SR-111291-7B
~
CA:RMM:tpSOjhpadv
city council Meeting November 12, 1991
7---- L5
NOV 1 r~ j~N!
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
City Attorney
Appeal of TPC-150 - 2021 Cloverfie1d Boulevard
TO:
SUBJECT:
At the October 8, 1991 meeting of the City Council, you
directed the Ci ty Attorney to further investigate the tenant
participating conversion application for 2021 Cloverfield
Boulevard which was before you on appeal from a denial by the
Planning Commission.
Pursuant to this direction, the City
Attorney's office sent letters to all tenants of the building,
asking them to call to arrange a time for questioning before a
hearing examiner by staff and by the applicant.
Five of the
eight applicants voluntarily agreed to the questioning. Two
tenants did not respond to the request, and were subsequently
subpoenaed to appear before the hearing examiner. One individual,
who resides with his mother, the listed tenant for the unit,
requested that he be allowed to appear on her behalf because of
her poor health.
The hearings were conducted on October 28 and 29, 1991 in
the City Attorney's Office before a hearing examiner. A Deputy
City Attorney questioned each tenant under oath regarding the
circumstances surrounding the signatures on the Agreement to
Conversion and Tenant Intent to Purchase forms.
The applicant,
- 1 -
7~
NOV t Z \1:J
~
Ms. Pongputmong, was represented by counsel at the hearings who
conducted cross-examination. Ms. Pongputmong was also questioned
under oath concerning the statements made by the tenants.
Seven of the eight tenants testified concerning the TORCA
application.
Mr. Messih, who had asked to be questioned on
behalf of Ms. Shihata, his mother, appeared at the hearing, but
refused to answer questions and left the hearing. The
circumstances regarding his refusal to testify are reflected in
the accompanying transcript.
The transcript of the tenants'
testimony is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the tenants' testimony, it appears that a question
regarding voluntariness of signature is raised only with respect
to the tenant in Unit 4, Ms. Edna Wi1son-Hoesch. Ms. Hoesch's
allegations of threat and coercion are denied by Ms. Pongputmong.
The City Council must assess the credibility of the two witnesses
.to determine whether Ms. Wi1son-Hoesch's signature was improperly
obtained.
Section 2002 of TORCA specifically prohibits an
applicant from threatening that an owner or successor will cease
operating the property as residential rental property if the
proposed conversion does not occur. The application may also be
denied
if
the
application
was
the
result
of
fraud,
misrepresentation, or threat or similar coercion pursuant to
TORCA section 2004.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney
Mary H. Strobel, Deputy City Attorney
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney
- 2 -