SR-121791-6D
, '-D
.
CA:RMM:bar937 ccOOadrlIi1i91
City Council Meeting 12-17-91 Santa Monica,
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city Attorney
SUBJECT: Certification of statement of Official Action Denying
Appeal of Planning commission Denial of TPC 150 and
VTTM 50590 to Allow the conversion of an Eight-unit
Apartment Building to Condominiums
At its hearing held on November 12, 1991, the City Council
denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's denial of
Tentative Participating conversion Application 150 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 50590 to allow the conversion of an
eight-unit apartment building to condominiums. The City Council
directed staff to prepare a statement of Official Action
containing its findings.
The accompanying Statement of Official Action has been
prepared and sets forth the City Council findings with respect to
this appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
Statement of Official Action be approved.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Barry A. Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney
'-I>
- 1 - DEe 1 7 JUJ
.
SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: Tenant-Participating Conversion 150,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590
LOCATION: 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
APPLICANT: Sunisa Pongputmong
CASE PLANNER: Susan White, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: Appeal of Planning commission Denial of
Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590 to allow
the conversion of an eight-unit apartment
building to condominiums.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
11/12/91 Date.
Approved project based on the following findings
and subject to the conditions below.
xxx Denied TPC 150, VTTM 50590.
Other.
Following public hearings held on October 8, 1991 and
November 12, 1991, the City Council rejects the appeal and denies
TPC 150 and VTTM 50590 based upon the following findings:
FINDINGS
1- The applicant seeks to convert her eight-unit apartment
building to a condominium project pursuant to Santa Monica City
Charter Section 2000 et seq. (t'TORCAt') .
2. Pursuant to TORCA, the applicant was required to file a
Tenant-Participating Conversion ("TPC") application and a Vesting
Tentative Map ( "VTTM" ) application with the city's Planning
Department. TORCA further requires that prior to filing the TPC
application, the applicant had to obtain tenant approval of the
conversion by tenants occupying no less than 2/3 of the
residential units in the building.
3. On February 6, 1991, the applicant submitted her TPC
application, TPC 150. The Planning Department accepted this
application for filing on the same date. This application
- 2 -
--
.
.
indicated that tenants occupying 75% of the units in the building
approved of the proposed conversion. The applicant submitted her
VTTM application on March 19, 1991, VTTM 50590. The Planning
Department accepted this application for filing on March 27,
1991.
4. The applicant's TPC application and VTTM application came
before the Santa Monica Planning Commission on May 1, 1991 for
public hearing. At that hearing, several tenants of the subject
property objected to the approval of these applications
contending that the required tenant approval for the conversion
had not been legally obtained. These tenants contended that the
tenant approval had been obtained through coercion and
misrepresentation.
5. Based on the objections voiced at the public hearing, the
Planning Commission continued the hearing to enable city staff to
verify that the tenant approval for the conversion had been
properly obtained.
6. city staff subsequently sent letters to all tenants at the
apartment building inquiring whether tenant approval of the
conversion had been obtained through coercion or
misrepresentation. Tenants residing in six: of the units
responded. Three of the tenants responding indicated that the
applicant had applied coercion to obtain the required tenant
approval. One of the tenants who was listed by the applicant as
approving of the conversion, Edna Wilson-Hoesch, specifically
wrote in response that the applicant had threatened her with
immediate eviction or going out of business pursuant to the Ellis
Act if the tenant did not indicate her approval of the
conversion. While Ms. wilson-Hoesch subsequently wrote a letter
asking that her first letter be retracted, she did not
specifically retract her allegations of coercion and
misrepresentation.
7. The Planning Commission denied TPC 150 and VTTM 50590 on
September 4, 1991 finding that there had been coercion and
misrepresentation in obtaining tenant approval for the proposed
conversion. The Planning Commission further found that the
applicant would not have obtained the required tenant approval
for the conversion without the coerced approval of one of the
tenants.
8. On September 9, 1991, the applicant appealed the Planning
Commission denial of TPC 150 to the Santa Monica City council
("city Council").
9. The City Council held a public hearing on this appeal on
October 8, 1991. After taking public testimony, the city Council
directed the City Attorney's Office to conduct further
investigation into the allegations of coercion and
misrepresentation alleged by certain tenants at the property.
10. Pursuant to this direction, the City Attorney's Office
conducted hearings held before a hearing examiner on October 28
- 3 -
.
.
and 29, 1991. Seven of the eight tenants of this building
testified under oath concerning the circumstances surrounding
their decision to support the proposed conversion of the
apartment building. Ms. Wilson-Hoesch specifically testified
that the applicant threatened her with eviction or going out of
business pursuant to the Ellis Act if the tenant did not agree to
the proposed conversion. These threats occurred on several
occasions over a period of months continuing up to the time that
the tenant actually agreed to the conversion in January 1991.
Ms. Wilson-Hoesch further testified that the applicant's actions
coerced her into agreeing to the conversion. She additionally
testified that she wrote the second letter to City staff seeking
to retract her initial letter alleging coercion and
misrepresentation because of pressure exerted on her by the
applicant to retract the first letter. The applicant dictated to
Ms. Wilson-Hoesch the information that the applicant wanted in
the second letter.
11. TORCA Section 2004 (a) provides that: "A Tenant-
Participating Conversion Application, along with any required
tentative subdivision map or tentative parcel map shall be denied
if the Tenant-Participating Conversion Application fails to meet
any of the requirements of this Article [TORCA], was the result
of fraud, misrepresentation, or threat or similar coercion...."
12. TORCA section 2002{l) provides that a Tenant-participating
Conversion Application must contain a declaration by the owner
that the owner did not coerce a tenant to agree to the conversion
of the property by threatening that the owner would cease
operating the property as residential rental property pursuant to
the Ellis Act.
13. Based on the evidence presented before the City Council, the
city Council finds that the Tenant-Participating Conversion
Application was the result of misrepresentation or coercion in
that the applicant coerced and threatened one of the tenants with
eviction and going out of business if the tenant did not agree to
the conversion. The City Council also finds that the applicant
would not have obtained the required tenant approval for this
conversion without the coerced approval of one of the tenants.
14. Based on the evidence presented before the City Council, the
city Council further finds that the owner's declaration in her
TPC application that she did not threaten to cease operating her
property as residential rental property in order to gain tenant
approval of the conversion was false.
15. Since TPC 150 is denied because this application was the
result of coercion and misrepresentation, VTTM 50590 must
similarly be denied pursuant to TORCA Section 2004(a).
VOTE ON MOTION TO DENY APPEAL
Ayes: Abdo, Zane, Vasquez, Olsen, Katz,
Holbrook, Genser
Nays:
- 4 -
- ~
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICE
since this is a final decision not subject to further appeal
under the city of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure section
1094.6 which provision has been adopted by the city pursuant to
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 1400.
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the city council
of the city of Santa Monica.
Signature Date
Name and Title
- 5 -