regulaung, prohibiling or relatmg to (0 the occupancy, use, or en~oyment or the land, lu! the charaCter, d~men~ions or locateon oi any unprovernen[ now or hereaher erec[ed on Ihe land, (~ul a 5eparaUUn ~n ownership or a change in the d~me~sions or or area of the land or any parcel uf which the land is or was a part, or 1rv) envvanmental }~rotecuon or tlie effect o~ any wolation of ihese faws. oruutiances or govemmental regulanons, except to the extent that a~~otice ot enforzement tllereut or a a,ot~ce of a deYect, lien or encwnbranc2 re~ulling from a violation or aileged violation aHecung the land has been recorded in [he pubiic records a[ Dale oF Po6cq (b) Any governmental pohce power not escluded by (a} above. exceQt to ihe exrent that a nouce of [he exerc~se thereoY or a notice of a deiect, I~en or encumbrance resultmg trom a wola[ion or alleged wolahon a[fectmg ihe land has been recorded ~n the publ~c records at Date oF Poficv 2 Rights uf emineni dumain unless noucr of ihe exeruse thereof has bren recorded ~n the p~blic records a[ Date ot Pol~cv, bua not exdudmg from coverage any laking whi~h has ~ccurred pnor [o Date of Pohcy wh~ch would be binefing on the nghb of a pur~ha~er tor value w~thout knowledge 3 l~rfects. I~ens, encumbranceo. ad~erse claims or ollier matters (a) whethrr or not recorded +n the pubti~ records at Date oF Pohcy, but created, suffered assumed or agreed to bq the rnsured ~ claimanL (b) noi known to the Canpaitv, ~~ot recorded m the public records at Uate of Pohe.y, but known [o the insured dannant and not d~s<losed ir+ wnun~+ to [he Company by the insured cla~mant pnor to the dale the ~nsured daemant Qecame an uuured under this policy lc) re~ulUng ~n na loss or damagr [u Ihe msured ciaiman[, (d) attac hing ur crealed ~ub~eyuent io Daie of Po6cy, or (e) result~ng m ioss or damage w•h~ch would not have been susta~ned rf the insufed claimant had pa~d value for the insured mongage o~ for the eeteie or interest in~ured by tMs polrcy -t Unenforceabdity of the lien of the insured mortgage because oF the inabdity or Failure of the insured a[ Date of Nohcy, or the inabihty or failvre of any su6sequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply wrth the applicable doing business laws of the state in which ihe land is snuaied ~ Inv~lidit~ ur une~~~for~eabdity oi the lie~ ni the ~~sured mongage, or claim lhereof, whi~h anses out of the transacuon evideneed by the ~nsured mnrtgage and is i~ased upur~ ulury or any consumer cred~t protect~on or truth in lendeng 1aw b Anv claim. which anses oui or thr iran~acuon vesting ~n the msured the rstare or interesl insurrd by this pohcy or the transac uun ~reating the ~~~ttre~t or the in,ured lender, by rea~un of the operauon uf federal bankruptey, state ~nsolvrncy ur yimdar ~redilurs' nghts laws In ~dditiun tu ~he Ex~lusions, vou are not msured against loss, costs, dllorneys' fees, and expenses result~ng from 7 Taxe~ or assessments wh~ch are not Shown as esistmg liens by the records of any taxmg authonty that lewes [axes or assessmenty on rea! prooerly or by the public records Proceedings by a public agency whieh may result in taxes or assessments, or nouces of such proceedmgs, whether or not shown by the re~ords of such agency or bv thr puhlic records ? Any~ ~acls, ngh[s, inlCresLS or cldims wh~~h are not shown by the publrc records but which could be ascerta~ned by an ~nnpecuon of ~hr land or which mav Ue a5ierted bv persons in possessron thereof 3 Easemrntn, f~ens ur ern umbrances, or claune thereof, wh~ch are no1 shuwn Uy khe pubhc re~nrds d Discrepancies. tonflius in bounddry lines, shortagr in area, rn~road~men[s, or any o[her Faets which a correct survey would disclose. and wh3th are nnt shown by the pubhc recurds 5 (a1 Unpa[ented min~ng claims, (6) rese~auo~s or e+c<eptu~~is in patenFS or ~n Acls duthortZUZ& lhe ~ssuance Ihereot, (i1 water ngh[s, ci~~m; ur Uue tu water, whether or not the matters excep[ed under (a), (b) or (~) are shown by the put~he rrcords AMERIGN l,ANf) llll.t /LSSOC:IATION OWNER'S P_OE ILY FOWN B- 197D (AMElVDED 70-17-70) SCIIEUULt OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVtRAGE l Any lavv, ordinance or gnvrmmental regulation (indud~ng but nut limued lo h~dd~ng and enning ardinancesl restncUE~g c~r rrgula[ing or prohibiting the occupancy, use or en~oymen[ of the land, or regulaUng ?he character, dimensions or loc.ation ot any unprovemen~ now o~ hereaher erected on the lend, or proh~b~6ng a separabon 3n ownerships or a reduction in the dimens~on, of area of tMr land, or the effect oi any violalron oF any such law. ordinanCe`ur governmental regulahon 2 R~ghts o~ eminent domain or governmentai nghis of pol~ce puwer unless notice oF the exerr ise of su~h nghls appears in ihe publi~ records at Uate of Policy 3 L7eFects, liens, encumbronces, adverse claims, ur other mauers (a~ ~ reated, suffe~ed, assumed or agreed to by the msured daimant, Ib) not known to ihe Company and nu[ Shuwn by ihe pub~ic. rerurd~ but kn~wn m[he insured claimant cither a[ Date ol PuLcy or at ihe [he date such claimanE ecquved an estale or ~nterest cnsured hy this pohcy and npt disdo~ed m wnting by the inwred daimant to the Company ~nor to the da~e su~h insurrd daimant became an insured hereunder, (U resukUng in no los; or damage tu ~hr insured t4a~mant, fdY altaching o~ rreated subseyuent to (]ate of Pul~cy, ur tr! rrsulting ~n loss ur damage whi~h would nc~t have bern yustamed rf the insured daimant had paid value for Ihe estate or interest insured by this policy fT;, 3157-I (Rev 04-06-YI1~ SCHEDULE 1 (Contmued) AMERIGN tAND TE~E ASSOCIAl10N LOAN 1'OLILY - ~970 (Rev 4-5-90) WIFH ALTA ENDORSEMENT FORM 1 COV~RAGE SC~IEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The I~Il~wmg ma[[rrs are expres~lv eackuclyd Irom She coverage a: lh~~ pohc} I an~ fau, ordmance or go~ernmental regulation pnc~ud~ng but not innited [o budd~ng and zoning ordinan~esf restncunQ or regula~mg or proivbmng ~he occupdncy, we ur en~oVment ol land ur rrgulaUng the character, dimensiuns or lo~ation ut a~iv impru~ement nuw or hereatter erected on the land or proh~biung a Separauon in ownership ur a reducuon in the dunensiona or area of the land or Ihr ~ effect o1 anv violation oi an~ s~~h Idw ordinance or govemmenial regulaUon ~ Righis oi eminent domain or ~ovemmentai ngh[s oi pohce power unfess notrce of [he exerase of such nghts appear5 in the publ~c recurds at Date of Pol~cv 3 Deiects. I~ens. encumbrance~, aaverse daims or other matters la~ created, suffered. assumed or agreed to b~ the ui~ured ~la~mant (b) not known to thr Company ana not shown bv the public records but known to the insured cVaimant eni~er at Ddte or Puhcv or at the date suc,h ddimant acqu~red an estate or intere~l ~mured by this poli~y or acyuired the insured mongage and no~ dis~losed in wni~ng bv the msured da~~~an~ !o the Compam pnor to the date such ~nsured da~mant beceme an ~nsured hereunder, tcr re,uli~ng ~n no 4oss or damagr to [he insured cla~mant, (dl a[taching or creaEed subseyuent lo Date of Pol~cy (except [o the exieni in,urance is affor~ed herem as m any s[atuturv lien for iabor or matenal or lo the extent rosurance is aiforded herein as to ae~e~smenls lur street improvements under construcuon or completed at Date of PoEicy) 4 Unenforceabihtv of [he hen of the ~nsured mortgage because of failure of [he insured at Dale of Po6cy or of any subsryuent oxnr~ ot the ~ndeb~edness to compi~ wnh apphcable "domg business laws" of the state in whECh the land is ~rtuated 5 An~ daim, whuh anses out oi the iransaction creaUng the ~nterest oi [he moRgagee insured by this policy, br rea~on o~ the operauon of iederal bankru~~cy, stare msolvenc~, or simElar credrtors nghts laws AMERICAN LANU 1lTLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLkCY -(4b-40) WlTH ALTA Ef~[DORSEMENT FORM 'I COVEitAG~ FXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the [overage of this policy and the Company wdl no[ pay loss or damage, costs. a[torneys' fees or expenses which anse by reason of ~ (al Ar» law ordinance or governmental regulation hnduding 6u[ not I~mfted tn bwid~ng and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) reslncUng, regulatmg. prohibuing or relaung to (i) the occupancy, use or en~oyment of the land, (Ei1 ihe character, d~mensions or locauun ur an~ impruvrment now or herraNer erecied on the land, Ou) a separruon m ownership ur a change m ahr dimensions or area ot Ihe land or dny parcel ot whi[h [he land is or was a parl, or F~v) ertv~ronmental protecUOn, or (he effec! of wola[ron of these laws. ordinances or ~ovemmental regulauo~~s, eacept to Ihe extent that a nouce of the enforcemem tnereof or a nouce of a defecL Ben or enc~mbrance resulung from a wo~auun or alleged violauon affecpng Ihe land has been recorded in Ihr pubiic recortls at Date of Poii~~ fbi Anv govemmei~tal po4ice power noi eacfuded bv tal above, exce~t to the exte~V that a noUce of the exeruse theroi ur a nc~u~r ut a defe~t, hen or e~wmbrance resulting firom a violauon or alleged woiauon affecting Ihe fand has heen re~orded in Ihe puk~lie records at Date of Pohcy Z Kights o! eminent domai~ unles> nouce oi the exerase ihereuf has been recorded m the public records a[ Date of Pohc~, bu~ no[ excluding from coverage any tak~ng wh~ch has occurred pnor tu Da~e of Poh[y which would be binding on IIZe ngho o[ a yurchaser ior value without knowledge 3 Deiec[s, hens, encum6ranres, ad~erse daims or o[her ma[ters 4a) crealed wFlercd, assumeti ur agreed to t~y Ihe insured ~lainiant, ib~ not known tu the Company not recorded m the public rec ords at Da1e of Poh~y, bu! known lo the msured daimam anci no~ d~selosed in wnung io the Cumpany by the insured ciaimant pnor ~o Ihe date the msured e.launant became an in~ured under ihis pol~cy, (c) re5ulunK in no b5s ur da~nagc to the ~nsured daimant, (d) attaching or created subsequen~ to Date of Policy iexcept to the extent Fhat th~s polity msures the.pnorrtv o~ Ihe Len of the insured mungage ovrr en~ sSatulory lien tUr eernre~ Idbor ur maleri~l or [he ex[ent ~nsuran~e is dtiorded Ilrrein a~ [o asse~ssmenb for street improvemei~r imder construcuon ur e ornpleted at da[e of pulicy), ur ~e~ resulting rn ioss or damage which would not have been sustained if the msured da~manl had paid value for [he insured nzortgage ~t Unenforceabifnv of [he lien oi the insured mortgage be~aune of the mabihry or fadure oF [he insured a[ Date oi f'ulic~ or Ihe inabihty or failure of any sub~eyuent owner oF the indeb[edne5s, to comply with apphcable "domg business laws" oF the ~i~t~ in whi~h the land is siwated 5 Invahdny or unenforceahd~tv of the I~en of the msurrd mort~age, or claini thereof, ~vhich anses ou[ of the transa~t~or, r~~denced by ihe insured mortgage and ~s based upon wurr or any consumer uedrt protec[ion or truth ~n lendmg law b Anv siatulory lien for servi~es. labor ur m.•. •ials ~ur ~taim of pnonFy of any sia[utory hen for services, la6or cir matenals uver ~he hen of ~he ~nsured morigage) ansing from an Emprovement or work rela[ed ro[he land which ~s contracled for and <<nnmenced subsequent to Date of Policy and n no[ fmanced in whole or ~n pan by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the in~ure ~t ~:~~rtgage which at Daie oi Poiicy ~he msured has advanced or is ohligated to advance i Any ckaim, which anses out of Ihe iransaclion ueanng the interest of [he mortgagee insured bv thi5 policy. bv ~~ ,,,~~~ uf the ooeration of federal 6ankruplcy. sta[e msolvency, or similar creditors' nghts laws f7G 31i7-~ (Re•v 46-901 SCHEDUEE 1(ConLnued) M~tERIGN LW p T1TLE tiS50C1AT10N RESIDEM7AI. 71TLE INSURANCE POUC.Y - ~979 EXCLUSIONS tn addiuon to the except~ons 3n Schedule B, you are nol msured agamst loss, cosi5, a[torneys' fees and expenses resultmg from ~ Govemmen[al poiice power, and the exisrence or violaUOn of any law or government regulaUon This mcludes burl~~ng and zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations conteming land me improvements on the land land diwsion enwronmenial protection This exclusion does not I~mit the zoning coverage desuEbed in Items l2 and 13 of Covered Trtle Risks 2 The right to take the land by condemning rt, unless a noti[e of taking appears in the public records on the Policy Date 3 Titlr Risks that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you that are known to you, but not to us, o~ the Policy Date - unless ihey appeared ~n the pu61~c records tha[ result m no loss to you tha[ first alfect your ude aRer the Pohcy Dafe -[his does not limit the labor and matenal hen coverage in Item 8 of Covered Tide Risks a Failure to pay value for your t~de 5 Lack oi a nght to any land outside ihr area apeciiicaNy descnbed and referred to m ktem 3 oi ScheduVe A or ~n streets, allevs. or wateru~•ays [hat touc h your land This ezdusion does not hmrt the access coverage in I[em 5 of Covered Tide Risks In addrt~on to [he Exdusions, you are not insured against loss, cosis, a-torneys' (ees, and eapenses resulung From 1 Any facts, ngfits, interests or daims wh~ch are not shown by the Pu61ic Records but which coukd be ascertamed by making inqu3ry of parties ~n pusses~~on of the land 2 Any I~ens or easemen[s not shown by the Pubbc Records However, this does not I~mrt the affirma[~ve coverage in Item 8 of covered Title Ri~ks 3 Any facts about the land not shown by the Pubi~c Records wh~ch a correct suney would disclose However. [hFS does not Icmrt [he aff~rmauve coverage in ltem 12 of Covered Tide Risks 4 {a) Any waler nghts or ctaim~ or utle to water m or under [he land, (b) unpatented minmg claims. (c1 reservaUOns or exceplions in patents or m acts authonzing the issuance thereof ITG 3157-I I (Rev 46-90) . \ I .~ r~ ~UCAS TRACT M R 6- zpl 5~ g ~ ~ p \ ~~ ry cooi SOUTH SANTA MON ICA 8604 ~ ~ _ ~ _ M R 3-86•07 coNOO~iN~u~ ,o~ ~~ry N~~•r su j27-29 B 39 PqRCEL MAP P M 194 25 2G ~ ~ \~,~ QP° y1 sh ~' `~'~ n cONAOMIN~uM TRAC7 NO 45457 M B 1130-16-I7 'TIIIS PWT IS POR YOUR AID IN LOCIITFNC YOUR LAND N7TII REFERENCE TO STREETS ANd OTlIER PARCELS. WIIII.E TIIIS PI.AT 15 ~P.f,3EV~D TO DE CORIiECT~ T11~ COHPANY ASSUHB$ NO LiAUlLITY FOI1 ANY LOSS OCCUIIRING BY R6A80N OP RCLIANCE TIIEp60N.' AS8E570S DfTECTIDM, INC BUILDING Sf7RVEY REPORT N0. 5-1359 , I. Client: Rod Delson 233 Wilshire BZvd., Ste. 525 Santa Monica, CA 9d401 II. Project adc3ress: 2110 9th Street Santa Monica, CA III. L1ate of S~rvey: March 22, I990 IV. Inspector: Charles W. Ay, E.P.A. building inspector#059 (U.S.C.) Y. Struct~e: The apartment buil.ding contains a reported total of 27 units. The observed structure Was a two story wood frame building of exterior stucco anc3 interior dry Wall construction. Co~rm~on laundry, hot Water heater room, and the pool heatar roan. VI. Areas s~u~veyed: Surveyed areas were residential units $, 9', and 11. Cannon areas surveyed included the laundry room, the hot water heater room and the pool heater coom. VII. 5~+st~s/products surveyed: A. AeousticaZ ceiZing material: SFrayed acoustical ceiling material uas present in each of the surveyed residential units and in the hot water heater room. ~'he material is sprayed in all residential areas except kitchens and baths. Samp~,es we~e obtained as follows: ~~le # I.ocaCian Asbestos ~resent lk Unit 9-hallway None 3 i]nit 8-haliway None 5 Unit 11-hallway None 7 Hat water heater roan None Hy definition, the ceilinc, material is non-friable. The analyzed materials were negative for asbestos, thereby negating the need for physical assessment. , B. 7~ext~rz-ed ~rall surfacing: None observec7. C. Pipe/boiler ir~sulation: None ob'served. D. Attic insulation: None observed. No attic access was observed fran surveyed areas. ..-°- E_ HYAC dnct material insulation: None observed. Each of the _1_ rasidential units contained uall heaters. F. Ceil u~g tiles: None observed. G, Sprayed structural firepcoofing: None observed. H. Flooring: Linoleum was observed in the kitchen and 3~at~ areas of the residential units surveye~'. Samples of distinctive pa~terres were obCained as follows: Sa~l.e # Location Ashes~os ptesent 2 Unit 9-bath NoRe 4 Unit 8-bath None 6 Unit li-bath None Linoleum is a non-friable product. The analyzed materials were negative for asbestos, thereby negating the need for physical assessment. vIII. Labora~ory analysis: Laboratory results are sucmiarized in section VII above. Refer to the attached laboratory reporr sheets for specifics. Analysis was performed by polarized iight micrascopy (PLMJ utilizing the method described in 40 C.F.R. Chapter I(1-8-87 edition) Part 763, Subpart F, Appendix A, pages 293-299. The ASBESl~OS DET'ECTION CO., INC. laboratory is accredited in this method under the National VoZuntary Laboratory Accredztatian Program ac3ninistered by the National Inst~tute of Standards and Technology, United States Department of Comnerce. IX_ Conclusians: The limited building survey protocol, and subsequent bulk sample laboratory analysis as reported herein, lead to the following conclusions: I_ FriabZe Matecials {E,p.A, definztion of :E~iable is that "the material, when dry, may be crwnbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure..." A.H.E.R.A. section 763.83. The term "friable" dces not indicake that any damage, deterioration or health hazard exists~ EYiable asbestos was id2ntified in these coristruction materials: A. NONE. ' Remedial action recart~c3ed: N/A, 2. Non-friable Platerials Non-friable asbestos vas identified in these construction materials: A. NCN£. __ -'- It should be noted that non-surveyed units may possibZy contain older asbestos-containing flooring. It xs co~m~on far flooring materials to be replaced periodically in rental units. Prior to sanding, scraPxng, abrading or removal of flooring from non-surveyed units uith older flooring, it is rec«m~nded that the specific materials invoJ.ved be analy2ed. Remedial actirn reoamiended: N/A. I£ applicable, the client may incorporate thxs report or its conclusions into a notice pars~aant to the State of Californza Health and Safety Code Section 25915 et seq., and client may incorporate this report into an operations and maintenance pxogram. _~_ TERMS AND CONDITIONS QF LIMITED BUTLDING SURVEY ASB~STOS DETECTION. INC REPOFtT NO. S-1359 PLEASE READ THIS FORM CAREEVLLY The buzld~ng survey performed upon the structnre(s} referenced in Lhis report -has been completed utilizing t~e procedure~ and grotocol described hereafter. The procedures T~ave been specifically app~oved and ordered by "CLIEi~TT" for their sole use and purposes. Th2 Sucvey does not lnclud2 a determination of all possible sources of asbestos-containing materials. STANDARD GIMITED HUILDTNG SURVEY CLIII~P has ordered a standard limited building survey to be conducted in represeatatzve accessible interior areas of tt~e struct~sre. The specif2c areas surveyed, uhich may be less than all accessib].e interior areas of the pro~ect, are set forth zn the building survey report. The star.dard survey is intended to idenLify reasonably accessible asbestos products in the following areas, or of the foZlowing types, and does not incltide any other products, systems ar areas: 1. 5prayed acoustical ceiling 2. Textured wall surfacing 3. Pape/6oiler insulation 4. Attic insu~akion 5. HVAC duct material/insulation 6. Ceiling tiles 7. Sprayed structural fireproofing 8. vinyl flaor tiZes and linoleums Samp2es of suspect products involved in the standard survey were obtained as €ollows: 1. One (1) bu2k sample of each apparent2y hanogeneous suspect material shall be obtained frcm each unit or ca~non area surveyed. Client has been advised that this sarrpling protocol is a reduction from E.p.A. suggested minimum sampling set forth in the A.H.E.R.A. (schools) program. ASBE5TOS DE.TECTION G~O., INC. makes no express or implied warranties concerning the ptiysica7. rnmpoaition of any material other than the specific sample(s) which is the subject of microscopic analyais and that ASBESTOS D~.TECTI~1 CO., INC. makes no express or imQlied warranties concerning the hea2th effects, or potential. health effects, rese~lting fran exposure to any material s~rveyed or analyzed. Laboratory testing cannot, and does not, warrant that similar appearing products in ad~acent areas of the structure are of identical, or similar composition and asbestos content. Assumptions based upon random sample analysis are made solely at the risk of the CLIE[~TI' ar~d ASBF~S DETECTiOI+I CO. ~ II3C. is not liable in any manner for opinions based upon said assumptions. , A12 recor~mendatioris are the opiniorrs af ~A5BE53'QS DETECPIaV CO., INC., are not to be conserued ae warranties or guarantees of health risk or saEety, and CLIFNI~ may obtain other opinions if so desired. The standard survey does not include samplfng or evaluation of any other camion asbestos-rnntaining materials, including, bvt not ~.imited to~ HVAC plenwn and duct boot insuZation, 'tiVAC unzt plat#orms, dry wall, plasters, joint compounds, glues, ndhesivesr artificial cor~crete fireplace logs and decorative ash, roofing felts and papers, roofing tara, exterior siding, or flue pipes. ~aluation or testing of theae products, or any okher exclud2d product, will be made so2ely upon request of CLIFTIP. BULK ASBESTOS ANAL'' ~iS (40 C F R, Part 763, Subpart F, ..rpendlx q pages 293•299} AS9F5TOS DETECTION, fNC CUent Nam~ ROd L12130I1 Client Address 233 Wi]shire Blvd., Ste. 525 Santa Monica, CA 90901 [YAD ~ 1~lO ASBESTQS DETECTED Estimated percentag¢s by area~ Dctectfon Limit 156 asbesto~ This report pertafns to sampl¢s lnvestigated and does not necessadly apply to other apparently Identlca! or simllar mateHals This report is not to be reproduced without the express permissfon of qsbestos D¢tectlon Ca, inc ~....~.~-- .~~~-~,.--~~~~-_.~--~~~---~-~~--.~.r Sample Na 0351359-1 ADI Lab Na 4796 Type o( MaterlaE Acoustic ceilang Color White/tan Type(s) of asbestos present 1. NAD Pertentag~ 2. Percentage p~her (Ibrous material present Cellulose less than ~8 Other norrHbrous matedal present ~anular minerals AnaEysCs commen~ If appllcabl~ N/A ~~~~a~~~r~r~~Y~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~Y~~~~~~~~~~^~w~n~~~ Sample Na 0351359-2 ADl Lah~ Na 4797 7ype of Materiat Linoleum Color. Pink/tan/green Type(s~ ot asbestos present 1, NAD 2. Percentage Percentege Qther #ibrouo materlal present Cellulose 60$; synthetic 20$ Other norrflbrous mateda[ preseat GYanular minerals; resirts Anelys~s comment, If appltceble N/A ~~~..~~~ww~r~~s~~~~w~~~~r~~rr~r~~~~wr~~~~~r~wrw~~~ Snmple Na 035I359-3 ADI La6. Nn q79B Type of Matedak Acoustic ceiling ~~~ White/gold Type(s~ of asb¢stos present 1. NAD ?ercentage 2. ~ Percarttage Other Hbrous mnterlal presant None Oth¢r norrNbrous matedal present ~anular minerals ~-.- Anelys~s commen~ If apQlicablq N/A ~~~~~~~~~~~~Y~~I~~~~~~~r~w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3-23-90 R. Frauenberqer t ("~~\ Date Analyst Approved By BULK ASBESTOS ANAL' ,1S {40 C F R, Patt 763, Subpart F, n,,pend~x t~ pag¢s 243•294) ASBESTOS DETECTIOk, INC Cltent Nam~ ROd D21SOt1 . Client Address 233 wilshire alva., 5te. 525 Santa Monica, CA 90~01 _ I ^ NAD-TIO ASBESTOS DETECCED Estimated percentage8 by area Detectlor~ 1.lm1t 196 asbestos This repost pertains Eo samples investigated end does not necessnrily apply to other apQarenily identlcal or similar materlals Thls report is not to be repraduced without the express perm~sslon of Asbeslos Detectlort Co., Inc -----~---.~......~..,~..~...~_.~_~~...,~~.~~..~~.~~~~...,..~~~..r~..~._~~ Sample Na 035I359-4 ADI l~b. Na 9799 Type of Materiat Linoleum Color. White/tan/gray Type{s} oi asbestos present ] NAD Percenlag¢ 2. Percentag~ Other fibrous material present Cellulose 45$ Other nor}fibrous matedal present GYanular minerals; resins Analyst's comment, i( applfcable Subsamples analyzed separately and combinea for reporting. -------~_.~.........~~..,..~...~~,.^...~.~~~~~...,~......~~....,~....~-~~-- Snmple Na 0351359-5 ADI Lab Na 480~ Type of Matedak Acoustic ceiling Color. Wlzite/gold Type(s} of asbestos present ~. ~D P¢rcenFage 2. Percentage Other /jbrave materia! present ~one Other no~flbrous matedal present ~'anular minerals Anelyst's commen~ if applkcuble N/A -~~-~... ~~,...~~.~.r.~.~.~...~....~.~~~~~r.~...~...~.r.r.~~~~.~~~._.~ Sample Na 03S1359-6 Ap1 Lab, l+~a 980Z Typa ot Mateda~ Linoieum ColoG Tan • Type(s~ o( asbestos present ~• ~p Percentage 2 -_ Percentag~ Oth¢r 8brous materlat present Cellulose 60$ Oth¢r norr[lbrous material presant Granular minerals; resins Analysta comment, if applicable Subsamples analyzed separately and combined for reporting. ~~~~~~~~~~...+~.~~~~~~.r~~~.r...~.r~.~....~~.~~~~.~-~~. 3-23-90 R. Frauenberger , ~~~ Date qnalyst Approved $y BULK ASBESTOS ANAL' ~ ~IS (40 GF.R, Part 763, Subpart F, ,.rp¢ndlx !~ pages 243-299) ASBES70S ~ETECTION, INC C11ent Name 1~~ ~elsOn CllentAddres~ 233 Wiist~ire Blvd., ste. 525 Santa Monica, CA 90401 NAD ~ NO ASBESTOS DE7ECCED Estkmated percentages by area ' Qetectlan Lfmit 196 asbestos This report pertalns to samples lnvestlgated and does not necessarily ppply to other apparently identfcal or simllar matedala This repoR is not to be reproduced wlthout the express permission o( Asbestas Detetcion Ca, lnc ------------~-----~~-~~.----- ---_~.~.._....~~~... Sample No 0351359--7 qp~ ~~, ]~-o, 4~2 Type ol Materlat Acoustic ceiling Cotor. Gray Type(s~ o( asbestos present 1. Npp Percentage 2. Percentag~ Other fibrolis material present None Other noo-fibrous material present a-~ular minerals Analys~s comment if applicable N~A -~-~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......~~~~..~~~....~~~~~-~..~~~~~~ Sample Na At?I LaI~ IYa Type of Materiat Color. Type(s~ of asbestos present 1. Percentag~ 2. Percentage Oth¢r flbrous mateda) present Oth¢r noo-({brous materlal presenC Analys~s comment, If applleable ~~~~~.~~w~~w~r~~~~~~~wwwws~~~w~~ww~~..r~r~~~~.ws~~~~ Sample No, ADI L.ah Na Type of Matedat Color. • Typ¢(~ of asbestos present 1. Percentage 2. -- Perrantnge Other hbrous matedal present Oth¢r norrtibrous materta) present Analysl's comment If appllcable ~ ~~~.~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~..~~r.~~~~~.~...~~~~~~~~~~ 3-23-90 R. Frauersberc~er ~~ Dale Analys! Approved By ~ 2. 0~ STRUCTQRIt. - componente Inspaeted ~vhen eppllcahla) o 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 Y.05 2.06 2.07 7.08 3.09 7.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 1.15 7.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 COM Foundation typa~ STEN WALLS Meterials oi caostructlon~ CONCRRTE Mehor boltlnq Cracking and/or aattlement Crawlrpeca eccaoa Sub-tloor ventllation Bn~amant acceas Foundntion vetar penetretion s~P P~P 101 Aren Dralnaga/gcadinq Problem traes end roota Ploorr Well conetruaiion f MOOD FR11NR Ezterior flnl~h PrLnsry window^ Primaty doora Atteehed Parehea, Petio eovers, nnd deck~ Balconler and railiaga MiecBllaneoUe l~1dTS : ] 2.01 Settlement cracklag end movement wea obaerved throughout the superatructure vhich var ~ especinlly ootleeehle throughaut the ^econd atorr~ howaver~ this sppeerad to ba within normal llnLta Eor thia typa of constructlon. ~ 2_il A lerge tree ves qrorring et the southeesterly eorner of the courtyard Whlch did not - nppear to be cnueing nny majar atructural concerno et tha time of our in~paction, however, We recoesoend monitoring thi~ tree for tutura qrovth/movmianC~ aapecially ln the proxLoity oi tAe lerge brencRea to the roof esves overhang. 2.12 Creaking floare were obaerved throuqhout ihe Lnepeated unlt~ (espacially the aecand story unlta~. Rhl~ type of cresking i~ co~mson snd ia normelly due to Iloor boatd~ aqueeking against natl rhekea. Mhilot no f2oor covari~gr wera removad, tha ereaking did not appesr to 6e ot eny major atructural aigoitlcance at ths tima ol our inapection. 2.19 e) Tha creck~ noted ln the atucco vall^ Were exemined and eppeered to he coametic in nature (non-structurel~. b) T~e esterior of Che Cuilding le in need of peint. c) A vertical crack wao oheervad nt the iunctlon of the lront entranca porch roof snd unll snd ue [acamnend petchlnq n~m! to niinLaLae Cha poerfDillty ot ~noletura penetration lnto tAe wa~d fieme. dE Conelderatton ~hould t~e givan to csstuccoing the exterior of ths building for ceethetlc resaons. Pegs 3 0! 17 2.00 STRUC1uxB contd. 2.15 Neny oE ths ln~pectsd netal sliding windovs wera vary stitf coomon With thlr type of ln~tallntlon (~imple claaning o! tha i+ill pcobehly ractify satoe-. in operation ~hich ia alider~ aad lubriceeion 3. 00 C~RAGE/CARPORT - c~~nent^ In~prctad ~vhan epplics6le) ~ 3.01 Roof covaring tyQat UHDSR WRLLIHG 3.02 Roof framing~ NOi APPLIGBLB 3.03 [toof llnehings, vsllaya and ioinC• 3.04 Foundation~/floor~ 3.05 Mell conatruction 3.06 Tire eepnretion nnd tire dooro (if naedad) 3,07 vehlcle doors~ oQanare ~if nny) sad hsrdvsra 3.08 Other doors 3.0g 63actrlcel [if any) 3_10 Plumbing ~lt eny) 3.11 lllecellenaous COM~SLNT.S 3.00 Covered parking undarneath the buildi~g 1~ piovided by csrporte on tha aert anc! weat elevatlon^ of the bvilding. It appeero t~et one eove[ed apnca ie provided for each unLt (for i~formation only). 3.04 The cxackr noted ln tha Aaoc of tpa oslporN do aqC ettect !ta •truoturel intagrity and are con~idered to bs co~netic in nntuca_ 3.06 Hole~ wera obrarvad !n the tire ceilings o! oerport~ ~1, 20, 21, nnd 23. 5ta recwuoend theae holee he petched srith en incombu~tlble ~onterlnl to weintain th~ intaqctty of tha~e firs cailing~. The holee hsva probsbly 6esn cut to ptovlda accsr• to the plumbiag and drnln lines (for Lnfornetioo only~. ` 3.10 Staino vera oLeervsd oe the ceilinge o! cnrport~ il, i8 and 114, ~hich eppaared ta ba dry at tha time oi our inspection. ~~howevar, p~ reco~nd khat the~a area~ be monitored tor future leskaga ~no evidence o! vi~ible repslr~ rrera otrserved to carporta ceilinga i8 and 14~. Paga ~ of 17 99.00 KZSCELLANEOUS COMHENi2S 99.01 without oample testing~ ~hiah thiA compeny doe~ not parform, ve were unebla to determine whether tha ^preyad acouatic meterlals contnln any a~he~toa. Such mpterlal• do not ueue2ly prepant eny hezard provldsd thap remaln in s aound end undiotqrbed wnditlon. It is recoumandad thnt only eirlero epray mathod~ ot paintiag be employed ~ (peinting helpa ^aal any erbeaYOe pnrtlcle• vithin tha cohstiucEion~. Ii cppcern~ ariee, e apecialict should be conaulted. ! 100.00 SiJMMARY 100.D0 The purpoee of thle inspeation raport 1^ prlmerily to ldantify safor phyalcal or mechnnical deficienclaa vith the property. Tha •minor' o~ 'poamstic' Ltama mentioned in th~a report are for ths clieat'a relecence only and qhould mt, !n !hs in~pactor•^ opinion~ macerialiy ntfect the matketabilitp ot tAe building. Thia report ia for the cllent~e Lnfarmstion only and ls noE tran~farsble to nny third party (i.e. subaequent huyara~, ~ho ahould seak the edvlc~ o! en indeprndent qualiliad inapectoY af thair chalca. Pege 1T of 17 ~ ,. _~ ~~~~~„ ~ ~ Iw~~k~~_ ~. ,.~ ,~.,~.~,,,~ ... ... ...... ..x ~.,::~..,.- ,- - ( F I Y I'f.ANNIN(~ []IYItiIJM ~~w•• ~~•• ' _ ~~ ~irr~nr~:s nN~~ ni inr•~ i~qnt ~r~tii~ro+~~ nrzi ns D~i ul oll comm~m arcs np: rs md altcrnmns, d any, wh¢h will bc perlurinu' lxWr~ U~c cior ol di~ Iirsl escruw lnd mdi. lc wl~o wdl piy for rCp urs Owncr wd! p-~y far viJ ~k iurm thc lollnwing tkior~ Ihc closc o( ~hc f r~i ~scmw• 1 Ins4~11 .i a~~, ra~l on ~hc bwWmg _ YLiphR aG •JvminJ hul ~ad culd w.u~r supptv lin~5 frum IhC puhli: itlihr scrvic~ con cci~un m aich pcrmanrnl IixWre m eacL unn a•rth ncw cuppr' plumbmg _l Pamt ihc ~x _nor x•,dh d~xirs and Irun 4 Itcplrsicr d~ swumnwg ~xxil 5 kcpair ca~r y,irJ ~iir~.t[C ArpunJ IhC (~~, ~~~J proviJ~ n~w ~wti for phnts 6 Remaicl 16i Id~hy arc~ wilh new 17oonng, ncw n~aJtwxes and mw pots lor plants Insiall a ne~ micrcnm sy+~em 7 Im4~11 a sui • wa~cr I~uu~r for ilic rwm~ming ~wol 8 Rema1J ~P ~ froni ~l~vauon nf ihc bmldmg (~ppwtunaie cns: (ur mformauon p~r~wscs--5~.0001 9 InsiaO cRtcr nr awnings .~+ pan of exicrior rcfurlnshmem 10 Innall a nc~- minnce d~~r on ea~h umt, comple~e wnh new 6ardware, peep holr and 6oor tl~-cshalJ i I lns~a[I a g nge dix~r on each scpanlely accessible parkmg space Separaie ad~mmng p rkms spaecs wnh eh~~n lenk or sinnlar ~ypc drv~Jcrs I? Perform pC~~l conlrol wurk necessary ~n order ~o obi.im MaslCr Termde Repon on proper~y bc'wc ciosc o( firsl escrow Whdc no~ 'rcpaus or al~er. ~ons' thc owner wdl do ~hc foilow~ng as well I1 lnclucl~ m}u Gty-reqn~rcd Consern lo Cond~uons io be recor~d m the Los Anseles Qunty RccorJePs Olfitt against Ihe trtle of tlx propeny a speaal pmvisian I~ prrvem~ ~ny'L'Ihs Ac~" ewcuon oF'Parucipaung'lenanti as de6ned ~~~ I OHC A n idd~iu~n ~o ~I~c oihtr i~n~n~ proiccuons for Parucipaung Teoams • N~n~~ IM11I"ORIAM1I ~OI l. !tl•.C,UtDINC AS11PS70S nsl~ulos fkiccuon Company, In~ , surv~y~Yl ~x^uoi~+ nl tla budJmg .mJ an~Iyzcd samplcs of 6~k~ldmg ma~en.ds '1 ~narz~s have nxv+ocl mpx:e af nc~ Astxs~as Ddretinn Company, Lx , OuelJmg Survey Rcpon S-I159 cig cJ M irch 2l, 1990, wluch mcludcs ~he results ul lhe~r survey All wurA ~s ~u6~~ n tn ( uy e~~~~roval fur CuJr runFonnancc. All o( the spcafiN ~mprovemems to be pa~d fur by nwner Owner wdl nol secl. rent ~ncrrase for repausl~mprovemc~is ~f TORCA is approved as ongmafYy submilled ta Ihe Cuv !n the evrnt Ihat Ihe Pla ~mng Cmnm~ssinn and/or Ci~y CouncJ seek ~o adJ tond~UOns lo lhc pm~ec[ reqwnng -dJ~laonal capendili~res no1 cnpressly agreal in th~s Torca Appl~cal~on, Ihen ~hc oWnCf m^y ~handon ~he IORCA apPhC~ltOn qr rentgOtiale tl~e prOposal with the ~cnanis y~ l , ~ i:'tIC11~5JI:1•~Q'I1~,1~.1V' trt.bi;(?OfE•4lV1,1'i~l~bb•-'Y1;1:]i`;1<~V?IPl:J~`+~-=:.I;i~511'7~?IM==(I1~1() 3;L'9i".'b~ s;fr.~~?i;",~£'6 ~ 3(Ifl"1 I'~k11 I;IV~1f'JEJ;•~ I'rl 111'~ 3 ~,'f; " S't~ 1:1Pltl IV~~ 1 P~lf lll;}:1V :Itlf);1 ~1-I 1 i:1 ty L I'1 l(C ~1:1 .ll~;.] (idl0Ullti() :~3'11~k~11'[ 7'1=:1,~.1 Sl'}:;1~ 1._"'~ -fl`lFJ >~J, :~:1Nb-ItlE,; SfifJJ h:J'~I~,J .1SW,i S,' y ~ •.•l`)l~S'fl a.lhl4'l~i~i sllra [A_3>l,,3 t~~ ~ 6 - ~.1[l;) ' `l~~i .~~'II~Q r f;si: :-o~ i i~~ i~~ af: -s ~,'J(I ~u c~r~ 9i~ " 4 b 1 11 i'! t fi!-1;•1;.1(1,.1 ' 4V t f7 ! ~ 1 (i ` ~ q"c'.!i(?4' XV.~ =f1t11S ()f3"k: % (Yq~.~"h X1~.1 .l~.L:7 ~3'~ ~p ~ ` X ~il3 -.~M.L "1:3SW$r~! ~i~r~'9l5 L" X Fi~~i' 0~~ `t~ - fi~ f'1=]S'ka~i ?If71;JV.~ 7C .~"'1V,S11 A"I.TI(I 15f>"hE' f3b'i:b ~ 4S"1< S1dL[~1. ,~; I]PC~ ~; t.~ EIE; (iS~<~ cI:1V~ii1 4 F3 ~ b~' k:l 04' %:Fi/Fi~:/i;0 ~:~~>;'~~~;/ V(} ,ti I'.i t t'l l IP~ I I 4,y ~1ii ~ tR~ IN I"I :I'71~~I l lflld Sl(l.i I;r! ;ti 'I LV~1 `]N I I I l i{ +~ x ~ ~ •~t ~ it .i.1Nt+"1VFi Ihl~I,J`If1:J QNt/ NC) f.1t1~!`IO~I~lI `JAE,C7'1I~3 ~ ~ ~ it x ~c `Ji~T(CN 7,•d ~INC)t~ t:.lV`_1 f'k~Er i ' i.'.h4'_.C~ 6f' ~(?~•I,l S~Obiif~ V:l V.7 ll~i-~~J t S' :l~f.lS'.:i[~lI1(E silll4 i'.4 ?.I,S d ~i':75~c~~5~.<.~...1 ~114! f'i: l;i Illb f)L ~c: I f.~/b 4!~ :l} IA~1 ~`Il~ ~:?;I l,~k: k~ ;>r' r' ~l f i' ~'t~ 4! t~~',3;i ' ll~t~.l Southern Califomie Edison Gompany P. G aox at a ~.OwG aEaCH CatiFOwNi,~ gos0~ Marr.h 31, 1992 Ran Kane 21iD 4tih Street ~`23 Santa Moniaa, CA 9o4D5 Re: Aocount No. 71-42-276-3764-30 We ar~ happy to v~rify this iatormatioa tar you Dear Ms. ]tane: In response to your request, we are providing information reg~rding your service with southern Callfarnia Edison Gampany. Customer ~ta~ae: Ran Kane Sex'vice Addrass: 2110 4th street ~23 Santn Monica, CA In-Sarvice Date: F$bruary 14, 1991 We appreci~te the oppa.tunity tv aerve yau as a auatomar of 5authsrn California Edison. Tf wa can provide addltional information, please aall Ma. Matzgsr at (31Q) 432-9411. sir~cerely, ! l~ . • D. METZGER Customer Service speciaifat DM/gw:~~ooa ~'~ ad3~s3woH wd0s:~e a6, ii ~.aw 4i *~3t7e ~~.:lk..l~~ .~ ~~~rr~ `~'~h ~C.,e~ ..+1, ~r..~ ~-- ~)lf).ICfllltll! If' '~lflll llst ~~IfJlts~ilfflqll~a~ M~~a~se~~w~~~ Iw.~..-~ ( I f 1' PI~AfYNINC~ L~IVlSIUN ~~ I\ RI'I'AIItS AN]) AI I ~ItA I InNS - COM111Uh ARI'AS llct.ul .tll common area re~~ rs .ind .~Ilcr.iGOns, jf any, which will bc ~x;rlormed bct"ure lhr clu~r u~ ihc Grst escrow ancl md~c iic who will p~y far rcpairs Owncr w~ll pay fnr ~nd ~x form the lulluw~ng hciore lhe close of Ihc Grsl cscro~i~* lnstalf .~ nr~, ra~l on tl~c bwidinb. 2 12cpl,icc alE caVv.iniicc! hol and colcl w.dcr supply Ime5 froiu thc public uufitti~ serv~c~ con ecut>n ~o e.ich penna~ient lixWre in eaclz unit w~th new co3~~x~r plumbing 3 Yainl lhc cx ~rwr w,~tls, dixxi and tnm 4 Itepla~tcr lh swimming ~xx~l S Rcpair courv,~rd wrGicc .irou~ld the pool, ancl pro~idc itcw puts for plants 6 Remalrl ~hc lobby area wilh new 1}axmg, new mailboxes and new ~ts tor plants lnstalf a ne~~ m[crcom sysicm 7 lnstall a sol r w11cr hadCr for IhC Swunnuilg ~~oOI 8 Rcmodci th_ lran~ elcv,~uon nf ll~c l3uilclmg (approxima~e cnst for mfonnauon pur~oscs--~ ~ .000) 9 lnstall cx~c~ nr .~wningi .~s part uf ~xtenar rcfurbishment 10 Install a nc~ cntr.mce dcxx on c.ach uni[, complele w3lh new hardware, peep hole and Iloor lk: ctiholcl 1 I lnsaall a g. rage doc~r nn e.ech separalely accessible park~~~g space Separaie a~f~oming p ~kinb ~paces w~th clti.un hnk or s~mildr type div~ders 12 Perform pe~t conirol wor4, necessary in orcier lo obtam Masier Termite Report on propcrly i~c'orc closc ot 17rst escrow Whi1c not "repairs or aller.~~~nns" Ih~ owner wdl do the following as well: 13 lndude ~n 'l~c Ci1y-mquucd Conscn! lo Con~ilions tn be rcrorded m the Los Angeles C~ unty Rccorder's Office aga~nst [he l~de of tlse property a special ~irnv~sion u prevcni .iny "I:Ilis Act" evicuon af "Pari~cipaung 'I'enants" as defined in "I Olt('A :n ~idcl~unn iu il~c olUcr Icnant prolccuons for Panicipaung "1'en.~nts ' Nulcti IMI'OR"I'AN'1' ~071: It1:CARDINC ASISI~S'I'dS: Asbcstos Delcelion Campany, Inc , survcyed Ex~ unm ol 11ic buildmb and an.dycecl uimplcs o! bwld~ng inateri.ils "lenants'itave rc~c~,cd copies ol thc Asbestos i~etecuon Company, Icic ,[3uilding Survey Rc~n ti-13S9 vg~icd M,irch 23, 1'~Q, which ~nclude~ ilie results u! U~e~r survey All worl, is ~ubj~cl !o ('iiy approvaE for Code cn~3formance All of Ihe s~~ecificci improvemenls to bc paid tor by owner_ Owner will nol seck rent mcrease for repa~rsHmpravemcnts ~€ TORCA ~s approved as orig~nally submuted io the Cuy En the event that the Pia~msng Comm~as~on and/or Cny Council seek to add condu~ons 1o the pro~ect reqwring ~ddiuanal expendnures not cxpressfy agreetl in th~s Torca Appl~cat~on, then Ihe owner m; y ahandon the "PORCA appl~cat~on or renegotiate ti~e propos:tl wath lhe tcnanls ~a ~ ~~¢ ~ Pau~ e. DEsqNTis 3002 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE C OF COUNSE~ PAUI C DESANT[S` _ L3r., • SALLVANN ~ Mo~tor SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404-2506 ~~~ j~pF~M/~"9f7LNB9MEK Ci~ Y ~ ~ • 'AL50 MEMBER OF NEW YORK BAR TELEPHONE (213) 453-I888 TELECOPIER (213) 829d476 ~tT ~r P~~.~bM~E~~G~+a li '92 14AR 24 ~~ ~3 March 23, 1992 Mr. Drummond Buckley City Plar-mng Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, California 904U1-3295 Re: 2ll0 Fourth 5treet. Tract Man 506 . TPG183 Dear Drummond: ~ de1s03 We are in the process of preparing a response w the specific questions raised in the 3 letters of opposit~on that you have received about this conversion. Most of the ~ssues raisecl in the letters of apposition aze philosoplucal and are not relevant to ttus TORCA review. ~ther issues deal with the actions, inactions or statements of the prior awners and again are not relevant to this apphcation. We will prepare a detailed response to the remaining qvesrions. T'hat response, ~ncludmg proof of Mr. Kane's daies of tenancy will be ready within the next couple of days. Enclosed you will find a number of leiters from qualifying tenants who supporc the pm~ect. These letters describe the posit~ve interact~ons that these tenants experienced with the owners throughout the negotiauons. They describe a very different negotiating process from that charactenzed by Ms. Aucker and Mr. Longstreet, where tenants were given options and explained their nghts in a vcry thomugh manner. Piease inform us if there are any additional items that you would like included in our submittal. If you have any queshons I can be reached at 453-1888 ext. 327. Very tru~y yours, ~' ~~~ Eileen HechE i?nd Use Paralegai Enclosures cc: HR Cap~tal-Rossrnore Partnership Haskel Iny, Homestead Group Associates 3anuarp 2? , 1~<32 ~'(Y ~~ 5~~; i~`v ~3J~{~A, ~r~~Y ~~~~~i'~ ~~~~rC '~2 1l~t ~4 ~t ~' Zoning Ai~ zszon :~ttentian: i~rummond Buclzley PpC z183 - 5an~a Monica Citr Hall Room 212 (aSb tifain Street ,{ Santa Manicz~, G~, 90401 ~ear Cammissioner: ,~1~ I kish to correct Garz ~iurakama.'s letter of 4etober 10, 1931 >~ardzng his statement as to my intent.. I am verV much in pport of the TpRCA conversion at Z11Q 4~h 5treet, and I am ~t. ~nin~ the att.ached statement. Thank ~-ou for kour consid"erat~.on. Very tru.ly yours, G.r~...~ ~ Y, ~ - ,~-~ ~~ SABRTItiA KRIEG5 211fl ~th 5treet :12 5anta Monica. .-~` To : City oi Santa Monica 3/14/92 From: John S. Moore [ I 1 ' Re : Condominium ConuersiQn - 2110 4#h Street Santa Monice Gentlemen, ~,~c : f~3 i haue liued et the aboue residence since 1977. Nlmost ttuo years sgo ~he initial meetings betureen the tennents end oew awners were first held. During seueral meetings Mr. Rod Delaan sabmitted to hours of questioning by the tennants ebout the conueraion. Questions were asked end re-esked and afE were enstuered in e calm~ Rolfte snd informative manner. R par#icularty ske~tical tennan# tape recorded one of the rr~eetinga. To her dismay she hed not ceptured any euideoce of e conspiracy to remaue all tennanta. This action howeuer refiects the mood of e majorify of ihe bailding occapants. Seuere! misconceptians an the part of the tennants were extremelg difficult to correct. The first dealt with the signing of the conuersion end parehese agreements. Meny tennents thaught theg cyere commiting tu purchose their unils for the specified price. I cannot teil you how meny times it u~as eKplained that the purchese sgreement onEy bound the Seiler and that the buyer was free to refase the purchese and remain as a tennent. Others thought the price was unchengeable euen though i# was ettplained thet any iuture offer mede by the tennanf end accepted by the owner would ouerride the original agreement. Some belieued they wouid be ihrown out efter the conversion e~en thaugh it was explained that Sante Mo~ice Rent Control la~rs would still apply to rented units and thet #he owner wes forbidden from remouing tennants who wished to remain es renters. ~ em uery much in Tauor of the canuersian afld re~nodesfir~g funich will meKe fhe complex a more habitable plece. Though they stjll da oot recog- nize it, current real estate trends and the ~ew landlords haue giuen seuerel ot my neighbors an opPor#unity for home ou~nership in Santa Monica. -, - ~ ' i ~ ~ ~ ~~ • ~ ~ 7 / ~ `A ~ `~ ~ ~ _ ~~_ John S. Moore III ~ ~Q 2T 1Q 4th St. #3 a x. ~ =~"' Sante Monica, Ce. 90405 ~ ~~'• ~ 310 396 6956 ~ .~,~ ia r`~P_ r., , ~ W ~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~4~"4' C~Y ~~Q~ti -°' ~~~~`~F March 17, 1992 ~ ~ 24 ~1 ~d Mr. Drummond Buckley Santa Monica City Planning Department Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90901 Dear Mr. Buckley; i am a tenant residing at 21~0 4th Street in santa Monica. I am writinq to you in regard to the T~RCA condomini~m conversion of my 6uilding. I am in favor of the conversion and wovld like to give my full support. Thank you foz youz attention. Sincer , ~~l/U ~ , William V. Ka elman 2110 4th 3t=eet #2 Santa Honica, CA 9fl405 310-399-0979 CiTY Q~ .;f: : ,~r~~- _ CITY PLANN `-" nF~iCE '9Z M~(t Zd ~t 2~ March 17, 1992 SANTA M~NICA CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT San#a Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, Califarnia 90401 ATTENTION: MR. DRUMMOND BUCKLEY Dear Mr. Buckley, I am a tenant residing at 2110 4th Street ~n Santa Monica. I am wrdmg to you m regard to the TORCA condommium conversion of my building I am in favor of the conversion arsd would like to give my full support. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, Q~,~jB ic~ r Aifred Nelson 2110 - 4th Street, #10 Santa Mon~ca, CA 90405 JOYCE HOU5ER MFCT ~~G~.n K~ n..~ ~+Y- r~ ti s s^c ~ n -J '3 CtTY UF c; _-~ ~r~-_ ~/a D~ ~.,~,~o~c u~~ c~r~ ~~~.h~}-_~ 4~F~c~ (~$tj 1'Gin ST , 5ank~ f'lo-nicf ~ C~ . qa~o I "92 MAR 24 I~1 ~24 ~_ z~, c~~ z- ,~e : N~~e-l~~~ / ~ TPC E ~3 ~, ~ r(.esidccit~ a~ Ztca ~~` 5~ f1~/~' ~',1eh~, ~-~ Eg) ~~ Si,,~~p,~~ l'.e Lb~U~~S~on ~~ ..n,,.~ 1ow~ld«5r -{~ c~ndaMC~iv,r~ in c~c.c.~~da.~ce W~.h„ ~~ ~Yavts~ovtis c~ `f-aiZCl~ . ~-.~~ r~~ k`~~"o,.,s~~ a.~ ~ Prs ~ ~~~ ~a~ee.-, ~~ ~.r ~s ~ ~. ~. S C.~G~ LJG. ~-,'~G Ct "`° ~•e- Go v~ U G/s c 6'^ , Z+~ ~C~C# ~ j^- .J • clc~~ ~+'1 a~, d„s~~p~-~,~~ ~k "t~`~ l°~ ~ca~k~:,~ a~~e~,,.~.~.-,k ~ ~~5~•, ~ as ~ p'~~~~"~~ ~5 ~~~~ 1h ~~ ~ 1~2~Cc~r Gt~l ~en~V~~-i0`~ ~~~ COnd.~.~ioc-~ o~ '{~.e ~u.i~c~crtC ~a`f'k -vtsic(e. Q""\ `J O~~ 2- ~.45 l~~nMe ar1 Q-M ~ 1~-~ Sr n-~['n~- `~S 1'4t e. ~ Ll6'~ d -t ~ ~ TQG~f S o~ ~~ O,O~JOSInS 1 -~r,-ti A. n~ C~+-, ~oe ~iC~ cd ~~ and '~.~ «" v~ e CsCs' S~4- ~ s~ ~~.o~ S[S 'C~-~ ~'rL.a_ C-~vt..VP~.S ~Q'L CC~.W~ ~o fZ~ CP~. r-- 5~~~eC~ , y ~ -J 6I0 Santa Moruca Blvd Sui#e 214 Santa Monica, Ca 90~0~ Lic # MH18924 (213) 393-6562 ~ ~~~ ~ PAUL C. DESANTIS PAU~ G DESANTIS~ 3002 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE C SA~~YANtv L MOL~OY SAIVTA MONECA. CALIFORNIA 90404-2506 'AL50 MEMBER OF NEW YORK BTH TELEPHONE (213) 453-1886 TELECOPIER (213) 829•1476 February 13, 1992 Mr. Drummond Bvckley City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, Califor~ua 90401-3295 Re: 2110 Fourth St.. TPC-183. Confirmation of Tenant Sienature Dear Drummond: OF COUNSEL MALLEY KOFFMAN AND MESHEN 5.4NTA MONIG GqLtFORN1A de1s03 P~IO~ITY Enclosed is a January 22, 1992, letter from Gary Murakami, confirming the validrty of his signatures on the onginal tenant forms submitted as part of the TPG-183 TORCA Apphcat~on. - As the Crty Attomey has ruled at Planning Commission hearings, the simple fact that a tenant changes his or her mind regarding a convers~on after an application is filed is not alone a basis for invalidahng an original signature filed with the conversion applicahon. Mr. Murakami states m the enclosed letter that he indeed freely supported the conversion at the ume he signe~ his forms and that he dces not object to the conversion now. The required number of tenant signatures were filed with the TORCA application and the application remains complete and valid. We are filing the tentative tract map applicadon materials today and will speak with you soon to confirm that the tentative map has been accepted for filing and the project schedaled for a Planning Commission hearing. Please feel frae to give us a call if you have any comments or questions. Thank you for your land assistance. ~ Very traly yours, _ _ o/~_ ~ Richard A. Mills °° " Land Use Paralegal Enclosures cc: Hack.ei Iny, Homestead Gronp Associates Januart- 22. 199= ~•iann~na and Zoning Ui~•isian '~ttention: Drummond Buckle~- PPC =183 Santa Monica Citt- Hall koom 212 68~ ~faan Street Santa ~fonica, C~ 90-~01 uear Commissioner: ,~1t the time I signed m~ suppori of the TORCA Conversion at 2110 ~th Street, lnit 12, it was mp true intent to support the con~•ersion without anv undue influence Hhatsoever. M~• su6sequent ietter of October 10, 1991 reflected a chan~e in thinking. Ho~,e~•er, I now* support the con~'ersion, m~ orzginal signatures are ~•alia, and I ha~•e no ob~ection to the citt- acceptin~ m~- oriaina~ si~nature in su~port of the con~°ersion. Thanl: ~rou for vour consideration in this matter. ~er~ tru1F vours, / ,r~'~ / ' ~f~ ./~/ arti- i~firakami 2110 ~th Street u12 ' Santa Monica _C.aur ~~d• o~ ~ PAUL C. DESANTIS PAUL C DESANT~S' 3002 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE C OF COUNSEL SALLVANN L MOLLOY SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404-2506 MRLLEY KOFFMANANDMESMEK `4L50 MEMBER OF NEW YORK BAF TELEPHONE (213) 453d886 TELECOPIER (213) 829-1476 54HTA MONIGA CALIFORNIa April 7,1992 Mr. Drummond Buckley, Project Planner Honorable Members af the Santa Momca Planning Comctussion City Planning Division 1685 Mun Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CaIifarrua 90401-3245 Re: 2ll~ Fourth Street. Tract Man 50638. TPG183 Dear Mr. Buckley and-Commission Members: de1s03 As requesEed, we are respondmg to the statements and accnsations cantained in letters of opposihon to this conversion from three of the buildmgs tenants. These responses were prepared in consultation with the owners of the property after their review of correspondence from Gary Murakami, Mary Hale, Lynne Auker and David Longstreet in which these questions were raised. Althaagh many of the points raised hy the three opposing tenants are philosophical rather than substanuve and are not witlun the scope of the C~ty's review, as requested, we will respond to the basic issues raised. We have also enclosed letters from some of the buildings qualifying tenants that contradict claims made in the letters of opposition. Ms. Auker's letter raises eight issues. 1. Issue: T'he author believes that the owners realize too large a profit on the sales~ of these ~mts Response: Se~t~on 2005 of the Charter A~endment prohibits the City from irnpos~ng "either directly or mdirecdy any restnct~ons on the pnce, terms, or conditions of sale or resale of any umt m a Tenant PaRiciparing Conversion.." TORCA dces not define the amount of profit that an owner can derive from the sale of a unit. As m all real estate transactions the price is based ~~, market demand at the t~me of sale. The owners of this property are pmud of the fact that the early discount prices for these umts begm as low as $14~,000. Thfs is less than half of the sales price of the average new condominium Drummond Bucicley Apnl 16, 1992 Page - 2 ($350,000) cited in ttie City's CHAS report and lower than the great ma3ority of TORCA units as well. 2. Issue: Ms. A~ker questions the matives of the tenants who signed the intent forms. Response: We do not know how Ms. Auker can claim to know the intent of each of the 14 tenants who signed the forms. None of those tenants has made any such statements. Ms. Auker also states that the owner threatened to Ellis the building. The owner demes ever having threatened to EIiis the building and has signed a sworn afSdavit to that effect. AdditionaIiy, this accusation is contrad~cted in the last paragraph of page 10 of Mr. Longstreet's protest letter where he states that "Ellic was never threatened by the Applicant" but rather "was mentioned by Ehe former owner". 3. Issue: Ms. Auker contends that Mr. Marakami rescinded his signature. Response: Mr. Murakami has submitted a letter to the Planning Department reaffirming his support of t}te groject. A copy of that letter is enclosed along with a letter from Sabnna Kreibs, unit 12, confirming her support of the conversion and correcting a statement made in Mr. Murakami previous letter that implied that she was against the conversion. Issue: Ms. Auker wntends that Mr. Kane moved into his unit during May of 1991 and therefor his signature is invalid. Response: We are enclos~ng a swom statement from Mr. Kane that verifies that he was a qualified tenant at the time that he signed the Intent forms. We have been informed that Mr. Kane procEeded to paint and decorate the umt at the time that he took possession. He wishes to purchase his unit and we have further been informed that he t~as already borrowed money fmm his parents to use as a down payment. Issue: Ms. Aukcr contends that the brief repiacement of Ms. O'Brien, the form~r owner's buildmg manager, by a new manager at the close of escmw was somehow improper. Response: The new owner of the property°simply wished to hire their own building manager for the building they ~ad just purchased. Ms. O'Brien was an employee of the former owner and the new owners did not lmow anyttung about her at that time. When they discovered that the residents desired to have Ms. O'Brien remain as manager, the new owners agreed to reture her, t.... Issue: Ms. Auker srates the some of the tenants may de~ide not to purchase there umts. Drummond Buckley April 16, 1992 Page - 3 Response: We have had no such statements submitted by any of the tenants who signed the forms, but false or true the claim is irrelevan[. The intent forms are just that. They indicate an intent to purchase a unit at the time the statement is signed. They are not bindmg agreements. TORCA requires that 50% of the tenants indicate an mtent to purchase when s~gning the TORCA forms. The tenants in ttus building have met that re~uirement. 4. Issue: Ms. Auker wntends that the eviction of the tenant in unit 17 is somehow relatec3 to the TORCA. Response: The tenant in unit #17 was evicted "for just cause". Tt~e eviction was decreed by a judge basetl on non payment of back rent. The tenant was given the opportunity to make up the back payments but did not choose to do so. 5. and 6. Issue: Vanous comments about the huilding's condit~on and the repairs to be done as part of the TORCA. Response: Although TORCA requires a building inspecdon and disclosure, it does not require spec~fic improvements to be made. That is part of the negodation process for the individuat tenants. Two separate inspections were completed, to ensw'e that tenants had an accurate picture of the condit~on of the building and individual units. The results were sent to each of the tenants. Each tenant had an opportumty to negotiate improvements to their unit, along with the sales pnce, as part of a gackage. Although this issue is not within the purview of Commission review, for informat~onal purposes and to correct inaccuracies of fact, we have provide~ some specific mformarion on repaus to be made in our response to Mr.Longstreet's comments. 7. Issue: Ms. Auker dces not like the proposed new building faeade. Response; This is again not relevant to the TORCA. It is the owners intention to make the buildmg as attractive as possible. The owners welcome additional input. If the ~mprovements are substanttal enough to reqmre a huildmg permit, the new design wili requ~re architectural review and Ms. Auker will have an addit~onal apportumiy for input at the ARB pubhc heanng. -- _ 8. Issue: Ms.Auker is concerned that the TORCA witl reduce the number of parldng spaces on site. Response: T'he site currendy has 12 legal parlang spaces. After the building converts it will contain those same 12 existing require~ spaces. TORCA requires that buildings meet the code at the hme they were b~ilt. This buildmg does. Drummond Buckley April 16, 1992 Page - 4 The opposition letter from Mary Hale cantains similaz concerns to the ones addressed above. 1. Issue: Ms. Hale quest~ons whether Mr. Kane qualifies as a tenant. Response: This has already been addressed above and in section 2001 n of the Charter Amendment. 2. Issue: Ms. Hale references the eviction of Steve Gates from unit 1i17. Response: Mr. Gates was evicted by court decree for "Just Cause" as stated above m answer to Ms. Avker's question number 4. 3. Issue: Ms. Hale claims that an unnamed prospectrve buyer was broughi in to persuade an also unnamed tenant to vote for the TORCA with the hope vf selling "their opt~on for a lot of money". Response: This is a totally unsupported alIegation. 1'he owners deny any mvolvement in any such incident. 4. It is difficult to respond to Ms. Hale's suggestion of intimidatian. Tf~is inference is totally unsubstanhated. The third protest letter was from Mr. Longstreet. Mr. Longstreet's lengthy letter contains pages of financial analysis (entirely based on assumptions of the costs involved} and philosophical arguments for pnce controls. These issues are not only irrelevant, but as addressed above in response to a less lengthy but similar argument put forth by Ms. Auker, are specifically restncted from review by the TORGA legisladon. Other allegat~ons made in Mr. Longstreet's letter are non specific but we will attempt to respond to the "spint" of the comments. TORCA's require a great deal of support data and paperwork to adequatety protect the tenants interest through disclosure. Due to these requirements, there are substantial start up costs for owners who wish to imuate a TORCA. Most owners do not wish to expend large sums of money to collect the needed data and produce the support documents, without some tndicahon that the tenant~~;.~e in fact interested in participating in the TORGA, A "straw vote" is a common means of discerrung if the tenants would support a TORCA apphcation and if tt~ey would be interested in purchasing their units. Rat3~er than having some sinister, future plan, the gathenng of the initial signatures was done ro determine if Drummond Buckley Apnl lb, 1992 Page - 5 interest was there. As Mr. Longstreet lumself pomts out, they were used as a"straw vote". The results did mdicate that there was substantzal interest on the part of the tenants Eo proceed with a TORCA. Mr. Longstreet alleges that favors, pronuses and misrepresentat~ons were made to tenants to obtam s~gnatures. These are allegat~ons for which Mr. Longstreet offers no proof, evidence or even specific examples. The owner has made a good faith effort to address concems about the improvements to be made with individuals and with the entire tenant populatian of the building. Most of the unit impravements that are needed are cosmedc in nature. Some repairs and improvements have already been made to specific units, but the large capital impmvements cannot be corre~ted immediately. Contrary to Mr. i.,angstreet's asserUOns, however, improvemenu have been made to uruts of both consigning and non consigning tenan~s. Repairs and improvements were made to those units where the management received specific requests from tenants. The owner has attemptad to respond to all direct requests for reasonable repairs anc3 im~rovements. It is also important to remember that the current owner did not create those condit-ons. There is no dispute over the fact that the building was not m excellent condition when it was purchased by the current owner. This has made the negotiations with specific tenants more involved than m huildings that have been maintained more zealoasly. The bui~ding inspection :dentified the common areas as needing the most wark. The TORCA apphcat~on inciudes impmvements that are consistent with the recommendations of the report. As an e~cample, the roof and all water hnes will be replaced as part of the TORCA. The owners wili also install a new mtercom system and separate security garage doors to mcrease the safety of all of the tenants. These improvements will benefit all of the umts and are certainly not merely cosmetic m nature. Among Mr. Longstreet's other allegations aze repeatsd statements that those tenants desiring to remam as tenants would be "displaced" for owner occupancy. He goes so far as to hypothesize that purchasmg tenants would initiate a court challenge to remove TORCA's tenant protections. In reality, TORCA provides tenant protecdons thai are greater than those secured through Rent Control. As an example, 'PQRCA actually prevents evictions for owner occupancy, as a condition of approval. Mr. Longstreet xs apparently unaware that TORCA Conditions of Approval for all approved TQRCA's are recorded against the property, in the Consent to Condihons document, pnor to finai map approval. These condit~ons of approval, includ:.~~ all tenant protections, run with the land and are unaffected by changes in ownership and would also be unaffected by subsequent changes to the Charter Amendment. Drummond Buckley April 16, 1992 Page - 6 We beiieve, based on the mynad of incorrect statements and assumpt~ons in the three protest letters, that these opposing tenants either do not understand the protections and advantages that TORCA offers to tenants or are attempting to force their will on this building's majority who support the conversion. We are enclosing supporting letters from many of the tenants of this building. They serve to dispute the contenhon that there is no tenant support of this application. Please mform us if there are any other issues that ne~f to be responded to. We can be reached at 453-1858. Very truly yours, -`- ~JlZ-X-: / r `~L•lL~r~~ Eileen Hecht Land Use Paralegal Enclosures cc: HR Capital-Rossmore Partnership Haskel Iny, Hamestead Group Associates They were able to contact lessar Grandrath or Osti, and Saidy, bu~ were unsuccessful in contacting John Ellis. What result and effect those contacts wi11 ~ave of events must await the upcoming hearing on June 30. 15. For the benefit of sub-lessees, I therefore request, if possihle, that tne Council and City Attorney inalude a statement in their opinion in this matter, regardless of the final decision, that sub-lessees, having no knawledge of the terms and provisions in the lease against sub-leasing, and lacking an actual intent to subvert those terms and provisions, retain a possessory right to remain in their units and not be subjected to eviction on the issue of breach of contract by sub-lessors. 16. Counsel for applicant stated to the Cauncil that the practzce of his firm in handling TORCA applications is to rely on the applicant and ~ist everyone in the unit or on the lease. Then when actually selling unit they verify lessor, lessee, seniors, disabled, etc. Declarant respectfully submits that such a procedure invites error, and abrogates the duty of counsel to insure information received from a client is accurate and correct before filing the TORCA. It is a flaw which invites arror and misrepresentation. As in this case~ such misrepresentations or errors may not k3e ~aught when an agplication is not opposed, or appealed. Such errors are directly related ta the failing of both applicant and counsel. 17. Issues of coercion exist in this application as have been related in documents of record and testimony delivered under oath. Issues of misrepresentation of the facts and issues exist in this application relating to signatures on conversion and purchase -7- Januar~- 22, 1992 Planning and Zoning Division Attention: Drummond Bucklev PPC ~183 Santa Mon3ca Cit~ Hall Room 212 685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 9040i Dear Commissioner: At the time I siSned my support of the TORCA Conversion at 2110 4th Street, Unit 12, it was my true xntent to support the conversaon without any undue influence whatsoever. My suhsequent letter of October 10, 1991 reflected a change ~.n thinking. However, I now support the conversion, my original signatures are valid, and I have no ob~ection ta the ciLy accepting my original si~nature in support of the conversion. Thank you for your consideration in this neatter. Very truly yours, ~///~~~„" `i~ ary rakami 2i10 4th Street #12 ~ Santa Monica 11~1ELIIvDA J GORDON 2110 Fourth St. ~24 Santa Manica, Ca 9040~ liiarch 11, 1992 ~Ir Druinmond Buciclev City Planrung Commission 1585 ~Iain Street SanEa l~Ionica, Ca 90401 ItE. Case ;~ TPC 1S3 Dear ~Ir Buckiey As a resident of Unit #24 in the above referenced case, the property located at 21I0 Fourth Street, I am ~nrntrng to let you know that I fully support the proposed TORCA conversion of these uzuts. I urge to you to look favorably upon our request to convert. It will not only enhance the city "unage" to finally get a coat of pau~t on this building after many too many yeazs, but it aLso presents an affordable buying opportunity £or many wlto might otherwise never be able to own anything in the area. Sincerely, ~~ ~~~ ~ Melinda r. Gordon 2110 1~th 5tr=et, Apt. Z3 Santa 1~onica, ~ 90405 March 21, Z992 Dr~.rrsnond Buck].ey Santa A;o:sica City Fla*~ning Department Santa :•ionica Citp Ha11 I6B5 I~:ain Street Santa. Monica, CA 90401 t~eas ?~fr. Back3eg: I am a tenant :aho has been r~siding at the ahove address for a7.~ost 23 years, and I a3; writing you in regard to the groposed T03CA condor~niwn coxYVersion of the 't~uilding. Inasmuch as I haye been asscu~ed by I~,r. rZonnie Schwartz of HomsstQad G:oup Associates, owners of ~he subject property~ that if 1 do not choose to m~y r~ unit, I Fnay nevertheless continue to reside there in A~~'"tr~nt 13 on ttce present month-to-month rental bas~s for as long as T wxsh, I am no~r in favor of the corsversion and would lzke to give it x~ sunport. Yours trul,y, ~ ~' ~~ ~Tilliam gi. Arms To : City of Sente Mo~ica 3~14~92 From: John S. Moore I I I Re : Condorninium Conuersion - 21 tEl 4th Stree# Santa Monica Gentlernen, j PC :~ ,~3 1 haue liued at the aboue residence since 1977. Atmost two years ego the initiai meetings between the tennants and ne~v o~rners urere first held. During seuersl meetings Mr. Rod Delsoo submitted fo haurs of questioning by the tennants about the conuersion. Questions were asked and re-esked and all were answered in a calm~ pollte and informatiue manoer. R particularly skeptical ten~ant tepe recorded one of the Eneetinga. To her dismay ahe hed nat captured any euidence ot a conspirecy to remoue ell tennants. This action F~n~y~n~,~~,or roflg~f.A. f:iL R:a.^.C~ .^.f 8 Iii.°1jf9r7:y a^~f #~i2 t'iili~liii~y uT.CJpSi~aS. Seueral misconceptians on tf~E pBrt of the te~~a~ts tvere extremely difficult to correct. The first dealt with the signing of the canuersion end purchase egre~rrtents. Many ten~ants thought they were commiting to purchase their units for the specified price, f cannot telf you haw many times it was esplained that fhe purchese agreement only bound the Seller and that the buyer ~uas free to refuse the purchase and remein es e tennant. Others thought the price was unchangeable euen though it w~s eKpleined thst any future ofter made by the tennant and eccepted by t~e owner would ouerride the original agreeme~t. Some belie~ed they would be thrown out efter the conuersion euen thoagtt it was e~plained that Santa Monica Rent Control laws ~uould still apply to rented units end thet the owner was forbi~den from remouing tennants urho wiahed to rema~n as renters. I am uery much in favor of the conuersion end remodelling which u~ill ~~ake ihe compiex a more hebiteble plece. Though they still do not recvg- nize it, current real estate trends and the oeu~ lendlords heue giuen seueral of my neighbors en opportunity for home ownership in Senta Monica. ,~~ *~ /` /'i~/~,~L. ~~.~- ~, . _ John S. Moore II! 2110 4th 5t. #3 Sente Monica, Ce. 90405 310 396 6956 ~ J~nusry 22, 1992 Zoniag Divssion Attention: Drummoad BuCk1eY PPC ~1$3 Saata i~loniCa Gity S~~I1 RCau a z ~^~i~~ i~i~~~r~~~ i~~ ~~~~~ Dear Commiesioner Msmber: I viah to co:rmat Gzry Murakuni`a i.tt~r ot Catob~r 10, 1991. r ae+ very much in ~upport ot tb• TORCA eoaver~iat~ at 5110 ~th S~.r~~t ~•s~d I sm si~nin~ tht 1-ttaah~d stat~m~x~t. Th~ak you Yor Your aonaid4rstion. Very eruly youra, ~ ~% "°° v V~ ~ B~dRINA ICRI~t#S 211d 4b~ Str~at il~ Sartts Monica ~' d Qti31S3WOH WtiOb : t T 26. 22 NtiS City of Santa Mon~ca Department of Land lise 8~ Transportat~on Management Development CITY PLANI~IING DIVISION STAT~~IENT ~F T~~'ANT INT~~T TO PURCfIASE Th~s is a Tenant Intent to Purchase form that is used to determ~ne how man}~ ~enants want to purchase the apanment un~ts that they are currently renting Everythmc tha~ [he ou~ner guarantees or prom~ses you in exchange for your s~gnature, mcluding the sales pnce, is set forh in w~nt~ng m the Tenant Part~cipating Conversion .~pplicanon These prom~ses, ~nclud~^, che pro~,,.se to sell }~ou the umE for the prices stated on the farm, will be made condsvons of the a~p:o~•ai af che convers~on and the s~gned form will be~ome public record. Sign~n~ tF~s :orrn dces no: mean that you must buy the umt. It onlv means that you currently want and intend :o buy the umt for the sales pnce irdicated on the forrn if you are able to obtain satisfactory• financ~ng and ~f the appl~cat~on is approved. IF, AFTER FIITAL APPROVAL OF THE CONVER$ N, ~'Fi OWI~TER REFUS~S TO SELL THE iJI~TIT AS AGREED OR DEh4ANDS A HIGHER ICE YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CON'TACT THE APPROVING AGENCY A~HE T TTORNEY. i/We, the undersigned, as tenant(s) of unit 12 at 1]0 Foprth $t Santa Monica, Califamia, at the t~me of filmg of the Tenant-Participatm rtversior~pplicat~vn of such property, do certify my/our mtent to purcnase my/our occupied 12 . I/We have seen and have recei a y o he Tenant Partscipaiing Conversion Application which lists the maximum sales prices r alI t ant cupied units in this building and other information on the Tenznt-Panicipating Conve ion Ap ' tion to be filed with the City of Santa Monica, and this list indicates chat [he maximum sales price for my/our unit is to be 5157.Sf1U. Under Article KX ("TORCA"), Sect~on 2 (a)(2) one year after the date of final approval by the California Department of Real Estate or the s1a he rst umt ~n the building is offered for sale, if no approval by the Department of Real Estate is ired, the tenant sa3es price may be adjusted according to any change reflected in the pnce index (de ed in Section 2001(~)) occurring during the prer,eding year. I/We did not offer or agree to release aIl righrs to purchase this unit or any rental unit in the building in return for receiving money or other financiat consideration from the owner. IIWe further understand that this Intent to Purchase Form will be filed with the City for ihe purpoFe of establishcng the percentage of tenants that may be expected to purchase units parsuant to this Art~cle. . i/We decl2re, under penalty of per~ury, that all of mylour statemeRts above are true and correct. TENANT OWNElt HR Capital-Rossmore, r- A California Genera] Partnership Signature• ~/~~, , ~ gy; /~~ n~ Haskel iay, Geaer4l Putner Name: ~S?'~~li~~ ~~- ~ ~ ~,~ . BY:. .., Rontue Schwartz, General Psrtner Apt. No. l2 Bldg. Address: 2l l0 Founh Street 5anta Monica. CA 9~405 _r Date: ~-~1 ~~ , ~~ Dase: , L.J N~T~' NOT'A VR~ ~p ~°~^^ C~ty of Santa Mon~ca Depastmen~ of Land Use and Transportat~on 1~4anagement Development Gty PLANNING DIVISION TEtiANT AGREEMENT TO COIWERSTO\ FORIvI This ~s a Te~ant A,reement to Convernon Form that ~s used to determ~ne how many tenants agree :o the conversion to Tenant-ownership of this bui3d~ng in which they are lrvmg. Ever~:hinc that the ow~ner auarantees or prom~ses you in e e for your signature, includ~ng the sales pnce, ~s set forth in wnting in the Tenant-Part~ ating onversion (TPC) Appl~cation. These promises, mcluding the prom~se to sell you the uni or the rice stated on the application, will be made cond~vons of the approval of the c version d th igned appl~cation will become publ~c record I/We, the undersigned, having occupi mt 2 at 110 u t. , Santa Monica, California for 63 months, at the time of fi 'n the enan -Participating Canversion Applicat~on for the property do hereby cert~fy my/~ur ree ent to its conversion. I/We have seen and have iv a cop~` the Tenant Participating Conversion Application wh~ch lists the max~mum s p ces for a~i tenant occupied units in this building and other information and which is to b il with the City of Santa Monica. I/V4'e have seen and received copies of the Building Inspection Report ar~d the list of rnalfunctions and defects detailed in the Owner's declarations of the TPC Application. I/We did not offer or agree to release all rights to purchase this anit or any rental unit in the building in return for receiving money or otf~er financial consideration from the owner. I/We declare, under penalty of perjury, that a~l of my/our statements above are trve and corrert. Date~Vl aa- ~a Signature: ~~l;;l~~._'~~'~ ~ ~J ~ U __ Hame: ~``~,5' ~ l Vti'``-~ ~~ IP i~a_~ Apt. No.: 12 ~1aTE - Nor ~ V~ L~ D ~D~-M ~o~t,. P~ ~ POSES dF TO~~Ir March 17, 1992 Mz. Drummond Buckley Santa Monica City Planning Department Santa Monica City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mr. Buckley; I am a tenant residing at 2I10 9th Street zn Santa Mon~ca. I am writing to you in regard to the TORCA condominium convers~on of my building. _ I arn in favor of the conversion and wouYd like to give my full support. Thank you for your attention. 3incer , '~%!/ ~` ~ William V. Ka elman 2110 4th Street #2 Santa Mos~ica, CA 90405 310-399-0974 MarCh 17, ~ 992 SANTA MONICA CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Santa Monica C~+ Hall i685 Ma~n Street Sar~ta Monica, CalifarnEa 9Q401 ATTENTION: MR. DRUMMOND BUCKLEY Qear Ms. 6uckley, E am a tenant residing at 2110 4th Street in Santa Monica. I am writing to you in regard to the 70RCA condominium conversion of my buildmg. I am in favor of the convers~on and would like to g~ve my fc.,ll support. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, ~j8 71~ Affred Nelson 2110 - 4th StreBt, #10 Sarna Monica, CA 90~05 ~E L3~~~ ~RU/oSO~.~ ~ //c ~1`'"'_ ST ,~S ~Sr?'-~-7~ ,_,c,~I~c~, c~9 `~o~laf . ~_ - -- - - ---- ----- __ -- - - ---- -- _- -- 3 -`~ - 9 ~ ~__ - ---- -- ~'-- ~-~z~,-~° --~ --- --- - - -- - - ~' _:~~% ~~== s?`~ --__r3-~--~~',.-~~~ ---- ---- - -~= ~~-~ ~~~~ _ __ ~-------- -- - _..~ _ .._.~- -- -' --- - ~ - -~~-~~'~L --'- ~ - _. ...._ ~ -'-~ --- _. - -__ _ ~~ _ .~G..G G ~~~ ''~~-c'c~c.r.c'_~+^,~_ G~'L'~y,r1~-^- -- -~'- ~- r~i __ _-- - --=-~.-~~~ -~~r~---~~~ ~ ____--_ _ -_ _~~.~-~~ - ~=r.v~- -~'~!~•a- -----------_ - -- T--- - --_____-~ -'~-~- -;~~ .---- - - - -- -- - -- ~~ ~..~~! _ -- Ran Kane - 211@ - 4th Street, #23 - ° ~--- - Santa Honica, CA 904@5 April 21, 1992 ~ - ~ -, § _ Hr. Drummoad Buckley ~ ~ 3anta Honica City Planniag ~ Santa Honica City Hall ~ 1685 Hain Street - Santa Honica, CA 90401 Dear Mr. Buckley: I am a tenant liviag at 2110 ~th Street, Apt. ~23 and Would like to state that-I am in favor ot the conversion of this apartnent building fnto condo~iniums. I Nould also like to purchase a untt after the buildinq is approved. Siocerely, ~` ~ ~ Ron Ran \ r 1 1 ~~ ~ ~ . ~.~, ~ ~:. `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ `, ~ ` , ~ ~ ~, ' ~ ~ ~" ; , ~~ ' ' °~ C ~~ R ~ ~ , n ~ ~~ ld EZ ~ ~'' '~ h ~ ~~ ~, a-, ~ ~ .~'~~µ~l~r, ~,~ _~NN~ 301~11~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~ . ~~ - ~\\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~ ,~, ~ ~ ~ ,< ~ y~. ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , >, 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ l ° ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ : ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ o~ d h ~ ~ + DE~LARATION OF HR CAPITAIrROSSMORE. A CALIFORMA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP We, HR Capital-Rossmore, A Cal~fornia General Partnership, declare: l. HR Capital-Rossmore, A Califomia General Partnership, is the owner of the property at 2110 Fourth Street, Santa Monica. 2. We, Haskel Iny, General Partner and Ronnie Schwartz, General Partner are the authonzed signatones for Homestead. 3. At no hme dunng c~iscussions with any of the tenancs of this bnilding, have we ever discussed ceasing rental operaaons oa ttus property. 4. At no time has HR Capital-Rossmore, A California General Partnership, d~scussed or threatened removal of ti~ese units from the rental mazket through the use of provisions of the "Elhs Act" with tenants of this property. 5. In ous meetings wrth tenants of this property, we have focused on the positive features and benefits of conversion. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregomg is true and correct. Executed on tE~is ~Oday of April, 1992, at VIl~ ~~G10~(`~/I , Cahfornia. ~ ~ , !/ Partner Ronnie Schwartz, General Partner ~- ~~• ~ PAUL C_ DESANTIS PAUL C DESaNTfS{ 30D2 SANTA MONICA BOLILEVARD, SUITE C OP COUNSEI SALLVANN L MOL~OY SANTA MONICA, CkLIFORNIA 90404-2506 MALLEYKOFFMaNAryDMESMEK •AL50 MEMBER OF NEW YORK &1R TELEPHONE (213) 453-188B TELECOPfER (213) 829•]476 SkNTA MpNICJ C'.qL~FO1iNlA Apnl 27,1932 Mr Drummond Buckley, Project Planner Honorabfe Members of the Santa Mornca Planning Cornmission Ciry Planning D~v~sion 16$5 Mam Street, Room 212 Santa Mon~ca, Calrforn~a 90401-3295 Re. 211Q Fourth Street, Tr~ct Map 50638. 7PC-183 Dear Mr. Buckley and-Cornmiss~on Members: deis03 You shouEd now have in your possessEon: recent ietters fram 11 of the bwlding's partia~ating tenants canfirming their support of the conversion, Mr. Kane's sworn statement of residency, a eopy af the iease f~r unit 23 showirtg that Mr. Kane took possession of the un~t and was given the key to this uni# on January 15th 1991. 6~~~~ you w~N flnd a statement from the tenant m the ~nit adjacerrt to Mr. Kane'S unit at 2~ 10 Fourth Street refuting Ms Auker's claim that the unit was unrerrted urrtil May of 1991 The statement from Stephan~e Gordon, the tenant in 3he unit adjacent to Mr. Kane's, confirms that unit 23 has been occupied since the beg~nrnng of 1991. Ms. Gordfln's obseroations are cor~s~stent v~nth the infiormation in Mr. Kane's iease agreemerrt for his un~t and in his sworn statemerrt. These documents and statements directly refute Ms. Auker's totatly unsubstantiated claims that unit 23 was vacant and unrented unt91 May of 1991. Additionally, ~t should be pomted out that 9n a bu~lding of 27 un~ts, Ms Aucker is the only #enant that has made this claim. Although Mr. Longstreet states that unit 23 was vacant as of January 9, 1991, this date is totally rrrele~ant to this application.since Mr. Kane signed his intent forms on July 30 The occupancy status of thES urnt pnor to the start of Mr Kane's lease, on January 15, 1991, has no relevance #o this applicatifln. The {ast issue raised about Mr. Kane ~s the spelling of his first name. Mr. Kane is from israel and fhe coRfusion about the spe!lrng ot h~s first name is due to the fact that he has a hebrew name that can be #ranslated as ei#her Ran or Ron. The exact transliteraUon would be Ran, ~;~~ ;he Fnglish equivalent i5 Ron. For that reason, Mr. Kane has used and continues to use both speil~ng5. Other comments about Mr. Kane are all "speculation" and "gossip" concern~ng his rent and employment 1n addition, to the fact that none of this speculatEnn is accurate, these issues are irrelevant to #he TORCA process. We hope these items have answered the remaining questions about thrs pra~ect Please inform vs rf there is anything further that should be addressed. I can be reached at 453-1888, ext.327. Very t~uly yours, -~~li~ ' CGl~ G= E~leen Hecht Land Use Qaralegal Enclosure cc. HR Capital-Rossmore Partnershi~ Haskef Iny, Homestead Grou~ Associates ~ ~ ~ ~~ City Planning Division (310) 458-8341 April 28, Z992 G1~ Y ~~ ~~~ MONICR y~ ~ ~. ,e O O n Y~~ ~ a~ ~ F~uNOEO~~' '4 ~~ ~ F O ~~~ Al1 Current Tenants 211o Fourth Street Santa Monica, Califarnia 90405 Subject: Tenant~Participatinq Canversian 183 Dear Tenants: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1685 Main Street, P 0 Box 2200 Sania Monrca. CA 90407-2200 Attached please find a copy of the staff regort for the proposed TORCA condomiumuim-conversion of your building. There will be a public hearing regarding this matter before tha Planning Cpmmission on May 6, 1992 at 7;00 p.m. As noted in the staff report, planning staff has received letters in support and in objection of the proposed TORCA conversfon of your building. Many conflicting Claims have been made. If yon have any evidence which may help the Planning Commiasion malte a determination on this matter, please contact me by May 5, 1992, at (310) 458-8341. A31 tenants are encouraged to atten3 the public hearinq on this matter. sincerely, ~ ~- _- Drummonc3 Buckley Assistant Planner hp/tp205cor• 04/28/92 - 1 - r ~ ~~{~y-~ ~ ~~~„ y . _ .~ ~ . ~ ~. ~~ Y~{ ~ .. I . I .._!yi MI ~. I .., 1 .H ~ I .. ~ .. ~ .,. 1 ~Sp 07~ ~q ~ .~ ~ -z~ ~ FIFTH ~~e 2 5T. ~o w r ~ W OC N . ~ 6 7 ~ O - ~2 r s i 7 e 5 .a 7t g u " in ~ n 12 +i 'c ~ ~5 • ~9 , 3 4 ~s , ~ W - ~ + ~ F- / ~ ~ O a4 ¢ ~ N ,~ ~~ ~1 . ' ~ IIa. ~w _ yFOURTN ' ~ ----- - - -- --- - -tREES _.= -~ ~uc W s ~ i~ ~ S ~ 7 18 E9 20 ~ 23 "'' 9_. 2c ~I u+ S " J -[ 9 N ~ Z 5 8~ ° IO _ 2~ ,~ ~n 5 ~~ . ~. :. ~ ... ' ^ a .e u v `7,~t- ~~ ' r 56 5~ se ~~a i^ ~a ~ie f~S ~6 ~,~a ~B C V ~9 :C . ?_ 23 ~ ` ~ _ _ b ~ THIRD " ie v 19 t!f 20 ~ w 21 - 11 ~ Z a- ~ ~ ~ ~ LEGAL ~E&CRkPTION ~ors i, 2 g, r~w 30' o~ ~oT 3, BLK $~ LUCQS TR4C T STREET ADORESS.2 ~ ~ 0 4TH ST ~$ANTA MONIC4~ CA 90405 APPLICANT RADIUS MAP ~Oii p ~ ° `f U~JD~1C~ D~PWQ~I'~il~U`~15~ ~~ ~~ ~M~ ~'~~Q- ~QQ9~6'3tr~DA V'~j M 'J~6~ CASE NO. ~c" ~g~ zoNe oP-2 UATE Z - 6 - 92 PUBLIC HEARING DATE Reference Atloc Map Sh~et No .^~q~~M~^~ ~- DECLARATION OF RAN KANE I, Ran Kane, de~lare• 1. ~a I was a tenant residing in un~t #23 at 2110 Fourth Street, Santa Mon~ca, California, on Juiy~i', 1991, when I signed the Tenant Agrecment to Convert and Tenant Intent to Purchase for~ns. 2. After talang possession, I cleaned and decorated the unit. 3. I had possession of unit #23 for s~x months prior ~to sigmng the Tenant Agreement to Conversion and Tenant Intent to Purchase forms on Jaly~; 1991_ 4. I intend to purchase my umt and have already set aside money, borrowed from my parents, for the down payment. I declare under penalty of per}ury under the laws of the state of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 7_ Oday of Apnl, 1992, at S L~ ~,c. ~m,r~7.~~~ California. , ~ "~ ~l ~~ ~ Kane ~ ~ ~ ~~ ! RENTAL .GREEMENT AND/OL_ LEASE TMS qenial A9reemen[ andror Lease shaik evidence tne eomplete lerms antl condrtivns under w~ic~ 1ne Darties wnose signatu.es appear be~ow nave a9ree0 2110 - 4ttl Sti2et, InC . LantllordlLessorlAgeM sha1V Oe refer~etl ~o as OWNER antl Ran Kane TenantlsllLes5eef5) Sha11 De relerren to as' RESIDENT ' As Cons~derauon for th~s a9{eement O`NNER agrees co rentl~ease to RESIOENT and RE3l~ENT agrees to renl/iease Irom OWNER lor use SOLELY AS A PRIVATE FESIDENCE the prem~ses known as Apa~tmertt No 23 iocaietl ai 2110 - 4th Street ._ ,nmea~yot Santa Monica, CA 1 SEAMS RESIDENT agrees 1o pay m arnance 5491 . ~~ pe~ mo~~fi on ihe, 15t _ Cay ot eace montn Tnis agreement snau commence on ~. .7an _ 1 5 7gs],and conbnue leneck onel A C uM~l ~ 79_as a ieasenoltl Tnereaher d snall become a month•~o•mon~h tenancy ~f qESiOENT snpwtl mo++e hOmfPBD~2mi5BSpriO~totheexpud~~onO~~hiSFimepenOd ~esnallDe~~abletorallrenlOueuMdSUCRt~melnatlnPApartmBnliSOCCUpieCbyanOWNERappfOVed pay~ng RESIOENT a~tlro~ ewp~eatwn at sa~C f~me perrod wh~cnever penae ~s snorter B}~ on a mon[h-lo•monill ~enanCy un[II eiltFe~ pariy Shail lerm~nate ~tus agreemen[ 6y 9nmg a wril len nohC@ Of in3enleon [O ter~~nal0 at IEast 30 day5 O~~of 10 the d3te ol lermine[ion 2?AYMENTS Hent and/or o~her Charges are to be pa~C at me olhce or apartmem of Ihe manager ol tne buuding or at such other place designaled in wnUng 6y OWNER FOrlheSa~eiy0~[tlefnanagBr allpeymBn[SafBtO00metlBUyChBLNOf1~0l7ByO~dBrdnd~OCaShS~a~IbE3cCBp~able OWNERacknowieagesreceiptol taeFrs~MontnsrentolS ~41•Q~ _anCaSecus~typeposno~S ~+91•0~ Ioratot3ipaymentot5 952.00 q~~paymenlSaretOGemaqepayaUletO 2110__ 4th Street,_Inc. ,__ 3 SECURITY DEPO51T5 The Secunry Deposn shau not exceetl Iwo umes me mon~nry renl tor unfwnisned apanments nor three hmes the momrny rem lor fumisheaapa~ments ThetotaioltheaDOVetlepos~tssl~allsecurecomPliancewrthlhetermsandcAM+poesotthksagreemenlandShauneretunpetltoRE510ENT w~min ta aays afler the p~emises rtave been comp~etely vaca~etl iess any amourn neressary io oav OWNER al any unoaia rent o~ Geamng costs cl Key repiacementcosis dlros[s~orrepavoltlamagesloapanmentantl/orcommonareasabovewair~arywea~antlrear antlelanyolneramounikegai~yallowabieuntler lnelerm5ol1ni5agreemeM AwnttenaC[DUnLngofi5ai4Cnarge55na11UepfeSen[e01oR£510ENTwithm7408YSOfmove0ul NdCpp5n50ono1COVe~SUChCOSiS antl oamages ane RESICENT snali immediateiy pay sa~tl a6tl~uonai costs ~or eamages io OWtvER Dunng ~ne ~erm ot tenancy RESIDENT agrees io3ncrease tne tlepos~i upon 30 tlars wnnen nouce by art amo~nt epua~ m any fulure ~ncreases m rent antl/or an amour! necessary to cover tne cost of recuying any oamage or exoense for wnicn RESIDENT is resoons~oie 4 LATE CHAHGE A la[e tee of 5~5 . ~~ saitl amoun~ no[ ~o ezceeU 6°~ of tne monthly renl snall be aQaea to any paymen~ of rent not matle before 1Q_ aayis~ a~~er me aue tlate or br wn~cn a eefic~em Ibauncetlf check shail nave oeen gryen 5 UTILITIES AESIDENT agrees [o pay tor aRUYmlies antllor services basetl upon occuAancy of tne prem~ses excep[ °Tdtei 8 OCCUPANTS Gu881(S)818yingOV2r15tlaySwithOUt~hBwnpB~COf18BMOtOWNEfi6hdllbBC0118itlBfed9b~88ChOfIh138p~BBrtIB~t ONLrlhBfOllOwi~ hstetl mdiviCuals and/or animals, ANC NO OTHERS shall occupy the sub~ecl eparlmeni fw mae Ihan 15 days unless the expressed writtan conaent ot OW~ER is obtamed m advance ~an Kane RESIDENT shall pay adtld~onel renl at the rale ol St 00 00 per manth or 25%oT the then cm~~nt monthly rant, whichsvaramounhs greabr, tortne per~W of nme thal eacn addiLOnal guest in excess of [he above named anall occupy the premisas RESIDENT shal! pay tha same adGitwnal monthly rent for each atlddionai an~mal N1 excess of the a0ove named en,maks! whlch Shall occuAy tRe prem~s@s qcceptance ot adWtwnal rent ar approval at a quest shall not warve any requxement ol this agreement nar GonveA ihe status ot any °yuest' mta fl RESIDENT 7 PETS AND FURNISHINGS No hq~ia tdieti furrnture recepsaUe coma,ning motz ihan 5en GaiVO~ oi llqui~ nighry camDUSt~bVe malena7s or 9tner ~temswhKh maycauseanazarcorattec;~nswancerates mus~calmsuumen~ nemis)olunusaa~we»htord~mens~on ammal lowl Lsn rep~~le anarorpetotanykmtlsnailbe keotonoraoouttneprem~ses Ioranyamounlotlime.withoutobtain~ngtRepnorwnUenconsentanQmeetinRlnerequvemenisolineDWNER Saidconseni if gran[ea snai~ be re~+ocabie al OWNER 5 opl~on upon g~vmg a 30 tlay wntlEn no~~ce I~ me e~ent iaws are passep or perm~ss~on ~s grantea ao nave any item prohiortBO b~i tr,~s e~~eement or ~r tor any reason s~cr. rcem ex~sts on tne premises tnere snall be mimmum aadinona~ ~ent ol 525 a monin for eacn suc~ nem ~f ano~ner amv~m ~s nai s~a~e~ m mis a9reemeN RESiOENT aiso agrees to ca~ry ~nsurance tleemed agpropriate py OWNER to corer poss~ble iossegg~ysetl by us~r.gsai~rtems m~neevemiawsarePa95eaorperm~55~On~sgr8nteptohav8ape~dntl/Ordn~malOfanykintl dndOtldiOn81dEA05~tintneamoun[0~5 LV A snai~ Ge ~equnec aiong wnn me signing ot OWNEfl 5 PET AGREEMENT 8 PARKING ~'hen and ~~ NESiDENT ~5 a55~gned a Oarkmg SDate on OWN£R S prope~ty fh2 park~ng SpaGe Shall Oe uSeC exC~uS~vE~y ~or Aarkmg Of pa55en9e~ autor~~~~p~1~~~~r1aa~q~~y~~~~T~I~ie~r~RE1StC~~17,~~l1p8~~~nic~te0.4d~s~~~ay'~~nerete RESIDENT~snereoyass~gnetlparkingsaace ~ k~ 1 1 aa~o soac.e shau no~ oe usea ~or ~ne wasning pa~n[ing er repau orven~c~es No ai er parKmg space shali Oe used by AESIDENT or ms guest~sl RESIDENT is responsinle tor oi~ ~eaNS antl otner ve7~~cle tliscnarges Ior wn~ch RESIDENT snall ~e Chargetl ror cieamng d tleemetl necessary by OWNER 9 NOISE RESIDENTag~eesnoi~ocauseorai~owanyno~seoract~riiyonmeprem~seswn~cnm~ghttl~sturbthepeaceandqu~eiotanotnerRE51~ENT Saidnoise nnd~o~ acUVdy sna11 4e 3 breach ot trtis Agteemenl 10 LOITERWGANUPLAY L~ungmg piay+ng ar~nnecessaryla~enngmtnehalls onmelron~steps onn~necommonareas~ns~chawayastomterlerewrthtne ~~ee use anp entoymeni passa9e or co~wen~ence ot anotner RESI~EN7 ~s osonio~ceo 11 DESTAUCTION OF pREMISES if tne prem~ses oecome Ioiany or paruaity tlestroyetl tlunng tne term oi tnis Agreement so tnat RESIDENT S use is senously impa~~Ntl F£51OEI+F7 0l OtiM1'~3ER mev 1e~m~ndlu Ih~s Agfremenl immetNaleVy upon Ih~eB-tlay widl~'tl not~[e lo IhE nther 12 CONDITIONOFPHEM15E5 RESI~ENTacknow~e0gestnatheha5e:ammetltheprem~sf!sandi~at5a~tlpremise5 alHUrn~Sh~ngS t~xwfes Ium~WrB plumomg nea~mg eiecincal taah~ies all ilems LsieO on the audched mvemory shee~ il any antl/or ,~h o~he~ nems prov+ded by OWNER are all cledn antl m good and sa[islaclory condit~on eMCept as may be ino~caleo elsewnere ~n this Agreement FiES10ENT agrees to keep Ine p~emises antl al! ilemsin gootl orderantl cOnd~l~on anat0~mmed~atelYpaytorw5[slore0ai~anQlorreplaceanypo+uouol~neahovedamaggdoykESlOENi has gLLeSiSaRdlUnnvrtCeS 2aCepldSp[Owdedhylaw Al t~e[erminauono11hi5AgreemeN aliollnea0oveenumeraletlilem5~nl~~SprOnSiOnSIIaIIceT2WrneQ1UO~NNERmUeananagooaconArt~onexcepNorreasonaDle wearantllearandlneprem~5es5hallpelreeotallper50~alpropBrtyandtra5hnatp¢long~nglOOWNER IpisagreEdlhBtalld~rt hOle5lEars Dums antl5lainSO~any S~ie o~ 0mounl m ihe Ca~pEts d~apes wa{IS fixturBS an0lOt any o1ne~ par7 ot i~¢ p+em~SeS do noi consuw~e ~easona0tie wear and tear 13 MqINTENANCE AND AITERATIONS RESIDENT shall not pamt wanpaper aiier or reaecora~e cnange or msmli iocKS msiatl antenna or other eqwpment ScrewS ~aSteNngO@v~c@5 ezC0551vE1yLdrgena~l5 o184he5rvematenaSS O4aCesi9~ls ~1Splays orothel exhi~i45 onorinanypaftl~nol5heplem~SES nNhouithe wntten consenl ol ~he OWNER eacep~ as may be prov~tle0 oy iaw RESI~ENT shail tleDOSt ali qarbage an0 wasle m a Uean and samtary manner mto Ihe proper recepta[tes as prOvided dn~ S~all ~oDpe~a~e m keep~~9 the 9ar0a9e a~ea ~eaf antl Clean RESIDENT sbau Ge responsible lor tlisposing of nems of s~ch siie or nalure as are nol norma]ly acceplaole by ine garbage haWe~?4iNe Gu~ltling RESIDEPfT shal~ De responsiGte for keeping ihe garbage tlisposal c~ean of cnicNen bones ~oo~npicks matcnsncks celery pus grea5e mEtalvegetabletie5 andallo~~B~demSthatmayte~dloCdu5B5~opAageollhemEChaniSm RESI~E1~T5ha11 pay for Ihe cleanmg ou~ ol any piumoirtg I~nwre thal may neetl ~o Ge aearetl o1 s~opRage and for the e+cpense or aamage c.aused by the s~oppmg of was~e pipes or ovBrtlOw trOm bBlhlubs w35h035in5 1otIE1s Or 5~nN5 14 HOUSE, POOI, ANU LAUNDRY HUlES RESI~EN7 sna~i comp~y w~th a11 twuse poOk qet and ~aunCry rules which may Ue changed trom tuae to t~me These rulesshaliappiyto outarenotum~~etl~o noise oCOrs tl~spo5eioluasn pets parn~ng useotcommonareas antlstorageottoys bicyNes ~ools antlolherpersonal nems (mc4utling s~gns antl launtlryl wn~tn must pe keDt ~ns~de antl out o~ new OW NER shal~ nol Ge liable ~o FE5IDENT lor any wola[wn ol such rules by any o~ner RESIDENTSorpersons R~ghksotvsageanCmamlenanceolthefaun4ryroomandlorpnolanCpoo~a~eaaregratnnousantlsub~ecito~evocationDyOWhiERatany t+me 15 CHANGEOFTEHMS Thetermsandcond~honsofth~sa9reementaresub~eaiolu~urechangeDyOWN$Ra4ertheexpirat~o~otlneagreedieasepenotlupa+ 30 aays w~ilten ~o11CB Sel~~ng }phh wCh Ch2llfle afld 0¢'nere0 [o RESIDENT Any Ch8ngg5 efe 6ub~2Ct lo IawS N e1c151eM1G2 81 trt6 t~me OF t11e NOltce OI Cllange O~ Terms n 6 e AOA FORM NO 701 ~ COPYpI(~1T tOB6 ~ APMTMENT OWNERS ASSOGAYION VAN NUYS -~l70~ iN•Y2D0 ~ tAS 71N6ELES -(717) i77.!!77 • OAANGE WUHTY -1714) 67W6000 ~ LOMG BEACN/SOU7H BAY • 1777~ iii-67DD ~ 511N OIEGO - 1~79~ SW-TY00 16 7ERMINATION Ahef exPira[icn O~ ~~e ~@a~ ~Cr~Od Ih5 aqreeme~~ ~S W~oTiL[e~~Y ~e~~'~tl hOm ~r -ItrTO~~h Lui R78y D2 IeIT~~alep Dv eilrter pa~iy ;,.;n~o~tneomera3Gaaywnltannouceo4me tote~mmate Wnereiawsrequire fusicause suon~us[ .esnanoesastaieaonsaio~ot~ce Tnevrem~ses snal~ De ConS~tlerzC raCa[eO on~y ahPf all afea5 mcwamg srorage areas are clear oi aii RESIDENTS beW~~g~ngs 2~d ~~'y5 2n0 Ol~ef P~OOeM 1~rni5n20 1G FESiDENTSusearerewm~otOOWNEF SnouitlmeRESI~ENTrw~poverDeyondt~etermmauonOateortadlovaea~eallpossess~onsonor~2~oreme~erm~nauon aa[e AESi~ENT sha~i be i~a~ie for aacmona~ ren~ anu Oamages woicn may mduGe uama4es tluC IO OWNER S bgs ol prospeci~re new RENT$AS 17 POSSESSION q Q1yN'EF iS ~naDle ~-~ tleli.e~ po5ie55~o^, o~ tne Aparlmenl l0 RE~a~~ENT On the agreea dalE DeC2u5e o~ Ine i055 or Oe51r~CtiOn G~ if~e Ape~~mrr pr Ce~_a~5°- c~ inc ra~~~re Ci ~ne pr ~or FcSIOENT to ~~acate or tOr any O~~erreaso~ t~e RESIOENT antl/or OWNEF inay ~mmeaialeiy canCe~ a~e ~e~m~~a~e '~~5 '~~rer~':C'i' ~GOn w~i•'en f OIiGf 10In0 O~fle~ parly 21 t~e~~ 135t known 2tl4re55 wf1Br@uOOn 110RhBf pelty5hdll hdvB 4aDil~ty ~~ IR@ OII1Cr a~~ 0ny SumS pdiO un02' •ris :.3~aenerl Sna~i Qe ie1~nOE0 ~n I~I I~ nEilner F~~~y cdf C215 tni5 AgrePm2ni S~all DE pf0-falEO 0ntl DEJIIf On 1~6 481C O1 BCludl pO55B55~On ~B W5uRaNCE aE544ENT acKnow~e~qesmacOWNER S~nsurancetloesnatcovernersonalprOPe~tyoamaqeca~seaovtne meit ra~n war aciso~Goa actso~ emers ~r~:~.~a~~~cinerca~ses norsneuOwN"cRoerteitluao~ebrsueniossesAE51DENTISMEREBYA0415EUTOOBTAINMI50WNINSURANCEPOuCYTO COYER ANY PERSONAL LOSSES Tn~S COes ~G~ warve OWNEA S tluty IO prerEnt p2r50nel in~ury or prOpB~1Y Oamage wnere lha~ ~uly i5 impOSea o} iaw 19 RIG~T OF ENTRY AIVD INSPECTION OWNER or OWNER 5 Agen[ Dy Ihem5eNe5 orwrth othef5 may enler m5p0L~ ana/or r¢pau Ine premises a1 any ~ime ~n -~ w eme~ ^yency~ a sasoecsea aoa~aonment 04YTrER sfia•+g~ve 2 a~o~is advanCe notiCe ana may emer for the purpose ot showing ~ne prem~ses flu~~ng normai c.,s~ness nours ro croseecr~we remers ouyers ienoers [o~ smoke A~arm insp¢chons antlror tor normal ms~eawn ana repa~rs rvorma~ ousmess no~~s snan oe 3 G~ AL~ ~o i CO FM 1+1ono~y inrough SaWrtlay ex[epl hou(lays antl 1O 00 AM to 5 00 PM on Sunpay5 Upon 29 ROUrs nO1iCe RESIOENT nereDy agrees [O IenO ~~'~NEF irtr keys ~o tre pramises ~or tne purnose o~ navmg a aupucate maae tor OWNER 5 use 20 aSS1GNMENT Rf S16ENT agrees no~ tia vans~ei assgn or suDlet sne prem~ses or any part tnereot antl hereby apDOmts anC autnontes t~e OW NER as h~s ~yen~ inp;c• uy O~yhER S own aulno~~~y lo enGl any pe~5o~ [la~mmg pOSSe55~on by way ot any auegetl assignmen~ ar s~Cieumg 27 PApTIAL INVALIDITY lvommg comamed m trns agreemem snali oe wnstrueo as warvmg any ol RESIOENTSor OWkER S nghls unoe~ the iaw ~~ any paft O~ ~nis A~~ee~*'~en~ sn.i~i ~e in CPntli[~ w~m [he law 11tai pd~t Sna11 be ~O~tllO the exl2ni 1h21 il i5 ~M1 COr111iG[ out snau na mvai~oate tn~s Agreemznt nor snaii n atlect tne ~oliO~ly Jf E~11Gf~230~1~Iy O7 8Ry D[IIC! Oi~~i510l1 ~1 Ih5 11[jfBBII10[11 22 NO WAIYER OwNER 5 acceptance oi reni w~tn knowieGge ot any aetault by RfSIDENT or wa~ver py OWNER ot any 6reach OI any Ierm Or cond~tion Ot Ih~s :.greemer~ snah na' con5~d~fe a warvBr O~ subsEquent Dr2aChes Fa~wre lo reOU~re COmO~IanCB O~ ID eaefGSE eny nghi Snall nOt be [On57r~eo as a v.'arve~ Oy CWN~F o~ sditl ~erm contl~uor antllor ngm ano snatl no~ aliect ine va6o~ry or 2nforceaodny of any olner prov3s~on ot tn~s A9reemem 23 ATTORNEY'S FEES II Bny leqel aCtion pr Oro[eBding De brought by edhBf party 10 ~1u5 ag7B0fiBn~ IhB ptBV2+lmg p2~ty Sh211Ge ~B~mGmSetl fOr dl! ~Bd50naDie ,nomty s Iets ana cos~s in aatl,[~on ro omer aamages awaraetl 24 ABANDONMENT Aoantlonment sh~n oe go~emeo by Ca4forma Crvd Code SecGOn 1957 2 If dny rent has remamed unpa~C tOr 14 0~ mOr2 Consecu[rve tlays snc+neUWNERnasareasonaa~eoeiieiotaoa~WOnmen~oienewem~ses OWNERshat~g~~etBdayswnttensro«ce~oRES1OENTaianyp~ace(muua~ngthereniec p•em~ses~ inat O W MER na5 reason ro bei~eve RESIDENT mar rec~rve sa~a nouce of O WNER S~ment~on totleClare tne prem~sesabanaoned RESIDENTS1a~wfe ~o resoon~ ic saio nG~~ce as ~eG~~reo DV law snail a~low OWNER 1o reClaim the D~emise5 25 Tne unoersignetl RESIDENTS are iamny ano severauy respons~b~e ana iiaore lor an ooligauons under tn~s agreemenr antl snali maemmry OWNER lor I~ao~pty c~~seo ~r me xt~ons ~om~ss~an os tommess~on~ ot REStDENTS tneir gues~s anC +nv~sees 26 ADDITlONSAND/OREXCEPTIONS ~h15 a~reement sha11 $U~OIIIflt1C211Y 8lld continually renew ~Or the same original lease penod, unless terminated in writin~ by eYther party, 30 days in advance o£ the expiration period. Annual ad,justments can stZll be included on _ the anniversary date, as_per the Rent Stabilization Ortfinance. _ 27 NOTICES AlinoliceStoRESI~ENT5ha11be5enetl~tAESIDENTS~Oa~Imenlandelln0~~ce5~00WNER5hellbBSBrvetl2tMaflager58pafImB~IW01 YB INVEN70RY Tne Aoanmem roniams me louowmg items lor use by R£SIDENT __ _ RES IDE NT t~nner dCKnowiedqtlSlnat t~e 5ubieC: premise5 are ~umiS~eU wdh I~e aQtlition2l fum~Shu~gS 6Ste7 on Me attaChetl mrentay and that Sa~tl dttaCh2C invenlcry is hereoy maae parl ol tnis agreement ~Pleese cneck~ G 29 RES~DENT acknow~e~ges ~ece~o~ ol ~he foiwwmg wmrn snall be GeemeO a Dart o1 [~is Apreement IPlease check) ^ House Ruies ^ La~ndry Ruies ~Ma+lbox I(eys C POOI Rul@5 ti ApOrimBM KCyS ^ Pet Agreement ~ ^ _ ~_ 30 VOLUNTARY YACANCY li and wnen RESfOfNS voluntanly aaca~es ~ne prem~ses RESIL3ENT nereLy agiee5 to ~mmedialely sign a slalement at no w51 !o OWrvERorRESiOENT ~na~meets~nerequiremenisnecessarytosubstantialeanaproveloranygorernmenialpurposes sucnasrentcontrolwws tnatRESIDENT a~omiaci vown~aruyvacaae i1RESIDENTIansros~g~tnereqwreaslatementwuhmtnreeoaysattervacaLng q£SIDENTSnaUbehableloOWNERforlneamounrol ai~ ~osses reasonabiy sutle~ea oy QWNER as a resull o~ not be~ng avie to cla~m a ~oluntary vacancY Said ioss may suos~anl~iy eaceetl FESIDENT S Secunry Deposi[ 3~ ENTIREAGREfiMENT TnisAgreementconsuiu~estneanureAgreemenloetweenDWNERanaRESIDENT Naoraiapreemenesnarebeenemeretlmto anC all motl~l~cations or nol~ce5 snall be in wr~l~ng to ~e val~d s2 RECEIPTOFAGREEMENT Theund rs n dRESI~ENT~aSre848ntluntlBrS~entl5thi5Agr@err~CnidM1tl7~erBbyBCknOwlBdgCSfCCEiptOfaCOpyOlth~S RC~IB! Ag~eemene anaJO~ Lease ' ~ n ~ ~ 1 January ).5, I991 OwnerrpqentHaskel Iny , nace aes~ae~t `~n ~ane flaie ~/ \ OwnerlAqent Dale ResWeM Date NOREPRESEFITATIONISMqDEASTOTHELEGAL4ALIDITYORTHEADEOUACYOFANYPROVIS~ONINTHISqGREEMENT IFYOIlDESIRELEG/LLADVICE GONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY `^~ ~ /n~. A011FOFMNO ~O~~GOPYRIGHTfN/~APApTNENTQWt1E0.SASSOWATION V~NNUYS (!7l19la-Y20p ~ LQ511N6ElES.(t1]){3T-t{t1 ~ ONANGECOYNiY-Rt{1599•6W0 ~ LDIiGBE.1CHf50LTN6AY.~377]`+06i700 ~ S~NOIEGO-~OIY~RW.7Y00 STEPHAXIE GORDOX 2110 Fourth St. ~24 Santa Hon~ca, Ce 9@485 April 23, 1992 Mr. Arummond Buckley CiLy Planning Commission I585 Main Str~et Santa Manica, Ca 9@401 RE s Case !k TPC 183 Dear Mr. Buckely: As a resident of Unit #24 in the above referenced case, the property located at 2110 Fourth Street, I am writing to let you know that I have witnessed ocoupancy in apartment #23 since the beginning of 1991. Sincer ly, f i / . a.cec t teph ie ordon ' ATTACHME~TT' E ~~P rhON/~.9. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ O ~ A c: r° ~- -~'z ~ A F~i/NOED~~ ~~ ~ j City Planning Dwision ` I r O~ (3101 458-8341 ~' April 28, 1992 ~1T Y °.~ A1~ Current Tenants 2110 Fourth Street Santa Monica, California 90405 Subject: Tenant-Participating Conversion 183 Dear Tenants: Pc1rT~'rGi~n~.-F~-~ ~ ~5~~~'~ C°-2- \ ~-FSY6NV~NCF ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1685 Main Street. P O Box 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 Attached please find a copy of the staff raport for the proposed TORCA condo~iumuim conversion of your building. There will be a puhlic hearing regarding this matter before the Planning Commission on May 6, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. As noted in the staff report, planning staff has received letters in support and in qbjection of the proposed TORCA conversi~n of your huilding. Many conflicting claims have been made. If you have any evidence which may help the Planning Commission make a determination on this mattes, please contact me by May 5, 1992, at (310) 458-8341. All tenants are encouraqed to attend the publ~e hearing on this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~~~ Drummond Buckley Assistant Planner hp/tp205cor 04/28/92 - 1 ~ G1~ Y ~~ ~,~~, o~v, ~~ l~! ~~ ~ t 0 j~ b ry'i. T..r?i~fiti'~,ilt~it~.'ie ++,d~ ~} ~~-e3'+e. a` ~ •-~~~~w4KE5Co'I1~~3 - `--_-----~i'T i ' h ~1' City Plannrrtg Division ~~ I F O~ {213) 458-8341 \ ~ Octobex~ 16, 1991 Richard Mi11s . Law Office of Paul DeSantis 3002 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite C Santa Monica, CA 90404 Re: 2110 Fourth St/TPC 183 ~~ i~ ~~~ 1685 Main Street, P O Box 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 Dear Mr. Mills: Attached please find the objection letters received by this office to TPC 183. The signa~ure wi~hdrawl leaves the applicant witn less than 50~ of tenants signinq "Intent to Purchase" forms. Please respond to each of the allegations raised by the tenants. Please contact me at {213) 458-8341 if yau have any questians. Sincerely, ~ ` Druaunond Buckley ~ Assistant Planner ' DB:nh ~ PC/ap183dc 10/16/91 _, ~__,~ , ., ~ ~, 3 " - 1 - ~ ~TTACHrn~N~ C~ ~~~ ~~~ 1685 Mam 5treet, P O Box 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 October 16, 1991 Mary Hale 2110 4th Street # 26 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Re: 2110 4th Street/TPC 183 Dear Ms. Hale: The Planning and Zoninq Division is in receipt of your letter expressing reservations about the above-mentioned TORCA apglication. A copy of this letter will be included as an attachment to the staff report if and/or when this apglication goes before the Planning Cosnmission. Article XX does not require that a person pay rent in order to be a participating tenant. Section 2001(i) states that a participating tenant is any tenant "residinq in the building at the date of approval of the Tenant Participating Conversion." Also, theze is no rule stating that a tenant is disqualiPied if he or she is a friend of the applicant, or if he or she does not intend to stay for a long period af time (although they must reside in the unit for at least six months prior to signing the agreement or intent to purchase forms). If a tenant opts ta leave prior to approval by the Planning Commission of the TORCA application, that is his ax her right; the validity of his or her signature is not affected by said action. There are no financial requireittents for a tenant ta sign an intent to purchase form. Also, this office will investigate the legitimacy of Mr. Kane's residency at your building. ^ A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Paul Desantis~ office. ' . :: - Please catitact a[e at (213) 458-8341 if you have any questions. _ : - ~~l - Sincerely, ~~ _ .= _ _. , _ ` j ~ - - t_ - ~ _ IIrummond Buckley " Assistant Planner DB:nh ~ PC/ag183cr1 l _ --_ ,. ` 1-0I16/91 ~ `F, ~ _ " ' ,_ , - - '_~ - .-_"'_ i"' '`F. Y.c. :-~z~~ _- - , _,-- .. ~ '-. ...«< . ~...~__ 4__~ C.r -_' - '_ _- _ ~-_ - ,._ Y -.~ ~-s..- y.c~h.~_ _ , .. .. . .~ _' "' '-._ ~ .- - - ~' _'_ '" ~ " - .a - ,.. ~ ' " ~ - , ~ :t - 2 - ~ ~ ~ ~ G1T Y °~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ .t~~ 7 O ~, '~ eA~, ~ '~. . A~.`~., ~ _ ei.~itFi.a~n4'~~. '~~`.~+.1 ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ City Planning Drvrs~on ` I~ O~~ (213) 458-8341 October 16, 199i Gary Murakami 2110 4th Street # 12 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Re: 21I0 4th Street/TPC 183 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 685 Main Street, P p Box 22Q0 Santa Mornca, CA 9D407-2200 Dear Mr. Murakami: Per your request, your name has been withdrawn as a tenant signing the "Agreement to Conversion" farm and the "Intent to Purcchase" form for the abave-referenced TORCA application. Please contact me at (213) 458-8341 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ ~ Drummond Buckley Assistant Planner AB:nh ~ PC/ap183cr1 10/16/91 _ ~ 1 _ ~~ l~! ~~ Ciiy Pkanrnng Division (213) 458-8341 October 16, ].291 Gl~ Y ~~ ~~*~oNf~r. - ~ ~- T Q _ f ' • -n f A ~1 ~-_` a~ Q' '~. ~Y~ I F ~~ ~ O ~ Lynne Auker _ 2110 4th Street # 22 , Santa Monica, CA 90405 Re: 21Z0 4th Street/TPC 183 Dear Ms. Auker: ~~~ ~~~ 1685 MaEn Street, P O Box 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 The Planning and Zoning Division is in receipt of your letter expressing reservations - about - the above-mentioned - ToRCA application._ A copy of this letter wiZl be included as an attachment to the staff report if and/or when this application goes before the Planning Commission. As you state in your letter, the withdrawl by Mr. Murakami means that TPC 183 cannot meet the requirements of Article XX. It will not be brought before the Planning Commission unless the requisite number of signatures are obtained. Also, this office will investigate the legitimacy of Mr. Kane's residenay at your huilding. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Paul Desantis~ office. P~ease contact me at (213) 458-8341 if you have any questions. sincarely, ~ Drummond Buckley Assistant Planner "'- DB:nh PC/ap183Cr1 10/~6/91 ~ i - 1 - . G1~ Y O~, . ~,~P; MOfV/eq, ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 A pP =_ r ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ `~J 1 ]~ :~~}:f:l.'~i.r _~:~'..:.,a.-_ =~- .._-....-~-=i~ ~~t -~?_'~ ~ Y~ ~ x a`2 ~` ,,~:a~~..-~n.d~:'~#~ _~a-`- .-:r° ~~ ~`'.f- ~-~~aar• ~..~. o `s}~~~_ '`. <_i,,•- :-a`:~...Q~...v-r-..-~.:lw~,. City Plartning Divisian ~L I~ O~.~ 1685 Main Street, P O Box 2200 (213) 458-8341 Santa Nlonica, CA 90407-2200 OctobeY 16, 1991 David W. Longstreet 2].10 4th Street ~ 14 Santa Monica, CA 90405 - Re: 2110 4th 5treet/TPC 183 Dear Mr. Longstreet: I have received your correspondence objecting to the above-mentioned TORCA, and -T have forwarded--a capy to the applicant asking him to address each of the concerns you_raise. Please contact me at (213) 458-8341 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ ~.~ Drummond Buckley Assistant Planner DB:nh PC/ap183cr1 10/16/91 ,p--~ - 1 - ATTACHMEIVT F ~7ThcHM~Nr ~ onsc~-r, ~arxcr o~i ~r,rc a~-sssa - . ~ 11 Public H~arinq rill L~ b~id Dy th~ Plu±!!i!~g Coaissiaa oq an application !or a rinRnt-9artieipsting Com~x~ion and Yutinq Tantatlva traet 11ap to ~m~rt a 27-unit ap~rlasnt buildS.Aq lnto condoainiu~a at 2116 FouYth str~st. TIME: IIEDYt8D11i~ 7-piil •~ 1!!t ~S 7i00 Y.]l. LOC7~TI001t CODI~CZL Cd111mS1l~ 1001L 21~ CISZ Sl-I.L iNf M~21f ~TREiT, 8~Rl~ ~DfICa soatses or ~ae:an: se~u~s-ratricsrazrra a~aanrwzaar cass - s:c-us, vs~'ex~w sam~sss lucs ~. saaa swsso os avnzr~*t+ caso e. :++ia..t.. ~arcie~a.se a vu aaa~u~sloa M ayarta~i~sl~ a o~a8eetaio~ PAOPi1Cli 3DDl~/i 1110 ?ousth ~tswt - ' lMD fOlfIllOs OP3 Int~ruttd p~xaaa aay oa~mt w! tA~ Awritq~ or by vritlnq a 1~tEar. ` - - i,~tT.~r~ ahould ba ~Adsys~~d tot - " Plaae~ln~ DSYislen~ ~to0~ lIl ~" ~ ~ _ 16tS Ilsio sLS+~et - ~ . Santa ![onfoa, Callfarnia lO~O1 - 71tir-e DzuoonQ fuekl~y. Iusistant Al~t~e»r I! Quir~d. lurt6~r inlozaatl4n m a~ app~iieatian aq b~ ebeain.a lro. cb. ManasaQ Os.s.sao at tb. aaar... :se.• or by ca~11n4 t2i~) ~Sa-/]I1. - Tha ~Ntiny lacllity i~ landizapp~d acc.ss3~tr1~. It Yon lu~w any ap~cial n~~d~ sucA as sfqa lsnquaq~ intarpr~tlnp, g1WS~ eoatact th~ O!lio~ o! e~s Di~abl~ ~t ~s~-i7o1. rursv.nt to c.llsorni. 9ovsz~mnt coda s~atiw- ssoostb), ~i snis a~iTSS S• s~pu~ntly ohallsnq~ !n Oourt, #~ ai~li~ a~? b~ liaieW to oa17 tGoa~ i~sws raia~ at t~ -~uUYia ltwri~fo ds~ctlb~d SA t31~ notio~. or in vlittAn o~o~ dsliNr~ La th~ iity o! ~anta 1lonica at, os' g~tOS,x~ 't71~ ~~3e Lat41lt Lsto u nn~ uoEtIIla d~ 31M '~lud~nCli ~~~~~~ _` laar ~ ~~al •=~ ' i ~ ` si~ G~TY p~ SANTA s~~• MO~~~~ELES CA ~ `; ~'~ _` ~ d ~.eeFarT 7~`•."' 4a AIiTHOHIZATiON{ ~/~07 1885 Main Sheel F d PRC-SqRT FIfl3T CLA88 PO Box 2200 Santa Monfcs, CA 90I07-2200 ,; y, CITY PLANNIIVC3 D4VISION yqR1~A M~Nj9 ELS.P05iA6E ~i MAI27"92 ~~ Q Q.0 ~ • : CA }IMEf8R35939D ~ ~u~ !~f ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 4 ~2 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~-- ~ ! ~ 3 , ° ." ~; ~p , , ' - ~~ a.i~. , ~~~~' ~ ~~ .~=~ ~~ , ~ ~- ~~~~~ ATTACHMENT G ~fr-T~c~.n~,~rr- G ~ STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT NUMBER: TPC 183, VTTM 50fi38 LOCATION: 2110 Fourth Street APPLICANT: HR Capital-Rossmore CASE PLANNER: Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner REQUEST: To convert a 27-unit apartment building to condaminiums PLANNII~fG COMMISSION ACTION 5~13~92 Date. X Approved based on the follawing findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. Other. EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED: 5~23~92 TPC 183 5~23192 VTTM 50638 EXPIRA'I'ION DATE(S) OF ANX PERMITS GRANTED: 5123~94 TPC 183 5/23/94 VTTM 50638 LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSI~N OF EXPIRATIDN DATE(S) , 36 months TPC I83 36 months VTTM 50638 ~ Tenant-Participating Conversion Findings 1. This Tenant-Participating Conversion Application meets the requirements of `Article XX of the City Charter of the City of Santa Monica along with all mandatory requirements of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. [reference Sec. 2004 (a), Article XX] - 1 - 2. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Application has been deemed comp~ete and accepted foX filing. At the time o~ filing it met the requirements af Section 2002 of Article XX af the City Charter tor a camplete application. The subject application: (a) Identifies the building, its owner and its tenants and contains a declaration that such building is a Qualifying Building, the specific detai~s of which are incorporated into these findings by reference. (b) Sets forth, for each tenant occupied unit, the follow- ing sales information, which is incorporated into these findings by reference: 1) The maximum sales price for each unit. 2) The minimum down payment for each unit. 3) If seller financing is offered, the minimum amaunt to be financed, the maximum rate of inter- est and the minimum term of the loan offered by the seZler. (c) Sets forth, for each unit, the €allowing common area, maintenance and budget information, which is incorpo- rated`into these findings by reference: 1) The plan for the assignment and use of all park- ing spaces. 2) The plan for the use of all common area facilities. 3) The accupancy and management plans and policies. 4) A list of all repairs and alterations, if any, which will be performed before the close of the first escrow. 5) The plan for allocating costs and expenses for the buildirig. 6) A prepared monthly maintenance budge~ based upon actual maintenance expenses for at Ieast the pre- ceding two years plus a reserve fund which states the monthly maintenance assessment for each unit. 7} The procedures for the allocation and use of such reserve funds. (d} Contains a declaration with the £ollowing information: 1) That there has been a building inspection report of the accessible partions of the entire build- ing, including but not limited to, the roof, walls, floors, heating, air conditioning, plumb- ing, electrical systems or components of a simi- lar or comparable nature, and zecreatianal facilities of the building preparad by a Building Inspection Service or simiZar aqency wiehin the preceding three (3} months. 2) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a written statement setting forth any sul~stantial defects - 2 - ar malfunctions identified in the building in- spection report regarding the unit and the common areas has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. 3) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a copy of the complete building inspection repart has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. 4) No eviction has occurred pursuant tp Government Code Section 7060 et seq. (the Ellis Act) within a five (5) year period prior to the filing of an application far Tenant-Participating Conversion. 5) No eviction has occurred pursuant to Section 1806 (hJ of the Charter (relating to eviction for pur- poses of owner occupancy or occupancy by relative af the owner) within a two (2) year period prior to the filing of an application for Tenant- Participating Conversion. 6) In obtaining the signatures of cosigning tenants and intending to purchase tenants, I/we, as owner(s) of the building described in this ap- plication, neither offered nor agreed to pay mon- ey or other financial consideration to par- ticigating tenants if the tenants would release all rights that they had to purchase a rental unit in the building. (e} That the form of tenant ownership for which the application is submitted will be a Condominium. (f) Is signed by cosigning tenants occupying 70.4$ (not less than two-thirds) of ali the residential units in the building. (If there is more than one tenant in a unit, the signature of only one tenant is required.) (g} Identifies the cosigning tenants and the units occu- gied by such tenants and lists all other tenants known to the owner in the building and the units they occupy. (h) Contains a declaration that the signature of each cosigning tenant was obtained only after the delivery, in writing, to such tenant of the information required in subsections (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of this Section. (i) Contains a declaration that all lawful notices have been given of the application for conversion. (j) Has attached to the appiication Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase, signed by Intending to Purchase Tenants occupying 51.9~ (not less than fifty percent) of the tatal number of residential units in the build- ing. (If there is more than one tenant in a unit, the signature of only one tenant is required.) - 3 - (k} That, for each tenant occupied unit, a Tenant Intent to Purchase has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. The following procedures have been followed in the pro- cessing of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application: (a) A Tenant-Participating Convexsion Application was ac- cepted far filing by the City and meets the require- ments of Section 2002 of Article XX of the City Charter. (b) The Tenant-Participating Conversion Application was filed by the owner on 9/18/91, not less than forty (40) days prior to the filing of the application for the tentative gubdivision/parcel map on 2/28/92. (c) Within five (5) days of ~he filing of the Tenant- Participating Conversion Application, the city sent notice to every tenant in the building stating that a Tenant-Participating Conversion Application had been filed and that any objections thereto may be fiied with the City within twenty-five (25j days from the date of the notice. {d) Upon the filing of the app~ication for the required tentative subdivision/parcel map, the Tenant- Participating Conversian AppZication and required map were scheduled for hearing and proce~sed in accordance with the pracedures for the processing of subdivision maps. Tentative Map Findings 1. The proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the ap- plicable general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica. [Reference California Government code Sec. 66473.5 and Santa Monioa Municipal Code Sec. 9362 (aj~ 2. The owner(s) and each tenant on the subject property received copies of this staff report and recommendation at least three days prior to this public hearing. 3. Notification of this hearing has been in conformance with Section 9360 of the Santa Moniaa Municipa~ Code. 4. Each of the tenants of the praposefl candaminium project has received, pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.9, written notification of intention to convert at least g0 days prior to the filing of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452. Each such tenant, and each person applying for the rental of a unit in such residential real proper- ty, has, ar will have, received all apglicable notices and - 4 - rights now or hereafter reqtzired by the Subdivision Map Act. Each tenant has received or will receive 10 days written notification that an application for a pubiic re- port will be, or has been, submitted to the Department of Real Estate, and that such report will be available on request. The written notices to tenants shall be deemed satisfied if such notice~ comply with the legal reguire- ments for service by mail. , 5. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project has been, or will be, given written notification within lo days of approval of a final map for the proposed conversion. 6. £ach of the tenants of the proposed condominium project has been, or will be, given 180 days written notice of intention to convert prior to any termination of tenancy due to the conversion or proposed conversion. This will not alter or abridge the rights or obligations of the parties in performance of their covenants, including, but not 3imited by Sections 1941, 1941.1, and 1941.2 of the Civil Code, and set forth herein as conditions of approval. Each of the tenants of ~he propnsed condominium project has been, or will be, given notice of an exclusive right to contract for tize purchase of his or her respective unit upon the same terms and canditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public or terms more favorable to the tenant. The right will run for a period of not less than 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to Sea~ion 11018.2 of the Business and Prnfessions Code, unless the tenant gives grior written notice of his or her intention not to exer- cise the right. This will not alter or abridge the righte or obligatians of the parties set forth herein as condi- tions of approval. 8. This project has been found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 2970 (Section 15301) and from the City of Santa Monica Guide- lines for Implementation of the California Enviranmental Quality Act (Article 5.a) as a Class 1 exemption. Note: Individual findings required for approval of non-Tenant- Participating Conversions specified in Santa Monica Municipal Code Sec. 9122F either are inconsfstent with or redundant with the requirementis of Article XX and therefore are not applicable to or necessary for approval of Tenant-Participating Conversions. Conditions 1. The owner shall agree to each condition imposed in connec- tion with the approval of a Tenant-Participating Conver- sion Application. Written cansent shall be filed prior to the approval of the required final parcel/subdivision map - 5 - and shall be in a fox~m approved by the City Attorney. The filing of such written consent shall constitute an agree- ment, with the City of Santa Monica and each Participating Tenant, binding upon the owner and any successors in interest, to comply with each and every condition imposed in connection with approval af th~s Tenant-Participating Conversion Application. The City and any Participating Tenant shall have the right to specific enforcement of this Agreement in addition ta any other remedies provided by law. 2. The owner shall o~fer and continue to ofter the excZusive right to purchase each rental unit in the building to the Participating Tenant thereof upon the terms set forth in the app~ication, without change, for a period of not less than two (2) years from the date of final approvai by the California Dapartment af Real Estate or the date the first unit in the building is offered for sale, if no approval by the California Department of Real Estate is required. Unless a participatinq tenant has already provided the owner with writtan acceptance of the offer, the Tenant Sale Price may be adjusted according to any change re- flected in the Price Index [a~ defined in Seation 2001(j) of Article XX of the City Charter] occurring during the proceeding year. Upon the written acceptance of the offer by the Participating Tenant at any time within the two year period, escrow shall open within thirty (30) days from the written acceptance by the Participating Tenant. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the period oP the escrow shall not exceed sixty (60) days. 3. No Participating Tenant shall at any time after the ap- proval of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application be evicted for the purpose of occupancy by the owner, oc- cupancy by any relative of the owner, or for demolition of the unit. In the event the Participating Tenant does not exercise his or her right to purchase within the time period set forth, the owner may transfer the unit without any price restriction to the Participating Tenant or any other person. Iiowever, in the event such transfer is to someone other than the Participating Tenant, the transfer shall be expressiy made subject to the rights of the Par- ticipating Tenant to con~inue to oocupy the unit as pro- vided for in Article XX of the City Charter. The provi- sions af California Governiaent Code Section 7060 et seq. ("The Ellis Act") shall not be used to evict any non- purchasing Participating Tenant. 4. Each unit shall at all times remain subject to all terms and conditions af Article 3[VIII of the City Charter, ex- cept Secti,on 1803 {t), before, during and after any Ten- ant-Participating Conversion. If any unit is rented, the maximum allowable rent for each unit shall be no greater than the maximum allowab3.e rent allowed under Article XVIII of the City Charter. - 6 - 5. Prior to the approval of the required final parcel/ subdivision map for the Tenant-Participating Conversion, each participating tenant shall be informed in writing, in a form approved by the City, of his or her rights under Article XX of the City Charter. 6. All non-purchasing Participating Tenants who are senior citizens or disabled on the date of filing the Tenant- Participating Conversion Application and who persona3.~y occupied a rental unit in this qualifying building con- tinuously for at least six (6) months immediately preced- ing the date of the fi}~ing of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application shall have a right witlaout time ~imitations to occupy their units subject to the provi- sions of Article XVIII of the City Charter and shall be given the non-assignable right to continue to personally reside in their unit as long as they choose to do so sub- jact only to just cause 2victions provided that tha evic- tion is not for the pe~aose of occupancy by the owner, occupancy by any relative of the owner, or for demolitian of the unit. In addition, should the maximum allowable rent pravision of Article XVIII of the City Charter no longer apply, the rent for each such unit may be adjusted annually to allow an increase of no more than the increase in the Price Index [as defined in Section 2001(j) of Arti- cle XX of the City Charter] plus a reasonable pro rata share of capital replacements for the building common areas or agreed to capital improve~nents for the unit. Within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Tenant- Participating Conversion Application, any senior citizen Participating Tenant who is entitled to the protections of this provision may designate in writing the name of one person who is entitled to continue living in the rental unit under the same terms as the senior citizen if the senior citizen predeceases him or her and if the person designated is residing in the unit at tha time of the dea~h of the senior citizen. The person designated by the seniar citizen must be a lawful occupant of the unit, at least fifty-five (55) years of age on the date of the filing of this Tenant-Participating Conversian Application. All other non-purchasing Participating Tenants who per- sonally occupied a renta~ unit in this qualifying building continuousZy for at least six (6) months immediately pre- ceding the date of filing of this Tenant-Part~cipating Conversion Application shal'7. have a right without time limitations to occupy their units subject to the provi- sions of Article 7~VIII of the City Charter and shall be given the nonassignable right ta continue to personally reside in their unit subject only to just cause eviction for a period o= five (5) years from the date the first unit is offered for sale. No evictian shall be allowed during this time periad except for just cause provided the eviction is not for the purpose of occupancy by the owner, occupancy by any relative of the owner, or demolition of - 7 - the unit. In addition, during this tfine'period, should the maximum allowable rent provisions of Az'ticle XVIII of the City Charter no longer epply, the rent for each unit may be adjusted annually to allow an increase of no mare than the increase in the Price Index [as defined in Sec- tion 2001{j) of Article XX of the City Charter] plus a reasonable pro rata share of capital improvements for the building's common areas or aqreed to capital improvements for the unit. AlI rights under this condition shall expire upon the ter- mination of the landlord-tenant relationship between the owner and the participating tenant entitled to the protec- tions of this condition. For purposes of this conditian, "just cause" means one af the reasons set forth in subdivisions (a) through (g) of Section 1806 of the City Charter. 7. The requirements of these conditions 6ha11 be set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions, or equivalent document, and shall specifically name the Participating Tenants in each unit entitled to the benafits and grotections of Article XX of the City Charter. 'The City Attorney shall revieia and approve for compliance with Article XX the Covenants, Conditians, and Restrictions, or equivalent docuraents. prior to the ap- proval of the required final parcel/subdivision map. To the extent apglicat~le, the requirements of Article XX shall be made a part of the rental agreement with the Par- ticipating Tenants. 8. The awner shall pay the Tenant-Participating Conversion Tax in the manner required by Section 2008 of Article XX of the City Charter. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Tax shall be paid by the owner to the City Treasurer on each Tenant- Participating Conversion unit in an amount equal to twelve (12) times the monthly maximum allowable rent for the unit at the time the tax is due and payable. If there is no monthly maximum allowable rent, the tax shall be computed on the basis of the manthly fair rental value of the unit. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Tax shall be due and payable at the time of approval of the required final par- cel/subdivision map. Payment of the tax may be deferred until sale of the unit by the owner executing a lien in the form approved by the City. Upon payment of the tax, or upon a determination that a unit is exempt from the tax in accordence with subdivisian (d) of Section 2008 a ralease of lien"~snall be filed by the City with respect to each unit for which the tax has been paid or which has been determined to be exempt fram the tax. _ g _ 9. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions, or equiva~ent dacument, shall contain a non- discrimination clause in substantially the fol~owing form: "No unit owner shall execute or file for record any in- strument which imposes a restriction upon the sale, leas- ing or occupancy of his or her unit on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, ancestry, na- tional origin, age, pregnancy, maritai status, family oom- position, or the potential or actual occupancy of minor children. The association shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, ancest~y, national origin, age, pregnancy, marital status, family composition, A.I.D.S., or the potential or actuai occupancy of minor chi}.dren." lo. Approval of the Tenant-Participating Conversion Applica- tion shall expire if the required final parcel/subdivision map is not approved within the time period set forth in Condition 11. 11. The tentative parcel/subdivision map sha11 e~cpire 24 months after approval, except as pXOVided in the provi- sions of California Government Code Section 66452.6 and Sections ~9380-9382 of the Santa Monica Munieipal ~ode. During this time period, the final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval. If the tenta- tive map is a vesting tentativa map pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.2, the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9325 also shall apply. 12. The applicant shall Comply with all ~equirements set forth in Government code 5ection 66427.1, including notification of tenants regardinq application for a public report to the Department of Real Estate and notification oP tenants regarding approval of a final map for the aonversion. 13. The developer/applicant sha13. provide the Engineering De- partment of ~he City of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print reproduction and microfilm of eaoh sheet of the final map after reCOrdatiion. 1~. The effective date of this action shall be ten (10) calen- dar days from the date of Planning Commission determina- tion or, if appealed per Sectian 9356 (S1~IC), at such time as a final determination is made by the City Council. 15. For information purposes, the follawing persons are iden- tified in the application as participating tenants: Shari Granrath and Gina Osti, Ba.11 Kappleman, Jolin Moore, Culver Nichols and Larry Nichols, Adrianne Maros and Andras Maros, Ludmila'Yrivo, Doug Brown, Chris Vigil, Michele Brien, Alfred Nelson, Jacob Yashar, Sabrina Kriec~s and Gary Murakami, William Arms, Beverly Longstreet and David Longstreet, Jon Hall, Eric Anderson and John Ellis, Steve Gates~ Joyce Houser, Richard Klein, Anthony Saidy, Amelia - 9 - Ryan and Bill Ryan, Lynn Auker and Saarin Auker, Ran (or "Ron") Kane Melinda Gordon and Stephanie Gordon, Deeann Davidson, Mary Hale and Lawrence Gate, Dafaie Lazer and Tzipe Schiner and Mima Megolnik and Deeni Eber. VOTE Ayes: Gilpin, Mechur, Polhemus, Pyne, Ronstein Nays: Nelson Abstain: Absent: Morales NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or- dinance, the time within which judicial review of this deCision must be sought is governed by Code of Givil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been edopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1400. I hereby certifp that this 6tatement of Offici~l Action accurate- ly reflea~s the final determination of the Planning Com~ission of the City of Santia Monica. signature date Ralph Mechur, Chairperson Please Prin~ Name and Title I hereby agree to the above conditiona of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute qrouads for potential revocation of the permit approval. Applicant's Signature Print Name and Title PC/tp183sta DKW:bz - 10 - ___ - ~~ ~ ~-~ "' ~~4i ~~:'IS7~~~' V r~ ~~'„ ~~~ ~ June 21, 1990 +~" r - , ~ ~~~~~ - „ _;J Santa Vlonica Citv Council ~2 ,h~1 25 p q.28 Citv Hall ~ 168~ Main Street $AN i H;', , - Santa Vloruca, CA 90401 ~ - RE: Appeal of TT'C 183 (2110 4th St.) Dear Councilmembers. in response to the Mayor Genzer's June 16 request far evidence documenting the attempted eviction of Nltchele Bnen, the on-site bwlding manager (#9), I submit the #olla~nnng: Extub;t Date 12 8/31/90 Letter from Apphcant to all tenants infornvng them of reassignment of ort-site custodial dutres to John ~Vloore (#3). 13 9/6/90 Letter from the ApplicanYs attorney to Brien confirrrung a summary employment dismissal and ordering her to vacate her apartment unit. 14 8/26/90 Protest pehtron signed by 28 tenants. 15 9/2.4/90 My letter to the ApphcanYs property manager urging reconsideration and a halt to eviction proceedings against Bnen. [Irrelevant, private introductory remarks are deleted.] 16 undated Tenant not'tficatron af Bneri s reinstatement by the Appiicant. Brien had engaged the offices of Westside Legal Services for representatron when the matter was settled. Note that manager duhes were transferred to a(pra-conversion) tenant who also resides in the building, so there was no excuse for removing Ms. Brien to provide for occupancy of a new hire. Likewise, no reason for dismissal was given, nor any provision for Bneri s continued residence as a rent-paying tenant. ~Is. Eileen Hecht speaking for the Applicant was not truthful when she stated categoncally that Bnen was °never threatened with evichon " The Appellants argue that the foregoing is sufficienfly coercive to challenge the validity of the consent for Urut 9. ~incerely, ~' JjvYIX v ~ { Lynne Auker 2110 4th St., #2,~, ~,~ 396-1341 ~',; T~ ~ c ~~r.~ ~~ L ~~ C /lt~~ ~l% ~ f~ '~! r,~1~~'~}-G~'~ ~f ~-'r-~~L Y-~,~ L~~~ r ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ , .~ ~ r.:;r~ DELSOti - - ~ ~-----.~~~~ ~ ;-_} - -- ~\lF$TtiIE~T PROPEKfI~ I1C TO ALL `I'ENANTS AT 2110 FO[JRTH STREET SAPd'S'A MONZCA, CA 90405 Exhibit 12 This letter is to advise you that effective today August 31, 1990, the new oVmers of yoiir building are The Homestead Group Associates and the day to day management of your building has been turned over to DELSON MANAGEMENT COMPANY. Although we did not obtain the necessary votes to convert this building under the Torca Amendment, we are examining other avenues for your buildinq. A~1 rent payments are due on the first of each month and should be made payeble to: 2110 4th Street Associates, Inc. -------------------------------- Effective immediately, your new on-site manager is John Moore and he resides in Apartment ~3 and may be reached at (213) 396-6956. The following numbers are being given to you so that someone is available to you in case of an emergency: MANAGER: Jcrn Moore (213~ 3?5-6956 BELS0~1 MANAGEMENT OFFICE: (MON-FRTj (213) 458-9905 PROPERTY SUPER~IISOR BEEPER: (213) 7D7-0988 we are looking forward to a long relationship with you. Sincerely, ! -l ~~~ l i' ;~/; Valerie Hezlep ~ Property Supervisor 233 V4'~lshire 8oule~ard, Sune 525, San[a ~lontca, Califorma 90401 (213) 458-99D5 F4X (213) 395-78~14 Delson DUANE HALL Exhibtt 13 ATTORNEY AT LAW 4560 ADMIRALTY WAY SUITE I10 MARII~A DEL REY CALIfORNIA 9D292 September 6~ 1990 TELEPHONEf2~3)578-50~1 Ms. Michelle Brien 2110 4th Street #9 Santa Monica, Calif. 90405 Re: Occupancy at 2110 4th St. #9 Dear Ms. Brien: This office represents the new landlord and managers of the property at 2110 4th St., Santa Monica, in which you re- side as a holdeover after termination of your employment. blr. Delson chose not to take nor to require that you gay any sum for your occupancy in the premises for the 30-day per~od following termination of your employment. His intention is that you use that money to find another place to live and to assist you in moving. H~s intention is furthermore, not to create a tenancy with you. You must be out of the premises not Iater than midnight on September 30, 1990. Although apartment vacancies are not rare please do not wait until the last minute to try to find one. Today my client received a letter from you to the effect that you say you are performzng services at the building. You are remir.ded that your seYVices and authority to act on behalf of the landlord terminated last month and that you are not authorized to do anything and in fact you are prohibited fron performing any services or purporting to act on behalf of the landlord. There is a new manager at the Property. We trust you will timely vacate without the necessity of fuz~ther delay or of further proceedings. Very trul y~ s, f ' - ;~~ ~ . , . , . ~ =:i ?T"~ V~: Yi ~.-P~:~i*' ~'~ _~ 8; 2s=f90 Exhlbit 1~ T'i?, ~h? 'Sr.der~~gned TE:13S.~8 C~ ti_2 P.10 View A~3Tt:12 :t8, T.~7~8: tG 0X.^.~~3n 0:1~ C°e~,J CO.^_~.2r : OV°~ .. =0 Il°4ti5 ~~';~.. 'f=C: Eie r_= ~ eP_ ;S IlOi.. ~D ~2 K?pt CA a8 i:.c :a~er Qi OllY' b~_la_:=g. ~.e fee~ tha~ :~Iichele ~as always Cone a~ e.~eiie,~ ~ob. -_ ~Y_e--F _s to o~ a ~anag~" ? -v~-ig on ~e p^e':~ses, ~~'_=che=e n~s cur su~port as the bea~ ~eracn~for '~:~~ ~en_ S:~ 1:.o:~:s ~:e bu~'_3~ ~ ar_d _ts p~cble~:~ be~~er t: ar. C:V:]i:2. Stt~-^ 1"ia3 Sf:OSti~ _e:SE_` `..O ~'J° °XCE~..~.10:131!y cor~etent whAn it co~es *o ta;cing care c~ a~'_ v~rie~y of s_tuatzoae t.at a_~ se, w_xether ? t be ~iaT.bi ~~ orcb;.e=r,~, =c~s,r ~eep_e, ~^ai: ter_ar_c~, etc. Y7e :c. ow her as a persc.^. ~.:~o fir_~s ~r~~~t sat~sfaction ~n tGkiag ~~e ~es~ ~oss~b=e care c~ _:e t:~e buiicir_g a: d al'_ of i~a te: ar.~a. ~ve a=1 k^o:~ ..~ rLmezaus ~ r_$ta :;:e5 wher_ :dichele : as t~;tez1 a soeciai, p?rsor:al ~nteres~ ia the ~ro~iens oi ;ncividLal ' t° :a:lt3 ~i1G gone 0::~ Oi 71~~ ~cy t0 Il@? ~ neop'! e. ~~e Zi3Q ;reat=y ~es~ect her fcr t:e "i=on na. ~° wirn w2:~c : sze ~as a' :v~~s i::sy~tzc taat house ru' es ar-d regu~ations be ~o'_'_c~yed so tnat ~~Ze ~cio Vi2w haa rer.iained a good, ~~^.E3C@~ll: '.)~d.^.~ fOi BV?~y ter.a: ~ ~:Z tt1F? ~.^..L'11C1].F'xg ~O i~V°. S =e _s ~~_ ideal manager. ;~e ieel ~:a~ ~iich~le has contr~~utied a lot of er_~rgy to ~-:akina th~s b:ail~~nQ the fine h~~a for us eII ~ha~ _t is. ~7e feel vzry stro^gZy t~a~ it woulc be a ve=~ Lnfo~~unate thi:~g `_or a11 co~cerned if she we~e ;e~lace3~ b~r a.o~ :~~ manager. ~ ! ~ ~l~ , ~ i.~ ~`t ~,~, ~, ~,~ i S i n_ ^ 2 = ~ 1 y , '~Y'w,~~y. F ~-- IWLga. ~:l ~ r ,/j r _ .in ~./.NCC'~ ,t%'c(i~;/ !r~~, "~,~ . u ' ~- L ` ~ ' ~ ~ ~1 ~~',I ~ , ~ ~ ,r'v'~' ~ .~.~1,,.~ -.-~- ~ ~. ~ ~' ,/~~'(~,~"+f.,~`~r ~~~"~ G~1~ ~ ~ , k ~ ; ~'I ~ ! ~i `~ ., ~ ~~~, .1 . 1~ ' ' ~ ~i , =~r~/..v'L~ot , . i ~G~l/,•' ~ r, ? ~~ ~./ / //'f ~r~ ~~(/~~ ~ /~, ^\ 1i ~ %M~O (j~ Jt"~U''~ I ` ~/ L ~ ~ ` " ~- i~ ~ ~` ' ' ~ ~ s C h ~~ ~:, -~ -, /I ;/,,.~,/ , ,' ..~~ .--; ~ ~~,, ~' ~ ; J s~~ %~.~~ , ''-~ ~- ~ J ~ ~ 1~ ( ~ ~ ~t~ ~'v , ~w~, .~ - ~; ~, ~.. ~ ~ ^ W~~r'~-1 + ' { ~, ~f....r;' z,4~ ~ 2 7 , : ,~'-~':,~ . ,~~!' ~ , _ ~ ~ V",i{~-~"~' ~ ~ /:,I i~~J ~ .i (,r (~ /~r ~~/I~~ / ~ r..~v ., ~ i i ; L ~ ? ~ . , i , -L'~1 , ~ ~ ~ `-:% ' .-~ ^ '~ V1 ~'I ~ ~ ,/^~ , ' ~ ~A\ 1~, ~' ~~ !_• . 'Z ,,.,y'~`'~:`-C `w~,;/,v,' .. l~~ ~~~~~C~i . ~ ~ ~' li'' ,' •~ s_ y % ~ / ~f ~ . ~ ' `'i ~ ! ! ~ ~~ r~ ~ -~` ' ' ,~ ~ .~,;° /~ /I '~i ~ v , /.~cG %-.'-`: r 1 ti`,~,~'~1 ,~~ /~~~ `r`~ ~l_l,ll \'r~,, ~ ~~-~'~~-•' ... ~.~.''; ``- , L! ~ 'r \ ~ i }.~ . ~ / : ! l J ~ 1/ ~ ` /' ~ '~/~ ~/ ~~;- j ~ ~ ] " a -_.^.~ : v /' -: , ~~~y fj , vli'~"--~ '/'r/j~s•-/. %.~ ~~-~,~ \ f (~~-~U ~•~it!%;~~.~ i~ ~j~.ii~S~:~-~~v ` \d ~" ~ I . ~,/~ ~,^,~- -~rr i j- fi^ =~r~~ : ~5 September 24, .990 Valerie Hezlep Delson Management 233 W~~sh~re Blvd. ;525 Santa Monica, C~ 90401 Dear Yaler~e: I was delighted to see your name on a letter from Delson hianagement and to real~ze that you had left Oalcridge and that you were now ~ property superv~sor (2110 4th Street). ~ ' ' -- ------~~ r~ ~ - i_i i ir iii iii n _i ~rr ~ i T~ i~ i~ rr i r i i ~ ~_~ _u The respect I have for you prnmpts me to ask for your help ~n the urgent matter of the manager's off~ce aL my building. My wish is to apprise you of the situation on the ground, so to speak, and to rely on you to f~nd an suitable solution. I fully support Michele Brien's petition to retain the pos~tian of property manager that she has held for the past seven years. I recall the dil~gence with which you conducted the search for reliable apartment managers: at a t~me when competent help is often scarce, DM would do well to reassess the opportunity to reinstate M~chele_ Balanc~ng the dictates of the former owner, Mrs. de Britto, aga7nst tfie demands of tfis tenants for a11 those years ~s a tribute not only to Mithele's formidable persanal skills but to her effectiveness as a manager as wel~. Moreover, her enthus~astic commitment to maintaining order and tranquility went far beyond her ~ob descript~on. As a result, M~chele Zs h~ghly esteemed, well-loved and trusted by v~rtually all of the tenants. The property itself has been well served by Michele's fuil-time attention as res~dent manager. Her on-site presence and long-term familiarity with each resident has bee~ essential in monitoring a building which lacks adequate security systems. She was on the premises to handle emergenc~es and to supervise workmen. She personally enforced house rules, preserved quiet, and assumed groundskeeping chores (jusi one aspect which has deteriarated }n recent weeks). For a modest expenditure, the building has had the 24-hour services of a devoted, experienced professional rather than the desultory, self-servyng aid of the newly-appainted substitute. °~a12r~e Hez~ep 9;'24i 90 Page Z It may be that some management tompar~ies deliberately select ~ndivldaals to serve as manager who will engender an adversarial relationship with the tenants. If that is so, Delson Management could not have chosen a more su~table cand~date than John Moore. Mr. Moore is held in almost un~versal contempt by the tenants of the building {before and after the assignment), and it ~s myst3fyang to me that DM would place trust in someone with such dubious moral credentials ft is clear that he has neither the time nor the tncl~nat~on to perform the appropriate dut~es af an apartment manager Ne has already soloc~ted (for 530/month) other tenants to handle ~~s o6~igat~ons. most alarmingly, routine access to the key box I, for one, resent the idea that the build~ng manager is prof~teering by selling off his respons~bll~t,es p~ecemeal, part~cularly when the commodity for sale is unlimited, unsuperv~sed access to roy apartment and personal belongings! (DM m~ght examine its own civil liability in this regard.) And if the employ~ng of ,lohn wasn't bad enougfi, I can't tM~nk of an act that is better calculated to sol~dify res~stance by the tenants to DM's ultimate plans for the building than to discharge and pursue an ev~ction a4ainst Michele. Although I doubt if it is fully appreciated by OM, Michele not only fu3filled her employee responsibilities vis-a-vis Mrs. de Britto in the recent round of preliminary TORCA negotiations, but considerably assisted Delson as weli, despite the imminent threat of loss of her home and iiveiihood in the process. I, of course, vigorously opposed the hostile talceover because the conversion offer was d transparently bad deal and Delson`s approach to us was ~nsupportably arrogant and dishonest -- a perceptian heid by the ma~ority of tenants. But I believe DM now has a unique opportun~ty to try to rehabilitate ~ts image, ~f it is so inclined, and to demonstrate a measure of goodwill in the interest of posit~ve, cooperative future tenant relations. Harin9 John Moore as its agent was a ma_ior mistake which is not too late to make rTght. Respe~tfully yours, I i; '~~~n~' kuke~ ~~~ _ J ~, ,~ / ~ U~IJSU~ Exhibtt 16 I-~ -~__- __ I ~ ~k, 1~ I _ "`-'y'~~~~iP ~ o.y~ ~ ~_~ - `-- . I ~ti~}ti'7~IF\f pp(tFFR'lIF_~ ~N( TO ALL 4TH STREET TENANTS T'his !etter is to advise all tenants that we are pleased to announce that Mzchel].e Brien has been reinst~ted as the on- site manager at 2110 4th Street Apartments. We feel that this is a~ositive and beneficial decision. we would like to thank John Moore for his time and services durinq his term as manager. We welcome Michelle 5ack and trust each of you wi11 too. We are lookinq forward to a long term relationship with each of you. Sincerely, ~~x/7~ ~_ ~ ~4_e ~) ~ Delson Managemertt Company 233 R"~lchire Boiile~ard Suue SZS, 5ama blonica, California 9(Y301 f21a145R-~OS 1 AK ('_i~) 395~78.14 . ~ ~ ~~ ,~,~o J~, ?_~ ~~G ~~ ~, ~,~ ~ .;~'1 3 ~? ~~~1 ~J~~, AEGLAF;ATION OF DAVID W. LONGSTREET Subject: Appeal of Planninq Commission approval of Tenant Participating Conversion Case TPC-183, 2110 4th Street, OP2 Apglicant: HR Capital-Rossmore Hearing Continued to June 30, I992, for in limine evidence relating to Sub-Leased Units Following the hearinq before the Santa 2ionica City Conncil, on Tuesday, .7une 16, 1942, my memory was refXeshed pertaining to the followinq items relatinq to the tenancy of Anthony Saidy, who holds the lease an Unit 20. In addition, other information has come into my possession which indicates that the siqnatures for Unit 1 are invalid, and possibly those of Unit 16, ali of which is set- out to the best of my information and belief, below: REGARDIt~G UNIfi 20, ANTHONY SAIDY'S SIGi~1ATURES ARE INVALID Mr. Saidy~s home address and phone number are: 435 So. Lafayette Road Los Angeles, Ca 90057 (213) 383-72d6 l. The telephone number was re-confirmed during three phone calis between Mr. Saidy and myself which took place on June 17 and I8, 1992. Mr. Saidy initiated that series of calls in response to the radio broadcast of the hearing. 2. Oriqinally, I~lr. Saidy called me just before he decided to sign the conversion and purchase forms. He left a message on my answering machine esking me to return his call. !,t that time, I did not know ~vho Anthony Saidp w~ss. S~het~ I returned his call, he infor'ed me that he hqd neard that i gub~itted a written objectian to the ~oRCr, npglication. He wanted me to read hfm that docu~nt ~,~Q~o ~'-,~ .~i~l~ ? s~ ".;~1 over the telephone. Daauments that I wrote in this matter are too long and detaiied to be read over the phone. We had a conversation about the pros and cons of the conversion, after which I sent him a copy(s) of my protests. 3. Saidy explained to me that Ron Delson had contacted him, at his home to discuss signing the TORCa forms, Saidy told me that Lee Riiey, who had been living in his unit, had moved out. iie was trying to decide whether to terminate the lease or wait for the conversion and sell his option. 4. Saidy called me back after reading my documents and said he agreed the price was much too high, and with other issues I raised. However,-Ron Delson (HR Rossmore) told him they already had mare than the required number of signstures, and were assured of getting the permit. Saidy said he did not want to stand in the way of the m~jority of tenants, since only a small number of tenants were against the conversion, and it was likely to go thraugh. Hy holding on to the unit he could sell his option. Saidy had already signed the forms when he called me. ShortZy thereafter he rented the unit to the current tenant, Boris Zakstelsky. (In reality, applicant only had about ~6 signatures at thst time, and Saidy's vote waa one of the final votes needed.] 5. ~n the most recent phone conversations on June 17 - 18, 1992, someone had informed Kr. Saidy th~t his name had been raised at the City Council hearing. He wanted to know if I cauld tell hin~ what was qoing on, and why his name was used. I informed him about whst happened at both the Plannfnq and Zoni~g Commi.ssion snd Citp Council Coamiasior~s, and about the provisionffi of su3~divfsians (d) at~d (rf) of saction 20Q1, of I,rtlcla -2- XX of the santa Monica Gharter (invalidatien of sub-Iessee signatures due to an absence of privity, and invalidation of sublessor signatures in the absence of six manths of continuous residency prior to signing). I also read him the speaific provisions of those subdivisions, attached hereto. 6. Saidy readily admitted that he does not live in the unit and did not 2ive there when he signed the forms. But, he did not know he was not eligible to siqn. Saidy acknowledged that Rod pelson contacted him at his current residence about signi~g the forms and felt Delson should have known his signature would be invalid. 7. Mr. Saidy also asked me if everyane had been informed of the hearing, because he did not receive a notice. He reasoned that Boris Zakstelsky probably failed to sent hin ttie notice. 8. although I requested U[r. Saidy write a letter for the hearing on June 30, 1991 explaining that he was not a resident, he did not want ta do that. When I asked hia to attend the upco~inq hearing, he said he would be out of town tnat day. Mr. Saidy declared he is willing to admit the facts relating to tenancy and residency and said he would cali Drammond Buckley of the Planning 5taff and relate these faats. However, by the third }~hone oall, 3sidy had spoken with several other people, and decided si.x~lply to nstonewalZ. n xe told me tt~e City Couaci]. aiqht sti1Z affirm the Planning and Zoning Commissions decision, because "How could anyone prove he did not live there.° One of the appellants atte~pted to speak with Boris Zakstelsky, the current resident in IInit 20. Mr. Zakstelsky merely stated that he was told by Saidy not to get involved. -3- REGARDING Unit 2, THE SIGNATURES 1-PPEAR TO SE INVALID The name and address of the lease-holder on Unit 1 are: Rick and/or Shari (GXandrath) Osti 1504 W. Coventry Plaae Palmdale, CA 93551 9. Although I have not had any personal contact with the lease-holder themse2ves, I obtained their address from their lessee, James Horaell, with their knowledqe and permission. It was also conveyed to me at that time that neither Rick or Shari Osti signed the TORCA forms. 10. The present occupant James Haweil told me that he entered the premises as a^room-mate," the same guise used by other absentee leaseholders in our building. But, he acknowledged he pays rent to Rick and Shari Osti in Palndale. They in turn pay the rent to 2110 4th Street Associates (HIt Rossmorej. Therefore, his status, in fact, is sub-lessee. REGARDING UNIT 16, THE SIGAIATLTRES Ida~Y HE INVALID: il. Eric Anderson holds the lease on Unit i6. To the best of my knowledge or belief, Mr. 2,nderson has not lived in his unit for at least 1 1/2 years. I do not know whether Eric Anderson himseif, or John Ellis the sub-~lessee, siqned the TORC2, forms, but it is crucial to resolve that iseue arid that the aotual forms be examined for the signatures and the date af signing. Acoording to one of the appellants who spoke with John Bllis, Mr. Ellis has a11 along believed that Mderaon ~uet have siqned the forms for ~Tnit 16, bacauso as a rooHate/sublesfl~ea ha 3iad no -4- authority to siqn. Hawever, he has now began to wonder whether paperwork he was given to siqn in Anderson's absence to allegedly "show who was currently livinq in the unit° might, in f~ct, have been TORC?, forms . 12. To the best of my knowledge and belief Fric Mderson did not sign the forms for the first ToRCI~- forms, and had left the premises at the time of new filing in July 1991. Delson representatives approached individual, non-ogposing, tenants in an attempt to obtain signatures, or re-affirmation of signatures for the that second appiication. It is possible that 3ohn Ellis signed the forms during one of those visits. Of course, as in the case of Units 1 and 20,- ~t Eric Anderson signed after he vacated, his signatures would be invalid. Tf 3ohn Ellis signed, as a sub- lessee, unless he was paying his rent directly to the manaqement with their express or implied consentat, his signatures ~oould also be invalid. SUi~4M?yRY 13. Ta the best of my knowledge and belief HR Ross~ore, or 'thei~ management representative, Rod ~elson Associates, have possession of the lease for each unit iss the bui.lding. It was only in the liurakami/Iiriegs {Unit i2), and perhaps Ellis/Anderson {Ur-it 16) that the app3icant approached the sub-Zessee. ?,ppellant knew, or had reason to know, who the true lessor was in each case, an~ they knew, or had reason to know, who signeQ the forms. Zt is only logical and a aatter of routine when abtaininq signatures~for a legal document to confirm t,ha signnture on the aonversion forms with that on the rental aqreesant. Shari Granrath and Gina Osti, -5-- listed at residents on the ToRCA form, but Rick Osti and/or Shari ~sti are the leaseholders. John Ellis and Eric Anderson are listed as residents, but Eric Anderson has been out of state for almost the entire lenqth of thie TORC~ process. To the best ~f my knowiedge and belief, each of the lessors, Grandrath (Osti), Anderson and Saidy were not residing in the premises when they signed the conversfon and/or purchase forms. Both the initial TORCa forms and the forms for the new application in July were mailed to them to sign. If the names on the conversion form did not match the names of people actually residing on the premises, HR Rossmore should have been put on notice of that fact. If John Ellis signed the forms instead of lessor Eric Anderson, applicant should have been put on notice. Then again, Gary Mnrakami was not a 3essor, and that should have put the applicant on notice that somethinq was wrong. Contact with someone at their home in Los Angeles, as in the case of Anthony Saidy; qr, with an alleged tenant out of state, as perhaps in t3ie case of 1-ndersan, should have put applicant on notice that they were using invalid siqnatures. HIt Rossmore cannot claim, in qood faith, that they had no input or knowledge of the fact that non-leaseholders were living on the premises, or that, in particulsr, 1-nthony Saidy was not s resident of 2110 4th Street at the time he aiqned the forms. Apglicant had either to either be aware of its misrepresentation, or scti~q in total disregard and contempt of that fact when suhmitting the application. 14. To the best of ~y knovledqe and belief, HR Rossmore attempted to contact lsssors follorvinq the City Council hearing. -6- They were able to contact lessor Grandrath or Osti, and Saidy, but were unsuccessful in contacting John Ellis. What result and effect those contacts will have of events must await the upcoming hearinq on June 30. 15. For the benefit of sub-lessees, I therefore request, if possible, that the Council and City Attorney include a statement in their opinion in this matter, reqardless of the finai decision, that sub-lessees, havinq no knowledge of the terms and provisions in the lease against sub-leasinq, and iackinq an actual intent to subvert those terms and provisions, retain a possessory right to remain in their units and not be subjected to eviction on the issue of breach-of contract by sub-lessors. 16. Counsel for applicant stated to the Councii that the practice of his firm in handiing TORCA app~ications is to rely on the applicant and list everyone in the unit or on the lease. Then When actual3y selling unit they verify iessor, lessee, seniors, disaDled, etC. Declarant respectfully submits th~t such a procedure invites error, and abrogates the duty of counsei to insure information received from a client is accurate snd correct before fiiiag the TORCA. It is a flaw which invites errer and misrepresentation. As in this case, such misrepresentations or errors may not be cauqht when an application is not opposed, or appealed. Such errors are di~ectly related to the failing of both applicant and counsel. 17. Issues af coercion exist in this application as have been related in docusents ef record and testfaony delivered under oath. Issues of misrepresentntion of the facts and issues exist in this application relating to signatures on comtereion and purche6e -7- forms for t3nits 1, 9, i2, 16, 20 and 23. (Additional documents will be introduced for the upcominq hearing to demonstrate applicant's misrepresentation concering Unit 9.) Application withdrawsl because of coercion and misinformation, and subsequent misrepresentation in this final application demonstrate significant number of major violations of the TORCa Ordinance. Based on the showing of cosraion and misrepresentation whict~ has been demonstrated in this raatter, declarant requests that if the City Council denies this application it include a ruling in its decision that applicant is estopped from future efforts to convert the 2110 4th Street premises. Each and eVery fact and issue as set-out ahove, is based on my persanal knowledge or observation, or upon such information and belief as this declarant has been informed of by the person or persons named herein, and based on such personal knowZedge and observation, and believinq such information as received ta be true and correct, ~ have set out such facts and informatian herein withaut change or distortion. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Iaws of the State af California that the foregoiT~g is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. L J ~.~, ~~ ~ ^ L~ _ ~ ~ I ~t ~ f R9 ~8- SANTA MONICA CHARTER Art~cle XX Tenant Ownership Riqhts Section 2001. Definztions (d) Intentian to Purct~ase Tenant. Any tenant who has personally occupied his or her unit in the building continuous]y for a period of at least six (6) months immediately preceding the date the tenant signs a Tenant Intent to Purchase. (n) Tenant. Any person who is an authorized tenant of an owner of a residential renta3 building for which a Tenant- Participatinq Conversion Application is being processed. Amended at Mun. Election Nov. 11, 1990. Cert. by Res. ~`8221 CCS DATE o z- [TEM # ~i ~4 _ T ~ - ~a~ F~LED ~N CITY CLERK'S OFFICE - ~ a , ~~ o ~ ~~~ Ju~i ~; ~, ;~~_ a (~3) ------------------------------------------------ - SUBJECT: ~orca at 2110 Fourth 5t. MESSAGE from ~,$rry NiGho15 30-JUN-92 $~30 ~110 Fourth 5t. Na. 4 Santa Mnnich. CR 90405 June 30, i992 f?~: Torca Gonversia~ af 21t0 Faur~,h 5~. $nd Residencv of dohn Ellis ,~n Whor~ It Mav Concern: I, havp th~s roornina talked #o Mr. dohn El~i$ about th~ ~i~ov~ r~fere~ced ~att~r. In re~ard tt~ the documer~t I sioned on June 29~h ra4ardxno t_his matter, Mr. Ell~s has rpM;n~led me that our first phRns canversatian occurred samewhat less than i8 months aqp. However, Mr. Eilis,alsa stated tMat he has resided in this 6uildin^ lonoer than 18 months. In addition to our converaation ahout Mr. Ellzs' rasidencv. he and I ~fiatte~ briefly a{~out tonioht's City Council Me~tinq. ,H~ has indicated tq Me that he will attend this meetino. end that h~s views have chan~ed since h~ firat eianed the 7ENAI~7 RGREEMEN7 TO CONVERSIQN fqrrt, I thprefore suoosat that anv ouestions req~rdinq eith~r Mr. Ellis' residencv. or his views oh the conversion, b~„directed at hiM aE th}s cveninn"s Citv Gouncil r~eet~.na. I kindlv reauest that this docurtent b,~ copied and distri~ut~a to thp Mayor anto aII councilmcMhers Thank you aqain~ Sincere2v_ ~arrv C. Nichols cc: Citv Httornev Homestead Menaaement Tha sender haa been told that this messane was ,tust rps~i, Messaoe 23...REPLY. PA55. DELET~, qr 7 far optipns~ (p$sg) ~~ ~ ~~~ JVl~ ~ ij ia~[. ''1 1 ~k f1 fz f3 f4 MAILRODM MENU 1 - Read new ~-maii 2- 5~nd an e-M~}1 messaqe 3 - Rea~ other e-mail 4 - List e-mail 5 - Delete ~-ma~l 6- List Gitv Nall e-meilboxes f~ f~ f7 f~ FM5GL 7 - PfN par~xcioants menu $ - Other ootians 9 - Gq to GONFERENCES H - Help M- Go to MAIN MENU ANq NDW? (enter Menu Fhoice, pr tvoe a command or e to exzt) > rnm (Zi ) -------------------------------------__°---- SU63ECT= Torca at 2110 Faurth ME55AGE from ~.arr-y tyi~ho~s 26-JUN-92 10:1@ 2110 Fourth 5t. #4 Santa Monica_ CA 90405 June 26. 1992 RE: Torca Cpn~ersion No. 1$3 at 2110 Four~h St. 7q Whom It May Concern: T aM a tenant and resid~nt of 2l10 Fourth St. Last eveninn. as a profe$s~Qnai courtesv, I sianed a docum~nf., for the owner af !h~ 6uildinq, statinq c~rtain facts reqardinq the re~~d~ncv of John E11~~ }n no. lfi. This aG#ion o~ rov oart is not intended in anv wav to sionifv mv suooort for the ora.iact. In fact, i have mithe~d my support for the pro~ect. This iack af suoonrt ie evidenced bv Mv not ~iAnina eithar tha Torca conver51on farM. ar the Intent tp PUrchase form. I wQuld l~ke cooiea of this letter ^iven to each councilr~~mb~r and ta the Mayor. Thank vou. Sineerelv. Lsrry C. N~Ghqls tc: Citv Atiornev eouncil~emeers' boxe~ tpd~y, Th~nk you, r/ L~ / REPLY froM Larr„y N;~~ols 29-3UN-~2 i~:~~ ~a~ thank you~ The sender has heen ta.ld th~t this.~assaoe ~as .iust read. Messeoe 21...REPLY. PRSS. DEL~TE, or ? for oot2ons: (nass) ~Ql~t~ DEL~TEq. (2~) --------------° -------------------------------- SUBJECT: 2110 Fourth ST. Torca MESSA6E fro~ Larrv Nichols 2~-J~N-9~ 21:25 To W~om Tt Mav Concern (aoainl: RE: pro,~ect no. 18~--Torca Gortversion of Z.110 Fourth,St. H doqum~n,t I sioned on June 29th reqard~nq t~~ re~id~ncy of John Eliis in the above rePerenced huildin^ has suoerseded a similar documen#. I saaned on ~une 2~th. dthprwi~e, ~very~hinq r~mains ~he same, inciudFn4 my opposition ~o thn prn,~ect, ~zncerely, Larrv C. Nachols cc: C{ty Attorn~y The sender has beer~ told t4~at thzs r~es~~q~ was ,~u~t read. Mes5aae 22,...R~PLY, PAS$, O~I~~TE, qr ~ for optiort~: (oa$s! Cc ~~7l1 ~ou~c,~ ~ ~ T~ 1~ f~ ~ ftG--e J2- ~f ~~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~ ~Pt~ ~ ~1 ~' i ~- ~ ~June 21, 1990 Santa MoniCa City Council City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Moruca, CA 90401 RE: Appeal of TPC 183 (2110 4#h St.} Dear Councilmembers: In response to the Mayor Genzer's June 16 request for evidence documenhng the attempted eviction of Michele Brien, the on-site building manager {#9), I submit the fallowing: Exhibit Date 12 8/31/90 Letter from Apphcant to all tenants infornung them of reassignment of on-site custodial duties to Johri Moore (#3} 13 9/6/90 Letter from the ApphcanYs attorney to Bnen confirming a summary employment dismissal and ordering her to vacate her apartment unit. 14 8/26/90 Protest petition signed by 28 tenants. 15 9/Z4/90 My letter to the Applicant's property manager urging reconsideration and a halt to eviction proceedings against Brien. (Irrelevant, private introductory remarks are deleted.] 16 undated Tenant nohfication of Brien's reinstatement by the Applicant. Bnen had engaged the offices of Westside Legal Services for representatron when the matter was settled. Note that manager duties were transferred to a(pro-conversion) tenant who also resides m the building, so there was no excuse fflr removing Ms. Brien to provide for occupancy of a new hire. Likewise, no reason for dismissal was given, nor any provlsion for Brien's continued residence as a rent-paying tenant. Ms. Eileen Hecht spealang far the Applicant was not truthful when she stated categorically that Br~en was "never threatened with eviction " The Appellants argue that the faregoing is sufficiently coercive to challenge the validity of the consent for Unit 9. incerely, t ! / % t/~/1 ~%[/j ~~''~ (j 1 Lynne Auker 2110 4th St., #22 396-1341 DE~so~ ~ - -- - _~~..~~ ~__, 1~1'FSTME'~T PPOPEATIFS. INC TO ALL TENANTS AT 2120 FOURTH STREET SANTA M013ICA, CA 90405 Exh~bit 12 This letter is to advise you that effective today Augu5t 31, 1990, the new owners of yoiir building are The Homestead Group Associates and the day to day management of your building has been turned over to DELSON MANAGEMENT COMPANY. Although we did not obtain the necessary votes to convert this building under the Torca Amendment, we are examining other avenues for your building. All rent payments are due on the first of each month and should be made payable to: 2110 4th Street Associates, Tnc. ----~---------------------------- Effective immediately, your new on-site ~aanager is John Moore and he resides in Apartment #3 and may be reached at (213) 396-5956. The following numbers are beinq given to you so that sameone is available to you in case of an emergency: MANAGER: Jorn Moore (2137 :~95-695~ DELSON MANAGEMENT OFFICE: (MON-FRI) (2~3) 458-9905 PROPERTY $UPERVISOR BEEPER: (213) 707-0988 We are Iaoking forward to a long relationship with you. Sincerely, l.~N"~C ,'; - ~ ~ c~~~i r;~~I Valerie Hezlep ° Property Supervisor 233 Wtlshlre Boule~ard, Surce 525. Santa'~tomca, CaLfom~a 90401 1213) 458-9905 FAX (213) 395-7844 Delson DUANE HALL Exhi bi t 13 ATTORNEY AT LAW aSGC ADMIRALTY WAY SUITE I10 MARINA DEL RfY. CALIFORNIA 90292 5eptember 6, 1990 T~LEPHONE (213) 578-501I Ms. Michelle Brien 2110 4th Street #9 Santa Monica, Calif. 90405 Re: Occupancy at 2110 4th St. #9 Dear Ms. Brien: This off~ce represents the new landlord and managers of the property at 2Z16 4th St., Santa Monica, in which you re- side as a holdeover after termination of your employment. Mr. Delson chose not to take nor to require that you pay any sum for your occupancy in the premises for the 30-day period following termination of your employment. His intention is that you use that money to find another place to live and to assist you in r,ioving. His intention is furthermore, not to create a tenancy with you. You must bE out of the premises not later than midniqht on September 30, 1990. Although apartment vacancies are not rare please do not wait until the last minute to try to find one. Today my client received a letter from you to the effect that you say you are performing services at the building. You are reminded that your services and authority to act on behalf of the landlord terminated Iast month and that you are not authorized to do anything and in fact you are prohibited from performing any services or purporting to act on behalf of the landlord. There is a new manager at the Property. We trust you will timely vacate wzthout the necessity of further dela1 or of further proceedings. Very tru~~ s, ~~''l~ ~~1~I~E L r ~ - c =' ~ -''.~.i17 ~i ~ ~ j`i -'_D c~ K ~ ..=~. ~c _' 8 ~ 2~-P9 0 Exh~bit l1 ~'iar ~`.~;0 ur.ders'_gnec ~Pe.^id?:~3 G~ ti.^~ i[10 VSEW Apart_.~e=.ts, wis: to express cur dee~ co^cerr ove~ ~~e nexs t:a~ :f~c _e'_a ~~= ° e:: is r:ot ~c be k°~t oa as ~a :ager o~ our bL=1~~r.g. w~ feel that ~Iichele =^_aa alwaya done ~a ~xce~,~n~ ~ob. ,~ ~i ~°~ _s co be a ~..ar_acer livi :g on t:;e nrem? aes, ._~c~_e'_e n~s cur support as ~te best ~ereon ~or ~he -:ob. ah= :i: o:~.s ~he build~: g an~ its proble_ns ~et___ tha~! - ~. v~ne. S: c 'r.as srow^ 7erae' _` ~~ ~e exce~tic~a~ly con~etent wher_ it ecmes to ta{ing care ef a1= v~riety of s_tuat~cna ~.:xat ar_sA, ~v:~e`her i.t be pluz*.~bw~g proo~ems, .~o~sy weople, :r.aintenance, etc. 'r7e ~now hex as a pe~aer. w_^_o =i:3s great sat~s~a~ticn iz ~a{ing tre ~es~ ~osa_b'e care cf t: e ~:e bu~ld:. :g and all of it~ te. an*s. we a11 kr.ow Gf z~seroae in$ta. aee waea _~iichele aas ta:cen a s~ecial, pzr~onal in~e_es` in the ~ro;le::~s o~ irdiv_dua'- • ~c~a :ts a:~d gone o~t ^_` her way to help peop? e. ~ie alao iQ~L~V ~pS'~°Ct her £ci ~:le °l~DIl ha:~~~~ 4:1t:2 WP1Ci1 8~]''c 'r.as a~ways '_::sisted t:~at ho~~se rules and regulatior.s be fo1=o::=d se taat the Rio Vi2w has re:~air.ed a goo~, ~eacef+.~l p~ace for eve~y te, ar.t in t'r_A b•~i~di: g to iive. She ~s an ~deai ~~•anage:. ~;e fee= '-'_:at ~iichele Pas cor:trib~:~e[i a lot of e~e-gy to r.:ak~ :y thi~ b~a_ld~ag ~he finP ho~P for us aIl ti.3~ 1t -$. We ~ee' ver,J s~rongZy ~*~aW it wou'_si be a ve_p unfortuna~e thrng _or all concerzed :.f she we~e ~e~iaced~ by ano~:ar ma.^_age= . „ r' i~ S ~ T_ c e r e 1~, '•~~~ [-~".~'f l~/Lg'1, _~.}u:l~ '•l<.1i j~:i~~ r~':s.f..e'/ ,~~'; U G,r--~/ ~ v '~- ? ! ~i r ~~ i ' ~; ` i~ ~:~ ~ f ~~ 1 . . i %f ~'""`', ~'c'G1r"~ ~ ~ ~,`~'~; ~ ~'~~/~' ;~.+, fC~, y t ~r; ` /~ ~ -~ ~_/ ,N f t '~ ~;r y- i~ C ' l~ ,} ~;~ 1 ~ Ii"~ ~;+'~/ -^•~-!1~/'..~`~%1 ` 01 ` _ ~ . ~ C!Il' !' '~' - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,/ ~ +i O ~' ~''v/. ~Y?'1 I ~. l--~ ~~~ ~ ~yfC -"` (/j 1-~ • i1,,~ r.",~ ~ S c }-L ~ r~\ ' • r, ~/ /'/'~ i~ ii ,) ~ ` y" -1 / i ~r r-~ i ~1 ~ !: ~~ ~y / f 1 ~ % ` ! "" ~J`-t,~" ~1 `~, + ~~ l .~~/ /~ ' ~I ~G ~ . ' }r°~~ p~~ ^ • ~/'._;~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+" ~'~.~~~,~ ~rr! .- ~ .~.r .~\ 1 i1;~ `ti~ "~ ~l~1,rlA~rL.'.!J~ L~ .U ~~' , i~ i/r~ ~~ _i ~ ,~ 'i~ ~ ~`/^ , ~~ \ ~ [, ~~1 `.~"'~.n ~ ~ ; vL~ '. ` , ty, `'; ~~,y ~~;./: ~; . -- ~ Y,•~ - ~{~~y ~Vi~iil~~`. i~ ~ ^.1' ' ' `~' ~ ,~ '~ ; \ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~, • , ~ ~ 1'j !~ ~ n ~.-` ^ .r~ i 1 '~ r •. ~ ' ~ ~~ • ,^.-C. ' ~.~.~/ V !' v' 1~~ 1~'1/ I ~ r-~~ / ~ `~! v~ F `~ ~ !~ ` ~ I ~ 1 ~ - , ~ . ~ , J , ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ;: ~ ` i / i-' ,.'~ ', ~1 ~, I; + ; ~ ~~ ~ j ' .~ ~j~-r^~ 1 ., \ ~~ ~~,~ ... "' :1 ,~ ~/i .'.i~~.~ ~..1.,` ; i `v ~~''',`?.^"\, ;`"\ ,. r f r `~~+~ ~~ ,, ~ ~; , `\ ., ti , ~ ~' . /'~'-' ' ~ ~' ' +s ' '' f ~~f ~~/t'! ~ ~ ~~F ~r ~ ~~ /' < < ~ /~ ~± //~~v::-r . - ~ ~, -/~/./~:/~.+~-/~~ / ..~-V ~-~,+ ~{T-`-,~,~1~~lZl/~~~, ~~ ,~~(~.C~-_F~ ~'~~..~--~'~~`. ` 4~.J• ~_~-~~~`"`,^~ v ~.,•,:.~' ' ..- .~! i, =t„~~: _5 September 24, 1990 Yalerie Hezlep Delson Management 233 W~lsh~re Blvd =525 Santa Moni~a, CA 90401 Dear Ualer~e I was del~ghted to see your name on a letter from Delson Management and to real~ze that you had left Oakridge and that you were now ~ property superv~sor (2110 4th Street). i ' •-- -nninnnd `•• = i_i i~r i i iii n i rr~ i i -~i~~~~~ _... ~ i ~ rr~ i r ~ i ~ ~ ~ The respect I have for you prompts me to ask for your help in the urgent matter of the manager's office at my building. My wish is to appr~se you of the situation on the ground, so to speak, and to rely on you to find an su~table solution. E fally support Michele Brien's petitian to reta~n the position of property manager that she has held for the past seven years. I recall the diligence with which you conducted the search for reliable apartment managers: at a t~me when competent help is often scarce, DM would do well to reassess the opportunity to reinstate Michele. Balancing the dictates of the former owner, Mrs. de Britto, against the demands of the tenants for all those years is a tribute not only to Michele's formidable personal skills but to her effectiveness as a manager as well. Moreover, her enthusiastic comm~tment to maintaining order and tranquility went far beyond her ~ob description. As a resu~t, M~chele is highly esteemed, well-loved and trusted by virtually all of the tenants. The property itself has been well served by M~chele's full-time attention as resident manager. Her on-sate presence and long-term familiar~ty with each resident has been essent~al in r~onitoring a building which lacks adequate security systems. She was on the premises to handle emergencies and to supervise workmen. She personally enforced house rules, preserved quiet, and assumed groundskeeping ~hores (just one aspect which has deteriorated in recent weeks). For a modest expenditure, the building has had the 24-hour services of a devoted, experienced prafessionai rather than the desultory, self-serving a~d of the ne~vly-a~po~nted subst~tute. Valerie uezlep 9; 24; 90 Page 2 It may be that some management companies deliberately select tindiv~duals to serve as manager who will engender an adversarial relat~onsh~p with the tenants. If that ~s so, Delson Management could not have chosen a more suitable candidate than John Moore. Mr. Moore is held in almost un~versal contempt by the tenants of the bu~lding (before and after the assignment), and it is mystifying to me that DM would p]ace trust in someone w~th such dubious moral credent~als It es clear that he has neither the t~me nor the inc~inat~on to perform the appropr~ate d~ties of an apartment manager ke has already solic~ted {for S30/month} other tenants to handle his obl~gat~ons, most alarmingly, rout~ne access to the lcey box. I, far one, resent the idea that the building manager is profiteering by selling off his responsibil~t~es piecemeal, particularly when the commod~ty for sale is unlimited, unsupervis2d access to my apartment and personal belongings! (DM might examine its own civil liabil~ty in th~s regard.} And ~f the employing of John wasn't bad enough, I can't th~nk of an act that ~s better ca~culated to solidify resistance by the tenants to DM's ~ltimate plans for the butilding t~an to djscharge and pursue an evictian a~ainst Michele. Although I doubt if it is fuiiy appreciated by OM, Michele nat only fulf~lled her employee respons~bilities vis-a-vis Mrs. de Br~tta in the recent round of preTim,nary TORCA negot~ations, but tonsiderably assisted Delson as well, despite the imminent threat of loss of her home and livelihood in the process. I, of course, vigorously opposed the hostile takeover because the conversion offer was a transparently bad deal and Delson's approach to us was insupportably arrogant and dishonest -- a perception held by the ma~or~ty of tenants. But I believe OM now has a unique opportunity to try to rehabilitate its image, if it is so inclined, and to demonstrate a measure of goodwtill in the interest of positivp, cooperative future tenant relat~ons. H~r,ng John Moore as ~ts agent was a ma,jqr mistake which is not too late to make right. ResAectfully yours, /~ / , ~~ ~ i ~,!~,, !' r,l ~ ~'~yrin¢ kuker` ~ _ -- ;~ Ij ,~ ~; ~ UELS01~ :.xhibit 16 _~,..,,.,._.~„~ =4---- INtFCi~iFtiT PRf)PFiC~'F~ ~ti( `I'O ALL 4Tfi STREET TENAI3TS This ~etter is to advise all tenants that we are pleased to announce that Michelle Brien has been reinstated as the on- site manager at 2110 4th Street Apartments. We feel that this is a positive and t>enefici,aJ. decision. we would like to thank John Moore for his time and services during his term as manager. we welcome Michelle back and trust each of you will too. We are looking forward to a long term relationship with each of you. Sincerely, ~fAx-~tu~ Lr. ~ ~~_e C 1 ~ ~~ Delson Managemer~t Company 233 «dchire Roule~.ird, Suue 5z5, San[~ A1nni~a, Cahforma 9lW01 f2131 45R-~-9115 hA`C (2E11395_7R~kt ~Idd ~~ ~ ti ~LCL]1R71lIO~ pF 1CLL~1f_ R08S 1l~ID HJ-81CEL INY _, ~l~en Ros~ and 2, Haakel Iny deciarar 1, Kamest~ad Kansqemena, Znc. ooil~cta tha rents tor the apartmants ati Z110 !'HUrth Btrett, 8ant^ Monica~ Calitn~riia. 2. iJ• tianaQ~ over 900 rantal uaits. ~. YC is our qea~ral paliay, as atutsd in our RenCa2 Aare'meAti ~o disoourafl• tha payment ot rentx iA caih du~ to saeuritY and bookkea~inQ problems causad hy ea~ch p~yments. W~ have no systas !or ls~uinQ rosaipts far cash rentsl pay~aen~a, ~. Thare ~~^e a!rv cash paymants evary ~onth. 11~ r~Ittatanti3y aaaopt ta~h pay~eats #roeo tenants aho drop it oti at our o!l3ca. 1lr. Ksn~ is one of thoae tanant~ xho paya hf~ r~rit ia cssh. 5. N~ rsoord aIl rental paymenLe, xhether by aheak or aa~a, intio otsr aa~puter yroqram ta recard 1aCama and dat~rnine d~linauenai~s. i. Wo ~r~ ~aalosfnsr a capy af Hr. 1Cane's rantal paymen~ rocord. I d~alars und~r plASlty o! pariury und~r th. Iaw^ of th• 4twLS of G~1SfozAi~f tbat th• toreaoinq ig true and corr~ct. ~xsdUt~d ots thia 16th day oi Juna 299 C~~,i#Ornia. .i s l~nq~le;, ~sid~nt gamsaL, Ino. ElY~eJa Ros~~ p~oj~vL HaaaQer t~o~estead 1lanag~a~nt, 2na. KANE RON KANE RENTAL RECORD 15-Jun-92 2110 4th STREET, # 23, SANTA MONICA DUE DATE AMOUNT DATE PAID 1-25-91 491.Q0 1-15-91 2-15-91 245.50 2-19-91 3-1-91 491.00 3-5-91 4-1-91 491.Q0 4-4-91 5-1-91 491.00 5-2-91 6-1-91 491.00 5-3-91 7-1-91 491.00 7-3-91 8-1-91 491.00 8-2-91 9-1-91 507.00 9-5-91 10-1-91 507.00 10-3-91 11-1-9I 507.00 21-4-91 12-1-91 507.00 12-3-91 1-1-92 507.00 1-3-92 2-1-92 507_00 2-3-92 3-1-92 507.00 3-2-92 4-1-92 547.00 4-3-92 5-1-92 507.00 5-4-92 6-1-92 507.00 6-4-92 <>oUU<>UUU<>«>ooo<><><><><><>UUU<><><><><>U«><>UU< 4thRENT 2110 4th STREET RENT CHECKLIST JANUARY, 1992 UNIT # TENANT 1 GRANRATH & OSTI 2 BILL KAPPEL,MAN 3 JOHN MOORE 4 CULV~Ft/LARRY NICHOLS 5 ANDRAS MAROS 6 LUDMILAPRIVO 7 DOUG BROWN S VIGIL 9 MICHELLE BF22EN/EMERY 10 ALFRED NELSON 11 JACOB YASHAR 12 KRIEGS/ABARCA 13 WILLIAM ARMS 14 BEV/DAVID IANGSTREET 15 JON HALL 16 ERIC ANDERSON/ELLIS 17 THOMAS PARKS 18 JOYCE HOUSER/WARD 19 RICHAI2D KLEIN 20 ANTHONY/SAIDY/ONIV 21 BILL RYAN 22 LYNN AUKER 23 RON KANE 24 MELINDA/S. GORDON 25 DEE ANNE DAVIDSON 26 MARY HALE & L. GAL,E 27 CATIA RUBOGTTI AMOUNT RENT PAID -------- - -------- 437.00 437.00 468.00 468.00 468.00 468.00 716.00 716.00 507.00 507.00 507.00 507.00 4b8.00 468.00 468.00 468.00 MAI3AGER 468.00 468.00 682.00 682.00 468.00 468.00 468.0~ 468.00 468.00 468.00 540.00 540.dU 468.00 468.00 ~oo.oo ~oo.ao 468.00 468.00 584.00 584.00 468.00 468.00 453.00 453.00 584.00 584.00 507.00 507.U0 742.00 742.a0 507.00 507.00 540.00 540.00 400.00 400.00 13,554.00 13,554.00 ---------- --------- <><><><><><><o<><><><><><><><><><><><><><O<><><>o«>ov<><>< 4thRENT 2110 4th STREET RENT CHECKLIST FEBRUARY, 1992 AMQiINT UNIT # TENANT RENT ----- PAID -------- ----- 1 --------------------- GRANRATH & OSTI - --- 437.00 437.OU 2 BILL KAPPELMAN 468.00 468.00 3 30HN MOORE 468.00 468.00 4 CULVER/LARRY NICHOLS 716.00 716.00 5 ANbRAS MAROS 507.00 507.00 6 LUDMILAPRIVO 507.00 507.00 7 DOUG BROWN 468.00 468.00 8 VIGIL 46$.00 468.00 9 MICHELLE BRIEN/EMERY MANAGER 10 ALFRED NELSON 468.00 468.00 11 JACOB YASHAR 682.00 b82.00 12 KRIEGS/ABARCA 468.00 468.00 13 WILLIAM ARMS 468.00 468.00 14 BEV/DAVID L031GSTREET 468.00 468.00 15 JON HALL 540.00 540.00 16 E12IC ANDERSON/ELLIS 468.00 468.00 17 THOMAS PARKS 700.00 700.00 I.8 JOYCE HOUSER/WARD 468.00 468.00 19 RICHARD RLEIN 584.00 584.00 20 ANTHONY/SAIDY/ONIV 468.00 468.00 21 BILL RYAN 453.00 453.00 22 LYNN AUKER 584.00 584.00 23 RON KANE 507.00 507.00 24 MELIPfDA/S. GORDON 742.00 742.00 25 DEE ANNE DAVIDSON 507.00 507.00 26 MARY HALE & L. GALE 540.00 540.00 27 CATIA RUBOGTTI 40Q.00 400.00 13,554.00 13,554.00 4thRENT 2110 4th $TREET RENT CHECKLIST FIARCH, 1992 AMOUNT UNIT # TENANT RENT PAID -° - 1 - -------------------- GRANRATH & OSTI -- -------- 437.00 -------- 437.00 2 BILL KAPPELMAN 468.00 468.00 3 JOHN MOORE 465.00 468.00 4 CULVER/LARRY NICHOLS 716.00 716.00 5 ANDRAS MAROS 507.00 507.00 6 LUDMILAPRIVO 507.00 507.00 7 DO[IG BROWN 468.00 468.00 8 VIGIL 468.00 468.00 9 MICHELLE SRIEN/EMERY MANAGER 16 ALFRED NELSON 468.00 468.00 11 JACOB YASHAR 682.00 682.00 12 KRTEGS/ABARCA 468.00 468.00 13 WILLIAM ARMS 468.00 468.00 14 BEV/DAVID LONGSTREET 468.00 468.00 15 JON HALL 540.00 540.00 16 ERIC ANDERSON/ELLIS 468.00 468.00 17 THOMAS PARKS 700.U0 700.00 18 JOYCE HOUSER/WARD 468.00 468.00 19 RiCHARD KLEZN 584.00 584.00 20 ANTHONY/SAIDY/ONIV 468.00 468.00 21 BILL RYAN 453,OQ 453.00 22 LYNN AUI~R 584.00 584.00 23 RON IfANE 507.00 507.00 24 MELINDA/S. GORDON 742.00 742.00 25 DEE ANNE BAVIDSON 507.~0 507.00 26 MAI2Y HALE & L. GALE 540.00 540.00 27 CATIA RUBOGTTI 400.00 --- 400.00 --- ---- 13,554.00 ---------- 13,554.00 <><><>o<><>«x><><><><><><><>o<>ooo<t><><><><>«><><>o<>< 4thREN 21i0 4th STREET RENT CHECKLIST APRIL, 1992 AMOUNT UNIT ---- # TENANT - - -- ------- RENT -------- PAID -------- 1 -------- ----- GRA~IRATH & OSTI 437.00 437.00 2 BILL KAPPELMAN 468.00 468.00 3 JOHN MOORE 468.Otl 468.00 4 CULVER/LARi2Y NICHOLS 736.00 716.00 5 ANDRAS MAROS/CAIRN 507.00 507.00 6 LUDMILAPRIVO 507.00 507.00 7 DOUG BROWN 468.00 468.00 8 VIGIL 468.00 468.D0 9 MICHELE BRIEN/EMERY MANAGER MAI3AGER 10 AI.FRED NELSON 468.00 468.00 11 3ACOB YASF3AR 682.00 682.00 12 KRIEGS/ABARCA 468.00 468.00 13 WILLIAM ARMS 458.00 468.00 14 BEV/pAVID LANGSTREET 4b8.00 465.00 15 JON HALL 540.00 540.00 26 ERIC ANDERSON/JOHN ELLIS 468.00 468.00 17 THOMAS PARXS 700.00 700.00 18 JOYCE HOiiSER/WARD 468.00 468.00 19 RICHARD KLEIN 584.00 584.00 20 ANTHONY/SAIDY/ONiV 468.00 468.00 21 BILL RYAN/ W. SPAVEN 453.00 453.00 22 LYNN AUKER 584.00 584.00 23 RON KANE 507.00 507.U0 24 MELINDA/S. GORDON 742.00 742.00 25 DEE ANNE DAVIDSaN 507.00 507.OQ 26 MARY HALE & L. GALE 540.00 54~.00 27 GAL LIPKIN 4U0.00 ----- 400.00 ------ --- - 13,554.00 ---------- -----°--- - - --- 13,554.00 ---------- ---------- 4thREN 2110 4th STREET RENT CHECKLIST MAY, 1992 AMOUNT UNIT # TENANT RENT PAID 1 GRANRATH & OSTI 437.00 437.00 2 BILL KAPPELMAN 468.00 4b8.00 3 JOIiN MOORE 468.00 468.00 4 CULVER/LARRY NICHOIS 716.00 716.00 5 ANDRAS MAROS/CAIRN 507.00 507.OQ 6 LUDMILAPRiV4 507.00 507.00 7 DOUG BROWN 468.00 468.00 8 VIGIL 468.00 468.00 9 MICHELE BRIEN/EMERY MANAGER MANAGER 10 ALFRED NELSDN 468.00 458.00 11 3ACOB YASHAR 682.00 682.00 12 KRIEGS/ABARCA 468.00 468.00 13 WILLIAM ARMS 468.00 468.00 14 BEV/DAVID ZANGSTREET 468.00 468.00 15 JON HALL 540.00 540.00 i6 ERIC ANDERSON/30HN ELLIS 468.00 468.00 17 TH~MAS PARKS 700.00 700.00 18 30YCE HOUSER/WARD 468.00 468.00 19 RICHARD KLEIN 584.00 584.00 20 ANTHONY/SAIDY/ONIV 468.00 468.00 21 BILL RYAN/ W. SPAVEN 453.00 453.00 22 LYNN AUKER 584.00 584.00 23 RON KANE 507.U0 507.00 24 MELINDA/S. GORDON 742.00 742.00 25 DEE ANNE DAVIDSON 507.00 507.00 26 MARY HAI.E & L. GALE 540.00 540.00 27 GAL LIPKIN 400.00 --------- 400.00 - ---------- 13,554.00 13,554.00 4thREN 2110 4th BTREET RENT CHECKLIST 22-May-92 JUDIE, 1992 AMOUNT UNIT # TENANT 12ENT - PAID ---------- ---- 1 - ----------------------- GRANRATH & OSTI ----..__ 437.00 437.00 2 BILL KAPPEI~NIAN 468.00 468.00 3 JOHN MOORE 468.00 468.00 4 CiJLVER/LARRY NICHOLS 716.00 716.00 5 ANDRAS MAROS/CAIRN 507.00 507.00 6 LUDMILAPRIVO 507.00 507.00 7 DOUG BROWN 468.00 468.00 8 VIGIL 468.00 468.00 9 MICHELE BRIEN/EMERY MANAGER MAPIAGER 10 ALFRED NELSON 468.00 468.00 11 JACOB YASHAR 682.00 682.00 12 KRIL"GS/ABARCA 468.00 468.00 13 WILLIAM ARMS 468.00 468.00 14 BEV/BAVID LANGSTREET 468.00 468.00 15 JON HALL 540.00 540.fl0 16 ERIC ANDERSON/JOHN ELLIS 468.00 468.fl0 17 THOMAS PARKS 700.00 700.00 18 JOYCB HOUSER/WARD 468.0~ 468.00 19 RICHARD KLEIN 584.00 584.fl0 20 ANTHONY/SAIDY/ONIV 468.00 468.fl0 21 BILL RYAN/ W. SPAVEN 453.00 453.00 22 LYNN AUKER 584.00 584.00 23 RON KANE 5b7.Od 507.00 24 MELINDA/S. GORDON 742.04 742.00 25 DEE ANNE DAVIDSON 507.06 507.00 26 MARY HALE & L. GAI.E 540.00 540.00 27 GAL LIPKIN 4QO.OQ --------- 4DO.fl0 - ---------- 13,554.06 --------- --------- 13,554.00 - ---------- - ----------- June 16, 1992 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401-3295 To Whom it may concern; Ran Rane lived in a guest house behind my home in Beverly Hills for appraximately 10 months. He rented the guest house from me from 199o through early January of 1991. He moved out in mid- January of 1991. Yours truly, Eli Kamara ~ ~'r~~ ~~i~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ DECLARA~'ION OF DAVID W. LONGSTTtEET ~wL' Sul~ject: Appeal of Planninq Cammission Approval of Tenant Partieipating Conversion Case TPC-183, 211f3 4th Street, OP2 Applieant: HR Capital~Rossmore Hearing Continued to June 3R, i992, for in limine evidence relating to Sub-Leased Units Following the hearing before the Santa Monica City Council, on Tuesday, June 16, 19R2, my memory was refreshed pertaining to the following items relating to the tenancy of Anthony Saidy, who ho~ds the lease on Unit 20, Tn addition, other information has come into my possession which indicates that the signatures for Unit 1 are invalid, and possibly those of Unit 16, a11 of which is set- out to the best of my information and belie€, below: REGARDING UNIT 20, ANTHONY SAIAX'S SIGNATURES ARE iNVALIp Mr. Saidy's home adtiress and phone number are: 435 So. Lafayette Road Los Angeles, CA 90057 (213j 383-7206 1. The telephone number was re-confirmed riuring three phone calls between Mr. Saidy and myself which took place on June 17 and IS, 1992. I~r. saidy initiated that series of calls in response to the radio broadcast of the hearing. 2. Original~y, Mr. Saidy cal~ed me just before ~e decided to s~gn the conversion and purchase forms. He left a message an my answerinq machine asking me to return has ca].1. At that tzme, I c~id not know who Anthony Saidy was. When I re~urned his call, he informed me that he had heard that I submitted a written objection to the TORCA agplication. He wanted me to read him that document over the telephone. Documents that I wrote in this matter are too long and detailed to be read over the phone. We had a conversation about the pzos and cons of the conversion, aftiex which I sent him a copy{s) of my protests. 3. 5aidy explained to me that Ron Deison had contacted him, at his home to discuss signing the TORCA forms. 5aidy told me that Lee Riley, who had been living in his unit, had mov~d out. He was trying to decide whether to terminate the lease or wait for the conversion and sell his option. 4. Saidy called me back after readi~g my documents and said he agreed the price was much too high, ~nd with other issues I raised. However, Ron Delson (HR Rossmore) told him they already had mare than the required nua~ber of signatuxes, and were assured of getting the permit. Saidy said he did not want to stand in the way of the majority of tenants, since only a small number af tenants were against the conversion, and it was likely to go thraugh. By holding on to the unit he cou~d sell his option. 5aidy had already signed the forms when he called me. Shortly thereafter he rented the unit to the currehti tenant, Borzs Zakstelsky. [In reality, applicant anly had abnut 16 signatures at that time, and Saidy's vote was one of the final votes needed.~ 5. In the most recent phone conversations on J~ne 17 - 18, ~992, someone had infornt~d Mr. Saidy that his name had been raised at the City Counai.l hearing. He wanted to know i~ I could te11 him what was going on, and why his name was used. I informed him about what happened at bath the Planning and Zoning Cam~ission and City Council Commissions, and about thE provisions of subdivisians (d} and (n) of Section 2001, of Article -2- XX of ~he Santa Monica Charter (invalidation of sub-lessee szgnatures due to an absence of privity, and invalidation of sublessor s$gnatures in the absence of six months of continuous residency prior to signing). I also read him the speciPic provisions of those subdivisions, attached hereto. 6. Saidy readily admitted that he dQes not live in the unit and did not live there when he signed the forms. But, he did not know he was not eligible to szqn. Saidy acknowledged thati Rod Delson contacted him at his current residence about signing the forms and felt Delson should have known his siqnature would be invalid. 7. Mr. Saidy also asked me if everyone had been informed of the hearing, because he did not receive a notice. He reasaned that Bor~s zakstelsky probably failed to sent him the nati.ce. 8. Aithough I requested Mr. SaiBy write a letter for the hearing on June 30, 1991 explaining that he was not a resident, he did not want to do that. When I asked him to attend the upcoming hearing, he said he wouid be out af town that day. Mr. Saidy deClared he is willinq to admit tne facts relating to tenancy and residency a~nd said he woul.d ca11 prummond Buckley of the Planning Staff and relate these facts. However, by the third phone ca11, Saidy had spoken with several other people, and decided simply to "stonewall." H~; tvld me the City Council ~uight s~ii2 affizm t.he Planning and Zoning Commissions deoision, beeause "How could anyone prove he did not live there." One of the appe~lants attempted to speak with Boris 2akstelsky, the current resident in Unit 20. Mr. Zaksteisky merely stated that he was told by Saidy not to get involvcd. --3- REGARDING Unit 1, THE SIGNATURES APPEAR TO BE INVALID The na~ne and address of the lease-holder pn Unit 1 are: Rick and/or 5hari (Grandrath) osti 15i~4 W. Coventry Place Palmdale, CA 93551 9. A1tho~gYt I have not had any personal contact with the lease-holder themselves, I obtained their address from their lessee, James iiowell, wzth their knowledge and permission. It was also conveysd to me at ~.Ytat time that neither #2ick or Shari osti signed the TORCA forms. 10. The present accupant James Howell told me that he entered ti~e premises as a"room-mate," the same guise used by other absentee leaseholders in our building. But, he acknowledged he p~ys rent to Rick and Shari Osti in Palmdale. They in turn pay the rent to 2110 4th Street Associates {HR Rossmore). Therefore, his status, in fact, is sub-lessee. REGARIIING UNIT 16, TIiE 52GNATURES MAY BE INV.~,ID: 11. Eric Anderson halds the 3.ease on Unit 16. To the best of my knowledge or belief, Mr. Anderson has not lived in his unit for at least I 1/2 years. I do not know whether Eric Anderson himself, vr ,~ohn Ellis the sub-lessee, signed the TARCA farms, but it is crucial to resolve that issue and that ttte actual forms be examined for the sfgnatures and the date of siqning. According to one of the appellants who spoke with John E11is, Mr. Ellis has all along believed that Anderson m~st have signed the forms for Unit 16, because as a roommate/sublessEe he had no -4- authorzty to sign. However, he has naw beqan to wo~der whether paperwork he was given tq sign in Anderson's absence to allegedly "show who was currently living in the unit" mzght, in fact, have been TORCA forms. 12. To the best of my knowledge and belief Eric Anderson did n~t sign the forms for the first TORCA forms, and had left the premises at the timE of new filing in July 1991. Delson representatives approached individuai, non-opposing, tenants in an attempt ta obtain signatures, or re-affirmation of signatures for the that seeond application. It is passible that John Ellis signed the forms during one of those visits. Of course, as in the case of units 1 and 20, if Eric And~rson signed after he vacated, his signatures would be invalid. If John El.la.s siqned, as a sub- lessee, unless he was paying his rent directly to the management with their express or implied consentat, his signatures wou~d also be invalid. SUMMARY 13. To the besti o€ my knowledge and Y~elief HR Rossraore, or their management representative, Rod Delson Associates, have possession of the lease for each unit in the building. It was only in the MurakamifKriegs {Unit i2), and perhaps Ellis/Anderson (Unit 26) that the app2icant approsched the su13-lessec. Agpellant kncw, or had reason to know, who the true lessor was in each case, and they knew, or had reason to know, who signed the forms. It is only logical and a matter of routine when obtaining signatures for a }.egal document to confirm the siqnature on the eonversion forms witih tha~ on the rental agreement. Shari Granrath and Gina Osti, -5- listed at residents on the TORCA form, but Rick Osti and/or Shari Osti are the leaseholders. ~ohn Ellis and Eric Anderson are listed as residents, but Eric Anderson has been out of state for almost the entire length af this ToRCA pracess. mo the best of my knowledge and belief, each of the lessors, Grandrath (Osti), Anderson and Saidy were not residing in the premises when they signed the conversion and/or purchase forms. Both the znitial TORCA forms and the forms for the new application in July were mailed to them to sign. If the names on the conversion form flid not mateh the names af people actually residing on the premises, HR Rossmore should have been put on notice of that fact. If John E11is signed the forms znstead oF lessor Eric Anderson, appJ.icant should have been put on notice. Then aqain, Gary Murakami was not a lessor, and that should have put the appiicant on notice that something was wronq. Contact with someone at their home in Los Angeies, as in the case of Anthony Saidy; ar, with an alleqed tenant out of state, as perhaps in the case o€ Anderson, should have put applicant on notice that they were using invalid signatures. HR Rossmore cannot claim, in good fazth, that they had na input or knowledge of the fact that non-~easeholders were lieing on the premises, or tnat, in particular, Anthony Saidy was not a resident of 2110 4th Street at the time he signed the forms. Appli.cant had either ~o eittter be aware of its misrepresentation, or acting in total disregard and contempt nf that fact when submitting the application. 14. ~o the best af my knowiedge and belief, HR Rossmore attempted to contact lessors following the City Council hearing. -6- They were able to contact lessar Grandrath or Osti, and Saidy, bu~ were unsuccessful in contacting John Ellis. What result and effect those contacts wi11 ~ave of events must await the upcoming hearing on June 30. 15. For the benefit of sub-lessees, I therefore request, if possihle, that tne Council and City Attorney inalude a statement in their opinion in this matter, regardless of the final decision, that sub-lessees, having no knawledge of the terms and provisions in the lease against sub-leasing, and lacking an actual intent to subvert those terms and provisions, retain a possessory right to remain in their units and not be subjected to eviction on the issue of breach of contract by sub-lessors. 16. Counsel for applicant stated to the Cauncil that the practzce of his firm in handling TORCA applications is to rely on the applicant and ~ist everyone in the unit or on the lease. Then when actually selling unit they verify lessor, lessee, seniors, disabled, etc. Declarant respectfully submits that such a procedure invites error, and abrogates the duty of counsel to insure information received from a client is accurate and correct before filing the TORCA. It is a flaw which invites arror and misrepresentation. As in this case~ such misrepresentations or errors may not k3e ~aught when an agplication is not opposed, or appealed. Such errors are directly related ta the failing of both applicant and counsel. 17. Issues of coercion exist in this application as have been related in documents of record and testimony delivered under oath. Issues of misrepresentation of the facts and issues exist in this application relating to signatures on conversion and purchase -7- forms for Units 1, 9, 12, 15, 2o and 23. (Additional documents will be introduced for the upcoming hearing to demonstrate applicant's misrepresentation concering Unit 9.) Application withdrawal because of caercfon and misinformation, and subsequent misrepresentation in this final application demonstrate significant number of major violations of the TORCA ordinance. Based on the showing of coercion and misrepresentation which has been demonstrated in this matter, declarant requests that if the City Council denies this application it include a rulinq in its decision that applicant is esto~sped from €utnre efforts to convert the 2110 4th Street premises. Eaeh and every fact and issue as set-out above, is based on my personal knowledge or ohservation, or upon such information and belief as this declarant has been informed of by the person or persans named herein, and based on such persanal knowledge and observation, and believinq sucri information as reaeived to be true and correct, I have set out such ~acts and information herein without change or distortion. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of tne State of California that the foregaing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~ i ~~ ~ / ~ 1 ~n ,~ . ~ ~-, F ~.~ J ~,-~. ~ 1 ~ t ~. ~ `~ 9 -8- SANTA MONICA CHARTER AYticle XX Tenant Ownership Rights 5ection 2001. Definitions (d) Intention to Purchase Te~ant. Any tenant wha has personaliy occupied his or her unit in the bui~ding continuously for a period of at least six (6) months immediateiy preceding the date the tenant signs a Tenant Intent ta Purchase. (n) Tenant. Any person who is an authorized tenant of an owrter of a residential rental building for which a Tenant- Participating Conversion Application is being processed. AmendEd at Mun. Election Nov. 11, 1990. Cert. by Res. #6121 CCS City of Santa Monica - Departmenc of Lana Use & Transportatioa Management Development CITY PLANNING DIVISION TENANT-PARTI~I~'ATING CONVERSION APPLICATTON fTORCAI ] $UMMARY COYER SHEET CITY USE ONLY: F~le Number• TPC- ~~7 Application Fee Paid: Subdrv~sion Map Number S~~ ~D~ pn '~3 1 (If available} Date Accepted for F~ling: ~~~ ~1 Receipt: f~]3 ~~~ By: ~Q la Tax Code Identification Map Book A' 42$9 Page !/• Q13 Parcel 1~: QQ$ b Proaect Address• 21 lQ Fourth Street Number of Uniis: ~7 Zone: OP_2 $ant~ Mon~ca. CA 90405 c Legal Descnpvon• Portjons of L.ots 1 and 2. and the northwesteriv one-half q~ ],.q~ 3, ~n B1pGk 3 of the Lucas Tract. in the Citv of Santa Monica. Cpup~y of I.as Aneeles, State of California. as ner mao reoosde~ in Boolc 6. Paee 221 of Miscellaneous Records_ in the office of the Coutitv Recorder of sa~d Countv 2a_ Owner(s) Name (if corporahon, ~nclude names of principal stockholders): HR Can~tal-Rossrr~ore. A California G~n~r~t P~rtn~rshio b Ackdress Go Mr. Rod Delson 233 Wrlshire Bl~d, $u~F~ $2~ Santa Mon~ca. CA 9040i c. Phone: (213) 458-9905 (Attach Prelimmary Tctle Report} 3a. Agent (~f any) Name: Paul C De$ant~~ b. Titie: Attomev c. ~`~rm: L.aw Offices of Paul C. DeSanqs d. Phone: (2131 453-1888 __,_,:~:y _ ~ ~ ~ - ~=" - - . - ~ ` ~~ y~,~.:- . - r •~~-~:~-.~~ , : ri =;: .~ i~ ~ ~~`,~ .~to~ay~ Eu~~y~ -~~: ~a - - ~ - :~•~~.:;~,~ ~~-~~~,~:~rrc~ a~g,}~ cz ~ ai~rJ a~uaime'I 08 =~~ " _ . < -_~-- -.~.. ~=~ abt ~ ~y+i . .~Z ,_ _ .=- _ . - - - - /t ~ ' ~ - ~~ ~ uospineQ uaEaaQ SZ /~ /~ LS uopso~ a}~reydaas ~g uop~o~ epui~ay~ (T~ bZ City of Santa Monica Department of Land Use & Transportation Management Development CITY PLANNING DIVISIO IY II. UNIT/TE1~fANT IIIFORMATI01~ Apt. No. Tenant Names Length Agreed Intent Senior Disablod No. of (name(s) of of occu- to to (65 (r~Piv- Bed- (essee and pancy Conver- Purchase Years ing gov- rooms ali adult (months) sion Form of age emmental (kcupants) [as of (plrase signe~ or older) disabi~ity 7/1/91] check) (please (please (please chcck) check) checkj t 2 ~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]0 I2 i3 i4 l5 ] fi 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 , Shari Granrath & Gma Ost~ 84 / Siif Kappteman 146 / / John Moore l68 / / (2) Culver N~chols & Larrv N~chols 153 Adnanne Maros & Andras Maros 49 Ludmila Pnvo 120 / ~/ Doug Brown 165 / Chns V~g~] ]5 / Michele Brien 88 / / Alfred Nelson ]82 ~/' ~ yes ~ ~ (2) Jacob Yashar 124 ~/ ~ ~Binsdu-lC~' ~'Z2-G[Z Sabrina Kriegs & /' ~ ~ W i~~'• ~ K.~+1 to to ~~~' 9~ Gary Murakami 63 ~ ~~ ( Willzam Arrns 263 / yes ( Beverly L.ongstreet & Dav~d Longstreet 163 yes Jon Ha11 22 / y~ tiit~5 Eric Anderson Rc John {~fen 30 / ~/ (2) Steve Gates 11G layce Houser 79 / ( Richard Klein 90 / / Anthony Saidy 212 / ~/ Amelia Ryan & BiII Ryan Ib4 yes ( Lynn Auker & Saarin Auker • -- ~ 17 , , ~ ;. ^-- *~-- , c ~_ < .r .~ ~ City of Santa Monica Department of I,and Use & Transportation Management Development CITY PLAI~INING DIVISIDN III. SELLER FINAN~tNG INFORMAT[ON (If offered) ~ ~ 4d:. Unit Na. Tenant's Name Maximum p~~}~ ~1y ~~~ Discount Price Price ~~) * ~~) " 1 Shari Granrath & Gina Osti $165,000 * 5155,000 * 2 Bill Kappleman ~157,500 * Si47,500 * 3 John Moore $157,500 * $147,500 *` 4 Culver Nichois & Larry Nichols $19d+~ " $1~~~ * 5~ Adrianne Maros & Andras Maros $162,500 * $152,500 * ( Ludmila Privo $162,500 * $152,500 * 7 Doug Brown $162,500 * $152,500 * S Chris Vigil $165,000 * $155,000 * 9 Michele Brien ~ $162,500 * $152,500 * l0 Alfred Nelson $1b5,000 * 5155,OOf} * ~ ~ ]acob Yashar $2~~~ * $~~'~ r 12 Sabrina Kriegs & Gary Murakami $157,5(?0 * $147,500 * 13 Will'sam Arms $157,500 * 5147,500 * 14 Beverly Longstreet & David Longstreet $t65,000 * $155,000 * 15 ]on Hal] $157,500 * ~147,500 * 16 Eric Anderson & John Ellen $157,500 * $147,500 * 17 Steve Gates $205,000 * $195,000 * 18 Joyce Haaser $167,500 * $157,500 "` l9 Richard Klein $167,500 * $157,500 * 20 Anthony Saidy $167,500 * $157,500 * 21 Amelia Ryan & Sill Ryan $170,00() * S1b0,000 * 22 Lynn Auker & Saarin Auker $162,500 * $I52,500 * 23 Ron Kane 5165,000 * $155,000 * 24 Melinda Gordon & Stephanie Gordon $200,OOQ "` $19~+000 * 25 Deeann Davidson $157,500 * $147,500 " 26 Mary Hale & Lawrence Gate $157,500 * $147,500 * 27 Dafaie ~?~er, Tzipe Schiner, Mima Megolnik & Deeni Eber 5157,500 * -~147,500 * * Notes (continued oo next page): 1) The Earl~+ Purchase DisGOUnt Price is ~aiid for Sny tenant who qcer~Cises his/haltheir option w~thm thirty (3Q) daYs~ ~ ~e ~ f ~ ~ ~ g ~~ T_ , ~ ~ ge -F a nal ~- ~"~ - ; the "White Slip", and who closes escrow no later than ninety (90) daYs a~ter tn~ v~nire Slip issuance date. .~.,~.,:.. ~ .. ~ ve inciude the following improvements to be don~ b ri _~ : ~ . ~ by Uwner W units ~ 2) ces a o Purchase p purchased by Participating Tenants: ' A. INSTALL A~~~ ~ ARP ~ ~ NG, or pur~C~n~ ~~ant ma ~."~~~ ~ ~ i'eimis~ir's~ ' ~l'".~ ow~ ,, ~~"~ ~R ~ provided existing carpet is in good condition. S. INSTAL~ ~'l1~. . -=~l11~.~; B~d~~ ~1'~,~ . ~~..... F of new base t t l i tan ns al a ro o~f. covering and u~cluding ~~ _ .. ~ , : .. . . ~.. _ t~.~:~"' , fii.:. T1k :,.Rh f m, d . ~.:4n i(, 7'?~S' ~`~; ... _ _ -3 . . _ purchas~ng tenant may choose a floonng re~m6ursement allowance equal to awner's cost of floonng ar~d mstallation, provided existing floonng ~s m good condiuon. C. PAINT ALL INTERIOR WALLS, or purchasing tenant may choose a paunt re~mbursement allowance equai to owner's cosf of paint mcludmg Iabor, provided ex~sting pamt ~s tin good condrtion. 3) iVo owner fnancing is be~ng offered. Tenants are aware that current ]oan pol~cies of local lenders may require 709b of the tenants to exercise iheir opt~ons at the same time in order for tenants to qualify for condominium loans. 4) Seller ~s not requ~nng any spec~fic down payment as a condit~on of sale. Currently, lenders vary on the amount of dawn payment required. The down payment required ranges usually from 10% to 20~, depend~ng on the lertaer and the buyer's ineome and credit history. For more informat~on, buyers are advised to contact their lender, or 2local lender such as Firsi Federal Savmgs. This -nformation is being offered for informational purposes only_ Se!]er cannot guarantee what polic~es len[}ers may have 3n the future. 5) Under Arncle XX ("TORCA"), Sect~on 2004(a)(2), one year after the White Slip is issaed the tenant sales pnce may be ad~usted according to any change reflected ~n the pric~ mdex occumng dunng the precedmg year as published by the Bnreau of Labor Stat~stics. 6) ~ach Max~mum Purchase Pnce l~sted above is only val~d for ths tenant whose name is listed for that ~mt.