The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-7-A (52) LUTM:PB:DKW:SMW:al50.pcword.plan Council Mtg: Octobe~ 8, 1991 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning commission denial Tenant-participating Conversion 150 to allow conversion of an eight-unit apartment building condominiums at 2021 cloverfield Boulevard. of the to INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Tenant-Participating Conversion 150, 2021 Cloverfie1d Boulevard, on september 4, 1991. The Planning Commission denied a request to allow the conversion of an eight-unit apartment building to condominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard with a finding that tenant signatures were obtained through coercion and misrepresentation. The applicant is appealing the decision and contending that the time limit for approval of the subdivision map expired prior to the Planning Commissions' decision. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission denied Tenant-Participating Conversion (TPC) 150, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard on September 4, 1991 with a finding that there had been coercion and misrepresentation of participating tenants (Attachment B) . The application was first heard on May I, 1991. At the May hearing, in response to several participating tenant objections, - 1 - ill)i\l)~ " the Commission requested that staff verify that signatures wer~ legally obtained on the inter.t to purchase forms and confirm that tenants understood their rights under Article XX Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California (TORCA). Following consultation with the City Attorney's office concerning the form of the letter, staff contacted each tenant by registered mail on May 21, 1991 to inquire whether tenants felt that they ~ad been adequately informed of their rights and if they believed that coercion or misrepresentation was used to obtain their signatures on the tenant intent to purchase or agreement to conversion forms (see Attachment D). The letter requested a written response within 10 days. Responses were received by the tenants of units #1, 3, 7 and 8. The tenants of units #1, 3 and 7 rescinded their signatures on the tenant intent to purchase forms. Staff spoke with the tenant of unit #5 on 7/1/91 who indicated that she did not wish to rescind her signature on either of the forms. The tenant of unit #8 also did not rescind her signature on either of the forms, None of these tenants claimed coercion or misrepresentation by the applicant (Attachment D) . In view of the incomplete response and the seriousness of the matter, a second letter was sent by staff to tenants on June 24, 1991 by regular mail, again requesting a written response within 10 days (Attachment D). Responses were received by the tenants of units #4 and #6 on 6/27/91 and 7/8/91, respectively (Attachment D). These letters were received after phone ~ - 2 - ("~ ,.. " 2 60nversa tions with the tenants. A written response was not received by the tenants of unit #2, however, one of the tenants spoke at the May hearing against TPC 150 (Attachment D). The applicant was not sent copies of either the first or second letters. The tenants of units #2 and #6 did not originally sign either the tenant agreement to conversion or tenant intent to purchase forms. They had both indicated that they believed coercion and m~srepresentation were used to gain tenant signatures. The letter received by the tenant of unit #4 indicated that she was threatened with "...immediate eviction or going out of business if (the applicant) didn't get enough signatures to convert to condominiums. II (Attachment D). The staff report recommended that TPC 150 be denied at the hearing of 9/4/91 based on the letter received from the tenant of unit #4 on 7/8/91. Her statement indicating coercion by the applicant reduced the percentage of cosigning tenants from 75% to 63%, below the required 2/3rds or 67% of cosigning tenants required for approval (Attachment D). Although the tenants of units #1, 3 and 7 stated they no longer intended to purchase their units, this did not affect the validity of the initial signatures. On the date of the 9/4/91 hearing, the tenant of unit #4 submitted a second letter to staff at the Planning and Zoning counter in which she stated she wished to "retract" her initial letter and stated that she "wrote the previous letter because of some misinformation received from other tenants and a - 3 - """"3 misunderstanding of my rights and responsibilities.tI The second letter did not specifically retract the previous letter's allegations of threats and coercion. (Attachment G). Staff then recommended approval of TPC 150 based on this letter (Attachment E) . The Planning Commission denied TPC 150 with findings that coercion and misrepresentation of participating tenants had occurred, and thus the application did not meet the requirements of Article xx. The commission found that the specific allegation of coercion had not been retracted, and that there was sufficient evidence in the record to deny the application. without the signature of the tenant in question, the minimum percentages set by TORCA are not met. Staff recommended to the Commission upon receipt of the letter dated 9/4/91 that TPC 150 be approved with findings and conditions for TORCA apartment conversions under Article XX. The Commission determined otherwise and TPC 150 was denied. As the Commission made a finding of coercion and misrepresentation of participating tenants for TPC 150, staff is recommending that their decision of 9/4/91 to deny TPC 150 be upheld. APplicant's Appeal The applicant is appealing the Planning commissions' decision to deny TPC 150 (Attachment A). She contends that the Planning Commission was required to approve or disapprove the subdivision map within 50 days of the date the application was deemed complete (Attachment A). The subdivision application was deemed - 4 - I"f'\t\-:' 1 complete on 3/27/91 (Attachment H). The application was continued at the May 1, 1991 hearing pending staff inquiry and no subsequent hearing date was set. The Commission did not request an extension of the subdivision deadline from the applicant at that time. The applicant contends that responses received by, staff from participating tenants were untimely in relation to the subdivision action deadline for the tentative map (Attachment A) . staff was instructed by the commission on 5/1/91 to contact each of the participating tenants to inquire about possible coercion or misrepresentation by the applicant. As stated previously, two letters and several phone calls yielded tenant responses from all of the tenants except that of unit #2. At the 9/4/91 hearing, the city Attorney's office rendered an opinion that under the Subdivision Map Act, the application would only be deemed approved to the extent it complied with the local law. Therefore, if the commission found the application did not comply due to fraud or coercion in obtaining signatures, the deemed approved provision would not apply. The applicant also contends that her letter dated 8/26/91 was not included in the staff memorandum to pl-anning Commission dated 9/4/91 (Attachment A). This letter was received after Planning Commission packets had been sent to the commission on 8/28/91. A copy of the letter was given to each Commissioner on the night of the 9/4/91 hearing, as is customary. - 5 - .,.................,5 Required Notification staff noticed the May 1, 1991 and September 4/ 1991 Planning Commission hearings and the October 8/ 1991 City Council meeting for Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 as required per the Municipal Code. Tenants and property owners within a 300 foot site radius were notified of these hearings and the City Council meeting. Additionally, each tenant of 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard was sent copies of the application and of the staff reports for the Planning Commission hearing as required by Article XX. The applicant did request that a copy of the staff report for the September 4/ 1991 Planning Commission hearing be sent to her. Unfortunately, through an oversight, the staff report was not sent to the applicant. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 with the findings contained in the statement of Official Action dated 9/4/91. ATTACHMENTS A. Appeal form dated 9/9/91. B. Statement of Official Action dated 9/4/91. C. Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 5/1/91. D. Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 9/4/91. - 6 - r ~ .... ~ 6 z. Supplemental staff Memorandum to Planning commission dated 9/4/9l. F. Letter from Sunisa Pongputmong to Planning Commission dated 8/26/9l. G. Letter from Edna wilson-Hoesch to staff dated 9/4/91. H. Letter from staff to Sunisa Pongputmong dated 3/27/91. prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTH D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Susan M. White, Assistant Planner Planning Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department PC/al50 09/30/91 - 7 - r-"~7 Cl!y of Santa Monica CommU/'llty and EconomIC Development DepaI1lneI'II Planning and Zoning DIvIIIcn (213) 458-8341 APPEAL FORM FEE. $100,00 Da18Aed Recewed by Receipt No . . ,,- let! (-O~ ,f:tJ/~j$) _ ,~, -Y -.,- Ad?J ~11lJ71U Name S v f-.j I SA ~ c !\lG.- ~ vr ,'1 ("/\J G- Address [C ~ s '"j':jJ~ (; C r. Ii ~ :4t I S i1N/R Hc!'1\j r::: n <2~1 q C 'i 03 Contact Person Sc.. N I Sp) pc fl.J6--P crr ,'-{ C i"J E-- PhoAt 11 \ -:;. I ~ ~ +~ I - If-C 4-- I S W -(~13) € ~'1 - q, S -, P,~asede~be lheprtlj9CtanddeaSlOl'\~beappe~1ed _ ~ ~ _ .d.fr~.<?It\ "f :tlv. ,Q;~.~ UYl~Ol-, W--t...:v.~ tk",^,~ ~~\L ~~.u\..-~ 'Y'~i'Ut-.U..-~LC...... T~,~ I -I ~O (tv" ~I 4- ( Cf I -C;i [. t~ TT-A Gl4 t U) ~ -.e f Case Number T P e - l S 0 Address ~C,;}, (?-LC It iK. Fl i-L t) 13L. SANffl ApplICant SUi\JISi'l ~ f'JE- rV"n-< Q'~ G- 0001031 heanng date ~I 4- / '1' 1 OngnaJ action '1 / 4-' ell Please state the SpecffIC ruson(l) b lhe appeal ~o~-J reV='! G?C'~ ')Clf-C tt ~.;~ AT"'~~-\ ft) Sopbn ,.. ~.. ,.-// OUt , ~ ~ at Illnn. r - - , 8 i~ ,t~ C' n J r l( \ L- '-"1. {..v\. /i Cf! A 11 -AC\-tMENT" A List of ADneal Deadlines* Variance decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9113.8) Home Occupation decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9110.6) Temporary Use Permit decisions involving projects having span of 45 days or more: 7 days (SHHC section 9111.7) Performance Standards Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9112.6) Reduced Parking Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9133.7) Administrative Approvals (revocation thereof only): 7 days (SMMC Section 9134.5) Ocean Park yard Reduction Permits: 14 days (SHHC Section 9151.7) Architectural Review Board decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section 9514) Landmarks Commission decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section 9613) Conditional Use Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC section 9114.8) Development Review P~rmit decisions: 14 days (Section 9115.7) Tentative Map decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section 9366) *Appeal periods begin on next business day following the decision. Appeal periods ending on weekends or holidays are extended to the next business day. Appeals must be filed on forms available from Planning and Zoning office and be accompanied by appropriate filing fee. See Santa Monica Municipal Code for more information. kjappeal DKW:bz 00009 Sunisa ?ongputmong 1025 Idaho Ave., lt1 Santa MonIca, Ca 90403 ~2 CLARICE JOHNSON '=:ITY,:::LE:tK CI~Y J? SANTA ~GNICA ~;85 Mdli Str~et, ~.O. Box 2200 Santa MonIca, :a , 90401-82:1 .september 9, 1991 3ub~ect: Appeal f~om dec~slon of the PlannIng Comm15s1o~ ~ec~S:Jn DerYlng Tenant Part:clpatlng Co~verslon Case TPC-~5G, Ves~lng Te~ta~~ve Tract 50590, 2021 Cloverfleld BouLevard Jear Ms. Johnson, I, Sunisa Pongputmong, ApplIcant ~ereby appeal the DecIsion of the CommISSIon rendered September 4, 1991 t,e fcl:owing In declaration form. If could and would testIfy as follows. In the above stated case, Santa MonIca PlannIng and by thIS appeal allege called as a Witness, I 1. I, Sunlsa Pongputmong, am now and at all relevant hereIn have been the owner of the 8 unit resIdentIal rental property ~nown ~y street address as 2021 Cloverfleld Blvd, Santa Monlca Ca., County of Los Angeles. The property 15 subJect to the re3tr:ctlons of ArtIcles XVIII and Artlc~e XX, of Charter of the Clty or Sa~ta Monlca. :. 8~ or about February 6, 1991, I filed the prelImInary appllcat:on for Tenant PartIcIpatIng ConverSIon 150 ( hereInafter "~PC 150"). ApplIcatIon 150 which was deemed complete and accepted for fIlIng on that same date. For thIS applIcatIon to be de~med complete for filing, I was required to have not less than two thIrds of the tenants s1gn as Cons1gning Tenantslt ( 6 or more unIts) and not less than 50' of the Conslgnlng Tenants had to also 5ign an Intent to purchase form. See ArtIcle XX SectIons 2002 (f) and (j) of the City Charter. My appllcatlon qualifIed wlthou~ the cooperation of two of the unl~S (unlts NO.5 2 and 6) whlC~ dld not partlcipate 1n eIther category. 3. On or about March 21, 1991 I submltted a tentatIve subdIviSIon map which was deemed accepted for flllng on March 27, 1991. From the date that the subdlVISlon map was accepted for fIlIng, the PlannIng CommISSIon had fIfty (50) days to approve or deny the appllcatlon or else the applIcatIon was to be deemed granted as a matter of law due to the faIlure of the CommlSSlon to take action wIthin the tIme lImits set by Artlcle XX Sectlon 2003 (d) of the City Charter (the "TORCA Amendment") and Sectlon 9361 of the Santa MonIca MunicIpal Code. Therefore, the latest date that the matter could have been deCIded was May 16, 1991. -1- - '; 00010 A 4 On or about AprIL 25, 1991 a Memorandum ~as Issued by the PlannIng DIvisIon ~~ich recommended approval of tbe appllcatlc~ 3nd a public hear1ng was set for May 1, 1991. I do not ~no~ the act~al date of the Memorandum because copIes were sent only :0 tenants and not to the owner/appl1cant. At page 5 of thIS ~e~orandum 1t states that the owner was receIved caples of the 3taf~ rep0r~, ~~t tblS 15 not true. 5. A~ the public hearing of May 1, 1991 I did not speak to the Comm1ss1on, but when t~o persons from C8nslgn~ng units spoke in OPPosItion to the proJect, frIen0 J3mes Jacobson speak 1n rebuttal because I am not publ1C speakIng. Initially the non- I had my go~d at 6 Of the two people who spoke against my applIcatIon, cne or tbe persons, Mr. Shoukry Messlh, made general allegatIons that the Signatures of the Co-sIgnIng unIts were procured by fraud or CoerCIon. Mr. Mess1h was not a tenant of the bUilding but was ~llow~d ~o resIde on the property as a health care alde for the tenant of unlt 2 who 15 a tenant under a H.U.D. Sect10n 8 hOUSIng contract. Mr. MessIh and the tenant of unIt 2 were be1ng eVicted for refUSIng to prOVIde access to the Inspectors from the Santa Monica Housing Authority. After the HOUSIng authorIty canceled thel~ lease, the occupants then refused to pay the Santa Monica Rent Contr01 Rent. Based upon the uns~orn general allegat10ns of Mr. Mess1h, the Comm1sslon 1nstructed the PlannIng D1vlslon StafE to contact the tenants and gIve them an additional opportunity to submIt Informat1on. '. Based upon the allegations of Mr. Messlh that others had part1clpated in my application under fraudulent c1rcumstances, ~~e Comm1S5lon voted to contInue the matter 50 that the Planning Staff could lnvest1gate. CommiSSIoner Nelson seconded the mot1on and stated that the ltem should be continued to no date certaIn. 8. At no time during the hearlng was I asked for an extens10n of the time limitatlons contaIned at Article XX SectIon 2003 (c). 9. Although the Commission directed the Staff to 1nvest1gate the matters raised by Mr. Messih at th~ hear1ng of May 1,1991, Staff dId not do so until three weeks later. On or about May 21, 1991 a letter complete vIth an information package was sent to all of the unlts. I given no notice of thls, but was InfDrmed by some of the tenants on the property that thIS had occurred. 10. During the second week of June 1991, I went to the offIce of the PlannIng DIvIslon to inspect the fIle and see if there were any claims of fraud or coerClon made agai~st me. I found a number of responses ln the file, but none of them accused me of any wrongdOing so I took no action. /11 -2- oon!! :1. On or about August 20, 1991, I ~ent to the offIce of the Plann:ng DIvIsIon to fInd out ~hy my application ~as not beIng 3cheduled for a~other hearIng At that time I discovered that the Pla~nlng DIVISl0n Staff had sent addItional letters and 1,fG~ma~IOn to the tenants of 2021 Cloverfleld and that addi~:Qnal telephone calls had been made ~:t~out glVI~q me 3ny ~ct:ce or ~p~Grtur~ty to respond to the informatIon wh~ch ~ad tee~ p:aced l~ :~e file. I was Informed that a new ~ee~lng ~uuld be ~c~edu:ed for September 4, 1991 and was asked by Planner S~san W~lte lf : ~oulj s~gn a ~alver of tIme lImIts. I was not wlll~ng to S1gn such a waIver wIthout flIst seekIng advlce on the matter and ~nfor~ed ~s. W~lte that I would retur~ later In the week. - ") .1.~ (:In August 22, wItr.ess, WhIte. 1991, I returned to the ?lannl~g DIViSIO~ Hr. James Jacobsen, and we spoke to DurIng thIS meetlng, we covered the Off:;.ce V/lth -:3 Planner Susan folloWIng Issues. A. : ~equested In:or~atlon as to the tImeliness of any decIsIon in my case After revIeWIng the amount of tIme WhIch had passed s~nce the first meetIng of May 1, 1991. we dlscover~d that approximately 126 days would have passed betveen ~hdt flrst hearlng and the hearIng to be scheduled for September 4, 1991. SInce the maXImum extenslon of t:me under Charter Amendment XX Section 2003 could only provIde for 100 days, we pOInted out that there was no conceIvable way ~hat I could waIve the tIme lImIts to extend tlme to September 4, 1991. Ms. Wh:te dId not dIsagree and saId that the Issue would be addressed In the upcomIng Staff Memorandum. B. I complaIned that no copy of the May I, 1991 Staff Memorandum had been sent to me. We revIewed the fIle and found thlS to be true. The self stickIng labels that I provIded wIth my home address cn them had not been used to send me a copy of the Staff Recommendation although the caples had been sent to the tenants of the property and those labels were gone. I protested the policy or ~ot sendlng notIce to the Owner/Appllcant and Informed Ks WhIte that I wished to have copIes of any addItIonal 3taff Memorandums sent to me and not Just tne tenants. 13. On or about August 22, 1991 I received by mall, a copy a notice of the publlC hearing for September 4, 1991. No other information was Included in the envelope. //1 /1/ III 11/ -3- oon'2 r. 14 Upon revie~ing the files on August 20 and 22, I d:scovered that t~e tenant of unit 4, Edna Wilson Hoesch had claImed that r used threats of eVictIon to attaIn her sIgnatures ~~ my applIcation. !~ re5po~se to this claIm, I had Mr. Jacobson dSS15t me In ~riting a letter to the Planning DiVision ~hiCh was ty~ed 00 August 26, 1991 and submitted to the Planning office on A~g~3t 23, :)91. Th:s letter contaIned the three relevant issues as folloW's: A. FIrst, I requested that the i5sue of tl'l1ellne55 be dddr~~~ed before any eVidence or publIC comment i5 taken on the matter. I ar9ued that, if the Commlssion rules that the Applicat:on should be granted as a matter of law, then :'0 Eu:t~er eVIdence or publIC comment should be alloW'ed. 3 Second, I requested that the untimely responses of Gary ~ee ~eye~s (Unlt 6) and Edna Wl130n Hoesch (Unit 4) not be consIdered 1n clDY event. The documents on file in thiS case reveal the only ~rltten OpposItion to my ap~licatlon which clalm coerClon were flIed after the deadline to decide my case hac passed. On May 2111991 the Planning DIVlSlon mal led a letter to the tenants giving the them ten days to resp0nd. On June 24, 1991 a second letter vas mailed glving t~€ tenants an additional opportunlty to respond. Flnally, the Planning Divislon telephoned non-respondIng tenants on 0r about July 11, 1991 to flnd out why they had not responded. My applicatIon should have been decIded on May 16, 1991 and therefore all of the letters ~ere sent and responses were received after the deadllne for dec1sion. C Third, I requested that In the eve~t that th~ CommISSIon elects to take evidence on the matter, I be ryllowed to cross examine the Witnesses agaInst me. 15. After reviewing the flIes on August 20 and 22, I was reluct~nt to contact Edna Wilson Hoesch about her letter because it might appear as though I was pressuring her to resclnd the July 1, 1991 letter against me. Ho~ever, W'hen I came to collect the rent on Monday September 2, 1991, I vas approached by Edna Wllson Hoesch and her husband who asked about the converSlon ~roJect. In response to the questions askeu, I info~med them that my appllcation could be denled because of the letter that she wrote and that any disputes between us had nothing to do With my conversion application. She agreed with me and offered to write to the ~lanning Commission and clarify her statement. 16. On the morning of September 4, 1991, Planner Susan White telephoned me to inform me that I could pick up a copy of the September 4, 1991 Staff Memorandum to be conSidered by the CommiSSion that evening. I asked Ms. White if Edna Wilson had contacted ~er or sent in a letter clarifying the earller letter of JU~y 1, 1991. Ms. White told ~hat no such communication had been received. -4- 00011 17. After dIscoverIng that Edna WIlson had not del~vered t,e letter clarIfYIng her posltlor, : telepho~ed her at ~ork and to:d her that there could be nc further delay In sending a let~er to ~he ?13~~lng DIVIsIon because t~e ?Ub:IC hearing was that evening a~d therefore the letter had to go I~to the fIle that day. She agreed to ~eet wIth me at approxImately 11.15, at her home. I met wIt~ ber a~d ~er hU3ba~d at the stated tIme and pl~ce. They :nf~r~ed ~e ~hat they were ~ot concerned about beIng eVIcted because ~f the conver5:o~i they were concerned because Edna W:lsoD had orIgInally rented t,e un~t as a 51~gle parent wItr one chIld, and that ber husband and t~o mInor chIldren ~ere not covered by the wrItten rental agreement. She fea~ed eVIctIon for suble~slng. I Informed her that I had no IntentIon of eVIctIng ~er ~or subleasIng to members of her EamIly and ImmedIately prOVIded her Wlt~ a ~rltten agreement 1n the name of herself, and h~r husband to 2rove 1t. She then agreed to hand deliver the letter that she ~ad earlIer ~rItten to CIty Hall ImmedIately after makIng a mInor modlrlcatlon :0 my presence. 18. At approxlmately ~2:30 pm., I went to C1ty Hall pIck up a copy of :he staff Memcrand~m ar-d be certaIn that Edna WIlson's letter had made It to the fIle As I entered the front door of CIty ~a:l I sa~ her leav1ng and spoke to her Eor a fe~ m1nutes. I then ch~cked ~Ith Susan WhIte to be certaIn that the letter had been delIvered and Ms. WhIte assured me that this had been done. 19. After returnIng from CIty Hall, I reviewed the staff ~emorandum concernIng my applIcation and dIscovered that my letter of August 26, was not Included In the report and that the Repor~ had not 3ddressed any of the 1Ssues I ra1sed except the followlng at ~age 3 of tre report: "staff did not request an extenSIon of the SO day lImit for approval oE the subdIVIsion map from the applicant and the applicant does not 3gree to an extension of this 50 day lImit." 20. ThIS above stated paragraph from the September 4, 1991 Staff memorandum is prejudicial and misleading for the follo~lng ~easons. A. The sentence does not logically make any sense. li the staff dId not request an extension In the fIrst place, then hov does StaEf come to the conclusIon that I did not agree to an extenSIon 1n the second place? B. The sentence IS factually misleadIng. Nobody raIsed the Issue of timelIness ~1th me untll August 20, 1991 ~hen I went to the PlannIng dIVISIon to find out ~hat was happenIng to my case. By that tIme over 150 days had passed SInce my tentatlve map was accepted for fllIng. III III -5- 00014 C. The sentence is legally misleadIng 1n that under Charter SectIon 2003 (e) 3nd SectIo~ 9361 of the Sant3 Mon1ca Munic1pal Code tre total allo~able tIme for CommlSSlon actlon 1S SO ~ays plus a posslble waIVer of ~n additional 60 days for 3 total of 110 days. When a ~aIVer of tIme was fIrst mentIoned on August 20, :991, - ~.1 rct hav~ th~ legal capacity to extend the time ::~~~s ~o ever 150 days even If I wanted to. ~. ~he Staff ~e~oranjum of September 4, 1991 recommended :hat my appllcatlon be ~e~led. Thl~ recommendatIon was based 301ely upon the clai~5 made by Edna WIlson in her letter July 1, 199: L~a~ I bad wrongly obtaIned her SIgnature. By eliminatIng her SIgnature as a Consigning tenant, the Staff concluded that I ~ad :cst the necessary two thlrds of consIgnIng tenant slgnatures needed to qualify my build:ng pursuant to Sec. 2002 (f) of ArtIcle XX. See flrst full paragraph tItled "BUIlding QuallflcatIO~" O~ page 3 of the september 4, 1991 Staff ~emor3~dum 22. In the even]~g of September 4, 1991, I appeared at the publ:c hear~ng wIth three WItnesses on my behalf. No person appeared agalnst me. Before I vas allowed to address the Commlsslpn, the PlannIng Staff made a report to the CommIss1on Whl~h tot~lly 19nored my correspondence in the case and made no mentIon of any of the 1ssues r raIsed 1n my letter to the CommlSSlon of August 26, 1991. The Staff dld, however, inform the CommiSSlon that Edna WIlson Hoesch had reSCInded her letter dated July 1, 1991, and recommended that the Appllcatlon be approved based upon the letter of clarIflcatIon of she submItted that day 2:. After the Staff had concluded It's report I ~as given flve mInutes to argue agaInst the prejudiCIal Informat1on submltted agaInst me after the time llmlts had explred. I gave the flve mlnutes of allotted time to James Jacobson who argued the Issues that I raIsed I~ my August 26, 1991 letter and obJected to conslderatlon of the lett~rs fIled after the deadllne as untimely, preJudiCial and unsubstantiated hearsay eVIdence that should not be considered by the CommlSSlon. I also spoke 1n response to questIons about the SIgnatures. 24. After Mr. Jacobson concluded hlS five mInute speech, Commlssloner Nelson proceeded to do a handwrIting analySiS photocopIes of the two letters submitted by Edna WIlson Hoesch. He came to the conclUSIon that the second letter of September 4, 1991 was not ~rItten by the by the same hand that wrote the fIrst letter of July 1, 1991. Commissioner Nelson did not state hIS quallflcations as a handvrItIng expert and became Irate ~hen obJectIon was taken to hIS actions. Mr. Jacobson's obJectlons to cons1deratlon of these documents as untImely ~reJUdlClal and unsubstantiated hearsay eVldence vere ignored. III -6- onnt~ 25. After dIscussIng the matter, the CommIssIon overr~led ~he Staff RecommendatIon and cenIed my appllcation at the Pub:~c ~ear:ng of September 4, 1991. ~/'" L'J . f. c llw ". tI-j am hereby .; ~ 'J 11 r:d S appeal.l.ng to the Clty CounCIl 0'1 the A. F~r the reasons stated In my letter of Aug~5t 26, 199: ~nd tre ~rguments made at the ~ub1iC hearIng of 2~~tomber 4, :911, by appllcatlon should b~ deemed g~anted ~s a ma~:er of la~. SectIon 2003 (e) of the C~arter yhlC~ ~~::)vldes that "Any Tenant ParticIpating Cor::versicn Appl:catlon ~hall be deemed approved subJect to the Co~dltlon5 3et Eorth in Sectlon 2004 of thIS ArtLc:c if 1: is not approved or denled WIthIn the t~me perlod requIred by tJ,IS Sect:..on." (Emphasis added). Where a City plannIng commiSSion falls to render a declsloP ~lthln the tIme lImIts granted by the 13w, 3nd where the la~ specifles that the remedy for faIlure to comply IS granting of the appllcat1on, t~at remedy must be ~ollowed as a matter of :aw. See Palmer v . (: ~ t Y 0 f 0 ;: aI, ( 19 8 6 ) 1 7 8 Ca 1. A P p. 3 d. 2 8 Q , 2 2 3 C a 1- Rptr. 542. I have dtt~cheJ d true and correct copy to thIS appeal as Attachment "AIt, B. I ~as denIed a faIr hearing in t,at the Comm1551o~ faIled to act In a tImely manner and gathered all of the ev~dence against me after the time lImIts for deCISIon 0,aj passed. None of that lnformatlon would eXlst but for the CommissIon's faIlure to follow mandatory tIme lImIts and use that time to repeatedly wrIte and telephone the tenants. C. T,e CommISSIon's Decision 15 not supported by the eVldence in that the denIal of my applIcation was based solely on conflIct1ng, unreliable unsubstantIated and unauthenticated hearsay eVIdence over my obJections. The letters that were mailed in oppositIon to my case were not even SIgned under penalty of perJury, and no person who SIgned my applicatIon as a ConSIgnIng Tenant ever appeared before the CommISSIon. D. The Commission denIed me du~ process of law in that it 19nored the issues raised In my letter of August 26, 1q91 and thereby denied me the notice and opportunity to ask questions about the documents submItted agaInst me and/or to cross examine persons who made the wrItIngs. E. The CommISSIon tWlce falled to provlde me WIth the notlce reqUIred by Santa Monica MunICIpal Code Sectlon 9361 by falling to prOVIde me ~lth Staff Memorandums at least three days prIor to any hearing. ThIS was espeCially preJudici?l in that the September 4, 1991 Staff report was not glven to me untll I went to the Planning DIviSIon Office on the day of the HearIng. -7- 00/11G F. CommISSIoner Nelson caused addItIonal preJUdICe to my case by contlnulng my hearIng of May 1, 1991 to a date uncertaIn and then mak~~g randwrltlng analYSIS of documents and coming to conclusions that he was ~ot qualIfIed to mdk~ G. ~hat as a result of the unlImIted tIme given to l~vestlg~te ~~e matter, I was net given any notlc~ of the repedt~d cc~m~nl~at~0ns made to tenants after the fIrst letter of May 21, :391. It was not the first communlcati~n issued on May 21, 1991 WhICh caused my Application to be denIed, ~ut the addItional letters and telephon~ ccmmunIc3t~ons wh:~r were sent w:thout notIce to me and Without gIVing me any opportunity to respond WhIC~ caus~j the nenlal ~f my A~~~lcatlon TPC-150. H. As ~ result of the unauthorized t1me gIven by the CommIssIon, the persons opposed to the proJect were able to organIze 0ppOSItIO~ to my applIcatIon request. Their effort was assIsted by re~e~ted letters and telephone calls from the Plar.nlng Staff askIng whether I had partICIpated In coerCIon and/or fraud to obtaIn the tenant SIgnatures needed for my Appllcat1on. T. The CommIssIon acted arbItrarIly and caprICIously by conSIderIng letters wrItten agaInst me to be truthful and wr:tten by the tenant who's SIgnature appeared, whIle at the same tIme conSIderIng letters In my favor as suspect ~nd fraudulently obta1ned. 27. Unless the CIty CounCIl expedItiously moves to grant my applIcatIon, Irreparable InJury 15 lIkely to occur because I am requIred to comply in a tImely manner with all releva~t prOVISIons of state and local law Including Subdivlsion Map Act of the State of CalIfornia. In additIon, I have invested over SIX thousand dollars and many hours on thIS application and cannot dfford to start over agaIn. 28. For the reasons stated 1n thIS appeal, 1 respectfully request that ApplicatIon TPC-150 be deemed granted by the CIty CounCIL without further unreasonable delay. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregolng 1S true and correct, except as to matters of information and belIef, In ~hlCh case 1 belIeve them to be correct, and that thIS document was executed on September 9, 1991 at santa MonIca, Callforn~a. ~ F ~ ~~~7~ F ~ /~ ~ /' /~/~ Sun Isa pong~-utmong/ I -8 - oon'7 HEADNO- Classified t , \ - (la-ld) l din~ velo Hea forti and velo rece to b, zens deve the~ defe favo duty proF (2) Judg (anta of th pnat tn th. stans (3) Stall statUI resor (4) StalL Valie Its cc . A"SSlgnea 280 PALMER v CITY OF alAI 178 Cal App 3d 280. 223 Cal Rptr 542 [Mar 1986} ~ t ., } I I I ! [~os 8003987, 8005635 Second Dlst ,DIV One Mar 3. 1986 I HOWARD PALMER et al , Plamtlffs and Appellants. v CITY OF OJAI et a1., Defendants and Respondents i J r i I !' f i SUMMARY l. it I PlaIntiff, a real estate developer, filed its plan to develop certam land located In defendant C1ty W1th defendant. seekmg a subdIvIsIon pennn. a condItIOnal use permIt and a buddIng permit Despite plaIntIff's acquies- cence wlth defendant Clty'S demands. mclud1ng envlronmental 1mpact re- pons, and despite plalDuff's numerous anemptS to expedIte the permn pro- cess, defendant Clty faded to grant or deny the permits until more than two years after plaJ.ntlff's tnmal apphcatlon for the permits, at WhICh ttme the permits were denied. Plamtlff then sought a wm of mandate tG compel certaIn actIons by defendant city council and cuy plannmg agencIes, and their xndlvidual members. mcludlng the 1ssuance of a bUildmg pernut. The petIllOn was demed, Judgment was entered for defendants and a timely ap- peal from the Judgment was taken PlalOtltf also tiled a complamt for dam- ages agamst the City, the Clty couned. and City planmng agencies, seekIng damages for the cIty's wrongful refusal to take acuon on the development project After defendants' demurrer [0 the complaInt was sustamed, Judg- ment was entered for defendants and a timely appeal was taken from that Judgment also (Supenor Coun of Ventura County, Nos SP 51133 and 81161, Wdham L. Peck and Joe D Hadden. Judges) . , t'; " -1 The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment denYIng the penuon for wm of mandamus and affirmed the Judgment dismlssmg the complamt for dam- ages Gov Code, 9 65920 et seq., governmg reVteW and approval of de- velopment proJects, speCIfically sets fonh llme l1mllauons wllhm Which any publIc agency receiVtng an apphcauon for a development project must de6 termme whether such apphcatlon 1S complete, as well as the penod tn whIch such apphcauons must be approved or dIsapproved The statute funher pro- Vides that, 10 the event a responsible agency falls to act to approve or dIsapprove a development project wlthm the lime lim1ts required, such fail- ure shall be deemed approval of the development project The coun held the city not only failed to determrne whether plamuW's apphcauon was complete w1thln the statutory ume penod, It failed to approve or disapprove the apphcauon wlthm the statutory tlme penod. and thus. by Its wrongful delay. approved the development project HOl.\-ever, In View of the long hst i' I' \' OO{)1R PALMER 178 Cal A of Cabfo plannmg diSmJSSm mg P J ~ITY OF OU,I 2 [Mar 1986J ertam land 1 penna, a . s acquIes- Impact re- ->e.mJ! pro- e than cwo h tlme the to compel iiC1CS, and :lullt The umely ap- It ror dam- -~. seelong ~eiopment ned. Judg- from that ~1133 and :i for wnt [ for dam- Tal of de- whICh any must de- i in which rther pro- 'prove or such fad- Ourt held -o!on was Ic:approve wrongful long hst J ... I 1 ; ~ 1 H.- -~ -to ~ n 14 1'- i~-- - tt -.- f - ~ l ~ !. < , PALMER v CITY OF 01AI 178 Cal App 3d 280 223 Cal Rplr 542 [Mar 1986J 281 of Cahfomla declSlons expreSSing a strong publJc pohcy Insulating land use plannmg from CIVIl lJabIllty, the court held the trIal court dId nOl err 10 dlsnussmg the complamt for damages (OpinIOn by Hanson (Thaxton), A.ct- 10g P J , With Lucas. 1 . and Aranda, J ,* concurnng ) HEADNOTES Classified to Callforma Digest of OffiCial Reports, 3d Senes (la-ld) ZODmg and Planning ~ 9-Content and Validity of Zoning Or- dinances and Planning Enactments-RevIew and Approval of De- velopment Projects-Validity of Statutory Scheme-Notice and Hearing to Citizens.-Under Gov Code, ~ 65920 et seq . setung forth procedures for the reVleW and approval of development proJects, and prOVIding [hat a public agency must approve or disapprove a de- velopment project withm one year from the date the apphcatlon IS received. (Gov Code, ~ 65950), and that fallure to do so 1S deemed [0 be an approval (Gov Code. g 65956, subd. (b)), the fact that Cltl- zens of a CIty had not been afforded notice and hearmg concernmg a development project applIcatlOn wlthm the lime bmns contemplated by the statutory scheme dId not render the scheme Itself constltulIonally defectIve and dId not preclude apphcalIon of ~ 65956, subd (b), 10 favor of the developer It IS not the developer-appbcant that owes the duty of notIce and heanng to IOterested neIghbors of a development proJect. but the public agenCIes themselves (2) Judgments ~ 8-0n the Pleadings.-Judgment on the pleadmgs IS tantamount to sustammg a demurrer Without leave to amend. In terms of the standard of reView employed by an appellate court The appro- pnate standard reqUires an appellate court to accept facts well pleaded 10 the pleader's pelItIOn or complaint as true. Arnvmg at legal conclu- SIOns remalOS the province of the court (3) Statutes * 20-Construction-JUQICIal Function.-In construmg a statute, In the face of the plam statutory language, there IS no need to reson to rules of statutory construction to ascertaIn legIslauve mtent (4) Statutes ~ 37-Construction-Gjving Effect to Statute-Sustaining Validity. - A statute wdl be Judicially construed m a manner upholdmg its constItutional valIdIty whenever poSSIble *Asslgned by the Chall'person of the JudiCial Council U ~ ATTAc?HM[t0"r A 00019 282 PALMER v CITY OF OJAI 178 Cal App 3d 280.223 Ca.l Rptr 542 (Mar 1986) (Sa. Sb) Zoning and Planning ~ 38-Enforcement of Laws and ReguJa- lions; Offenses and Penalties-Enforcement by Private Persons- Approval of Development ProJect-Failure of Public Agency to Act Within Time LirnIts.-In an acnon by a developer ag3.1nst a city and related defendants for a wrIt of mandate to compel certam acuons by a defendant, mcludmg the Issuance of a buddmg pennn for a shoppmg center. In rehance on Gov Code, 9 65920 et seq . setting forth pro- cedures for revIew and approval of development prOJects. pamcularly ~ 65950. provldmg a public agency must approve or disapprove a de- velopment project WlthlO one year from the date the apphcauon IS receJved. and that failure to do so wlthm one year IS deemed an ap- proval (9 65956, sub<!. (b)), the tnal coun erred in granung defendants Judgment on the pleadmgs Because the Intent of [he Legislature was to place reasonable but linn time hmJtatlons on the dehberauons of pubhc agencIes concernmg land use deCISions, and because the penalty was speCIfied, the statutory scheme created a mandatory rather than a dIrectory duty Accordmgly, the developer was entitled to the rehef requested (6) Statutes ~ 3-Perfonnance of Public Duty-Dir~tory or Manda- tory.-There IS no Simple, mechamcal test for detennlnmg whether a statutory provlSlon should be given duectory or mandatory effect. In order to determme whether a partIcular statutory prOVISIon IS manda- tory or directory, the coun, as 10 all cases of statutory construction and IOterpretatJon. must ascertam the legIslatIve mtent In the absence of express language, the mtem must be gathered from the terms of the statute construed as a whole, from the nature and the character of the act to be done, and from the consequences whIch would follow the dOIng or failure to do the panlcular act at the reqUIred tlme When the object IS to subserve some publIc purpose, the prOVISIOn may be held directory or mandatory as wdl best accomphsh that purpose (7) Statutes ~ 3-Perlonnance of Public Duty-Directory 9r Manda- tory.- Time lImltattons In a statute are normally VIewed as "directo- ry" rather than "mandatory." unless Ume IS of the essence In the leglslauon and the penalty for noncomphance. Ie, the consequences. has been speCIfied In the leglslauon Itself (8) Zonmg and Planning i 38-Enforcement of Laws and Regulations; Offenses and Penalties-Enforcement by Private Persons-Land Use OedSlons-Remedies-Mandamus or Declaratory Relief- Damages.-Under Gov Code. 9 65920 et seq , settmg forth proce. dures for review and approval of development proJects. the Legislature contemplated mandamus or declaratory reItel' as the excluslVe remedy ",- - . - .~~- -- ~-~ l~- '1 -; 00020 P....LMER. v en - 178 Cal.App 3d : for pubh cludmg tl proJect, t ages by a [See ( Am.Jur. COUNSEL Drescher, Me Fadem, Berg{ Appellants Monte L W Kathenne E .: OPINIO"'l HANSON (Tt ments rendere Peuuoners f pany and OJar of mandate to of a bUlldmg p Named as res Department. ;: mdlvldual me respondents at Plamtlffs al~ city councIl, archltectural c . In ou r dISCUS~ Developer The referred to as lhe the development Unless olherwl penmenl prOVISIl somellmes be rer CITY OF OJAI 542 (Mar 1986J . and Regula- lle Perso ns- \gency to Act Inst a ctty and am actions by for a shoppmg rng forth pro- s. parucularly .approve a de- apphcatlon IS ieemed an 'lP- 109 defendants eglslalUre was ~hberatlons of 15e the penalty rather than a j to the rehef y or Manda- mg whether a tory effect In Ion IS manda- y constrUctJon In the absence e terms of the laracter of the dd follow the me. When the 1 may be held JOSe y or Manda- j as Udtrecto- 'ssence In the :onsequences. Regulations; ~rsons-Land ory Relief- ~ fonh proce- 1e legIslature luslve remedy ~ . ! ~ 7 -, -~ ~ i ; r , / ~ -1=. ~~- _..!3.. - .3"--= -- - - - - ~ =~-- -::;"ir-= -~~:-- ;$~ # ' ~ -- ....-li;;;.... ,.i.:far PALMER v CITY OF OJAI 178 Ca1 App 3d 280. 223 Coal Rptr 542 [Mar 1986] 283 for public agencies' noncompliance with the procedures therem. In- cludmg the tlme wlthm which to approve or dIsapprove a development proJect. thereby foreclosing the alternatIve remedy for monetary dam- ages by a developer for vlolauon of the procedures [See Cal.Jur.3d. Zomng and Other Land Comrols. 9 208. Am.Jur.2d. Zomng and Planning, g 351 ] COUNSEL Drescher, McConlca & Young, Lagerlof, Senecal. Drescher & SWift. Fadem. Berger & "lorton and Michael M Berger for PlaintIffs and Appellants Monte L. Wldders. City Attorney. Burke. Wflhams & Sorensen and Katherine E SlOne for Defendants and Respondents OPINION HANSON (Thaxton), Acting P. J.-Consohdated appeals taken fromJudg- ments rendered In superior couns In Ventura County PetltlOners Howard Palmer. domg busmess as Palmer Development Com- pany and OJal Investments. a Cahfomta hmlled partnershIp, sought a Writ of mandate to compel certam actlons by respondents, mcludmg the Issuance of a buddmg permit for a neIghborhood commerCial shopping center 10 OJal Named as respondents were the CIty Counctl, the Planmng and BUIldlOg Department. and th.e Plannmg COmmtSSlon of the Cay of Ojal. and their mdlvldual members. The petulon was demed; Judgment was entered for respondents and a tImely appeal from the Judgment was taken I Plamtlffs also filed a complamt for~ damages agalOst the Cuy of OJa1, the city councIl, the planmng and buddmg depanment and the plannmg and arChltectural commlSSlon, as well as Does. seeking $6.375.000 In damages 'In our dISCUSSIon. Palmer and Ojal (nveSlments Will be referred 10 as the plamnffs or Developer The vanous city depanmenls or bodies and lhelr individual members WIll be referred to as the defcndan[S or City The shoppmg center will someumes be referred 10 as the developmem prOjeCl or ProJecl Unless otherwISe speCIfied. the statutory references Will be to the Government Code The pertinent provISIons of lhe Government Code with whIch thIS hngauon IS concerned Will sometimes be referred 10 as lbe Statutory Scheme oon1.t 284 PAL.\ofER v CITY OF OJAI 178 CaJ App 3d 280. 123 Cal Rptr 542 [Mar 1986) (as weH as attorney fees. expenses and Interest) for City's assertedly wrong- ful refusal to take actIon on the development proJect. Ie, the shoppmg center. allegmg vanous lheones of recovery SIX causes of aellon were stated; (1) vlOlatlon of federal CIVJl nghts. pursuant to 42 Umted States Code sectIon 1983. (2) vIOlatIon of Cahforma constltutlonal nghts. (3) mverse condemnation, (4) fallure to discharge mandatory duues, (5) breach of the Implied covenant of good ra1th and faIr deabng~ and (6) entitlement to declaratory rehef The complamt was sub- sequently amended to add a cause of actIon for neglIgence per se Defendants' demurrer to the amended complamt was sustamed without leave to amend save for two causes of actIon. the fourth and the Sixth. Plamtlff's then filed a second amended complamt allegmg four causes of acuon for fallure to dIscharge mandatory dutIes and neglIgence per se De- fendants agam demurred and the demurrer was sustamed without leave to amend By supulatlon. the partIes agreed to [he filing of a thlrd amended compl3.1nt, WIth defendants' demurrer sustamed Without leave to amend Judgment was entered for defendants, a tImely appeal was taken The two matters have been consolIdated for review In thIS court With respect to the complaint for damages. a JOint appendIx In heu of the -clerk's transcnpt has been prepared, pursuant to rule 5 1 of the Call forma Rules of Court FACTUAL SUMMARY AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 18, 1980, Developer filed an '<Envlronmental Assessment ApplIcatIOn" WIth defendants concernmg a plan to develop 31 acres of land appropnately zoned on the Mancopa Highway in OJaI. near the local hIgh school Developer sought a SUbdIVISion permtt and a condmonal use pernut. as well as a bUlldmg permIt The acreage subject to proposed development had formerly been a farm. but had not been used for agncultural purposes for years It was filled with shrub grass and weeds The project contemplated the use of 21 acres for the construction of 73 housmg units The remainder was to be used for a shoppmg center whIch would house a grocery store and a Jumor department store along with a restaurant. bankIng faCIlItIes and serVice stores PrOVISIon had been made for parksng The condltlonal use permn was necessary for [he grocery store and the JUnIor depanmem store. [he current general plan proposed zomng mcluded the remamder of the proposed commerc1al and resldenllal usages With the exceptlOn of dramage problems. Increased nOlse and glare. no partIcular envIronmental or hIstOrtcal concerns were noted f ..: PALMER v Crn 178 Cal App 3d ~s ..-,! Pnor to the ~ ect Wtth Ctty at because of a m plan. There was no plannmg duectc continued betwe that an uEnvlror dISCUSSIons com proposed ErR, . such maners as concern . In September been selected by 1982 In May l' permIt and the c for whIch Devel plaIned In wntm . On January 10 mns On Januar quested a bUlldm two meetlngs we PlannIng COromI culated among C the publIc mood spoke adversely <- tIC SImplIcity Tt the necessary per dlvls10n and certl ThiS two-prong result of Clty's j plalOed below. as plied with apphca In 197i the Ca and Approval of menCIng with sect 0(\/122. ER v CITY OF OJAI Rplr 542 [Mar 19861 s assertedly wrong- Ie, the shoppmg :deral civIl nghts. at IOn of Call forma dure to discharge good fauh and fair omplamt was sub- :e per se sustained without rth and the sIxth ng four causes of Igence per se De- j wIthout leave to f a third amended :ave to amend 'as taken The two V lth respect to the rk's transcript has :::5 of Coun ORY ,ental Assessment J 31 acres of land :ar the local hIgh Bonal use penn It , :rly been a fann, It was filled WIth of 21 acres for to be used for a umor department stores ProvlsJon as necessary for refit general plan commercial and , mcreased nOise liS were noted. PALMER v CITY OF OIAI 178 Cal App 3d 280. 223 Cal Rp[r 542 {Mar 19861 285 Prior to the December 18, 1980 fihng, Developer had discussed the proJ- ect with Cay offiCials for nearly a year An earlier filmg had been rejected because of a mlssmg form, the December 18. 1980 filing mcluded a sue plan There was no formal response by City to the appltcauon. except City's plannIng dIrector marked It "accepted" as of February 1981 DISCUSSions contmued between City and Developer On April 14. 1981. City decided that an "EnVironmental Impact Report" (EIR) was requIred EnVironmental diSCUSSions continued between Cuy and Developer Developer paid for the proposed EIR. Developer also hired consultants who reported to City on such matters as oak trees on [he property for which City ftad expressed concern In September 1981, Developer complamed that no EIR consultant had been selected by Clty An EIR was prepared but rejected by City In March 1982 In May 1982. Developer made speCIfic requests for the subdIVISion permIt and the condltlonal use permit By August 1982, the second EIR. for WhICh Developer had also paid. was not complete and Developer com- plamed 10 WrItmg about the passage of time ." On January 20. 1983, Developer requested Issuance of the necessary per- mIts On January 25. 1983. Developer submitted buIldmg plans and re- quested a buIlding permIt The request was refused. On February 8. 1983. [Wo meetings were held on the same evening by the OJal ArchItectural and Planmng CommIssion and the CIty CouncIl of OJaI Petitions had been cir- culated among OJaI Citizens about the proposed development project. and the pubhc mood was generally dlsapprovmg. At the meetings local CItIzens spoke adversely about the proJect, stressmg the need to protect OJaI's artis- tiC slmphcJty The planmng commISSIon demed Developer's requests for the necessary permits The cllY councIl held a publIc heanng and dented lot diVISion and ceruficatlon of the EIR ~ -= ..J ThIS two-pronged lItigatIon ensued for mandate and for damages as the result of City's refusal to permit Developer to proceed Developer com- plamed below, as It does here, that City. by protracted delay. had not com- plIed With applIcable statutory law. ::.~ ;.J. ~, THE STATUTORY ScHEME ~ In 1977 the Cahfornla LegJslature added chapter 4 5, entItled "ReVIew and Approval of Development ProJects" to the Government Code. com- mencIng WIth secnon 65920. (Stats 1977. ch 1200, ~ I, P 3993) . OOll2J 286 PALMER V CITY OF OlAI 178 Cal App 3d ~80. 223 Cal Rptr 542 (Mar 19861 "i PAL..\lER v. CITY Of 178 Cal App 3d 280. 2 -. In sectlon 65921, the LegIslature declared . . The Leglslature finds and declares that there IS a statewide need to ensure clear understandmg of the specIfic requuements whIch must be met In connection WIth the approval of development projects and to expedite deCISIOns on such projects Conse~ quently, the provlS10ns of thIS chapter shalt be appl1cable to all pubhc agen- CIes, includmg charter cmes." In the years SInce enactment. certam clan. tymg and expandmg amendments have been made, but there have been no material alteratIons In the ongInal Statutory Scheme "completeness" of candy, the 30-day t Chapter 4 5 contamed some defiml10ns whIch are pertment to aUf dISCUS- sion here Section 65927 defined development 10 a very broad manner, included was the subdlVlslon of land pursuant to the SUbdIVIsIon Map Act (Gov Code. ~ 66410 et seq ), and the constructlon of all private as opposed to publ1c faclhttes 2 A development project was one which lOvolved the Issuance of a permIt for construction or recOnstfUCtIOn but not a perrott to cperate (~65928) ~ The next tIme 1m Secuon 65950 state development proJec year from Ihe dare prO)eCf has been re speCIfied In secUon~ the perlOd specIfied added.)3 SectIOn 65~ agency for a develoI wlthm whtchever of days from the date ( such proJect. nl (bi phcatlons for such p each such responslbI A "lead agency" meant the pubhc agency whIch has the prInCIpal re~ sponslblhry for approvmg a project (~ 65929) and a "responsIble agency" was defi ned as "a pubhc agency. other than the lead agency. which has responSIbility for carrymg out or approvmg a project " (~ 65933 ) W 1m respect to th hmltat1ons, secuon <5 . WIth respect to "expedltlOus declS1on-makmg." one object of legIslative concern, the time hmuauon sectIons of chapter 4 5 began WIth sectIon 65943. WhICh. as II read dunng the events whIch gave nse to thiS hllgahon, stated .. Not later than 30 calendar days after any pubhc agency has re- ceived an apphcatlon for a development proJect, such agency shaH deter. mine In wnung whether such appltcatlOn lS complete and shall ImmedIately transmll such determmatlon to the apphcant for the development project 11 such ""rmen decenmnatloll (S nor nuuie wuhm 30 days after recerpc .of the appbcallon, the app/lcQtlon shall be deemed complete for the purposes of th.is chapler In the event that the apphcatlon IS determmed not to be com- plete. the agency's delemllnanon shan SpeCIfy those pans of the apphcatlon which are mcomplete and shall mdlcale the manner In whIch they can be made complete" (Itahcs added.) "(a) If any provlsl cy to hold a pubhc t'1 not held such heann lImns establIshed by representauve may fi. CIVil Procedure to Cl shall gIve such proce ceedmgs. except aide "(b) In the event Ii co approve or co dlSl reqUIred by chzs arnci development prOJecI ThiS section was substantIally amended by Sta[U[es 198.:1. chapter 1723, set:tlon l, to prOVide procedures for handling disputes that might develop between the public agency and the applicant concermng what consmutes HCC) Fatlure of an . may consutute grounl added ) ~. Development was declared to Include placemem or ereclJon. dIscharge or disposal, grading removing. ell.rraClIOn, change In density of land use land dIVISion /Orher [han Publtc). change In tmensl[Y of use of water cOnstruc:tlon. reconstructlon. demoJlllon. aJrer- attcn. remo,," al. . on land. \11 or uru:1er ....ater . 'PubliC Resources Code mental QualHY Act. CEQA envtronmental revle.... In ( hmlts by a lead agencv .... prepared pursuant ~o sewc agency must act on the pro .SUbdlvlSlon (a) \lias add, 001\14 CITY OF OJAI 542 {Mar 1986j llure finds and standmg of the the approval of "oJects Conse- all pubhc agen- t, certam cian- e have been no I to our dISCUS- broad manner. /IS10n Map Act "ate as opposed h mvolved the not a pernut to ..;: pnnclpal re- 'fis!ble agency" ..r:.y. WhICh has >5933.) :t of legislatlve .. wIth sectIon . this Imgauon. <!gency has re- :y shall deter- Iltmmcdlately .o:nt proJect. If receIpt of the .c purposes of ..:)1 to be com- we appltcatlOn h they can be cnapter 1723, I!jght develop .at constitutes rge or disposal, :,..,n (other than :::-,.::;l.i.on. alter- . j .. , ~ ..; .1 i . PALMER v CITY OF OJAI 178 Cal App 3d 280. 223 Cal Rplr 542 {Mar 19861 287 "compJeteness" of an apphcatlOn for sectIon 65943 purposes. but signifi- cantly, the 30-day tlme llmnatlOn remalned mtact The next time hmnatlons were comamed In sections 65950 and 65952 Section 65950 states. .. Any pubhc agency whIch lS the lead agency for a development project shall approve or dIsapprove such prOject within one year from the date on wh,ch an applIca/lOn requestmg approval of such project has been receIved and accepted as complete by such agency_ As specIfied In sectlons 21100 2 and 21151 5 of the Pubhc Resources Code. the penod specified In such sectlons shaH also begw on such dale '( ltahcs added.)J Section 65952 states. .. Any publIc agency w~llch lS a responsible agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove such prOject wlthm whichever of the fOllowmg time penods IS longer ('J (a) WlthlO 180 days from the date on whlch the lead agency has approved or dLsapproved such project. ['l (b) WIthm 180 days of the date on which completed ap~ pJJcatJons for such projects have been recelved and accepted as compJete by each such responsible agency " With respect to the consequences for failing to comply wah these tIme IJmuauons. sectIon 65956 declared "(a) If any provlslon of law requIres the lead agency or responsIble agen- cy to hold a publIc hearmg on the development project and the agency has not held such heanng at least 60 days prior to the explranon of the time hmlts establIshed by Sections 65950 and 65952. the apphcant or hIS or her representattve may file an action pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of CIVll Procedure to compel the agency to hold such heanng and the court shall gIve such proceedIngs preference over all other CIVIl actions or pril- ceedmgs. except older matters of the same character (41 "(b) /n the event that a lead agency or a responsIble agency fads to act to approve or to dIsapprove a development project wlthm the nme limas reqUlred by thIS artIcle I such faIlure to act shall be deemed approval of the deveLopmem prOJect. : "(c) Fallure of an applicant 10 subnut complete or adequate mformatIon may constItute grounds for dISapprovmg a de\lelopment proJect" (Itahcs added. ) JPubhc Resources Code sectIons 21100 2 and 21151 5 (found In the Ca.llfornla EnVIron.- mental Quality Act, CEQA} both have reference to a one-year time lImitation In completing envIronmental revIew In Governmcnt Code section 65951. a prOVISion for w3..\ver of ume limns by a lead agcncy was enacted If a combIned Impact rep<)n and statement art beIng prepared pursuant to sectIon 21083 6 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA-). but the lead agency must act on the prOject within 60 days of receIpt of the repons and statements 'SUbdlviSion (a) was added to the section by amcndmcnl in 1982 o 0 n 1.S 288 PALMER v. CITY OF OJAJ 178 CaI App 3d 280, 223 Cal Rptr 542 ['Aar 1986] It was further provIded that these tIme hmllatIOnS could be extended once for a penod not to exceed 90 days If the public agency and the applIcant agreed to such extension. (~65957) More Importantly, sectlon 65957 1 provIded that "In the event that a development project requIres more than one approval by a pubhc agency, such agency may estabhsh tIme (1) for subnuttmg the mformatIon requIred m connectIOn WIth each separate request for approval and (2) for actIng upon each such request. provided, however, that the tIme period for acttng on all such requests shall not, m aggregate, exceed those time llmus speqfied In SeCflOTlS 65950 and 65952 .. T],IE WRIT OF MANDATE The petltJon for writ of mandate, seektng to compel City to issue the necessary permits for the project, was based on the Statutory Scheme dIS- cussed supra, 10 effect, Developer clwmed that CIty had not observed cer- tam Hme limltatlOns set forth In the statutes, mcluding those provldmg for a 30-day perIod to accept Developer's applIcatIon as complete and the 1- year penod for approvmg or dlsapprovmg the accepted, "complete" apph- cation. and should thus suffer the consequences of fallmg to follow the law deemed approval of the project Developer contended that what had been discretIonary durIng the allowable hme penods had become mandatory when those penods elapsed wnhout Cny's talong appropnate actIon as en- vIsioned by the Legislature. and thus Developer was entitled to a wnt of mandate "to compel the performance of an act whIch the law speCIally enjoins ., (Code ClV Pree, ~ 1085 ) In the tnal court, City claimed that Developer had not really apphed for CIty action on the project unt.tl May 1982, when the specific requests for planmng commISSion and CIty counell actIon were considered by those bod- Ies. Ie, the requests for condltJonal use permits, lot dIVISIon and EIR cer. tIficatlon. The City thus argued that rejection of the project, wllhIn the next year on February 8, 1983, was tImely wnhlO the meanmg of secuohs 65950, 65952 and 65956 Plamuffs, however, pleaded not only the December 18, 1980 filing of the "EnVIronmental Assessment ApphcatlOn" but explamed that "On or about December 2, 1980. Peuuoners presented an EnVironmental Assessment Ap- plication and an apphcatJon for conditIOnal use permit [CUP] for the Palmer Development project to Respondent PLANNING DEPARTME"IT on the forms prescnbed by the City of Ojal, together with a check for the requIred fees Respondent PLANNING DEPARnSENT refused to accept said CUP apphcatlOn and told PetlUoners that the CUP apphcauon and all other requ~sts for approval would not be accepted until the environmental reView process un- der the Cahfornla EnVironmental Quality Act (heremafter. 'CEQA ') (Cah- 00026 ,--.- -- 1.- .- ~~ 1- PAL.....ER v CIT 178 CaJ App 3d 2, forma Pubhc R, ed." The prope .. applicatIon" a the pnmary grOl (la) City rei [156 Cal.Rptr 7 held that land us tlaJly affect the p depnvauon of pr suant to both the prOVISIOn for not! pOSlllOn that Since heanng wlthm tht Statutory Scheme for compelhng de diVISIon (b) The tnal COUrt, l "Well, one, the care of Secondlv There IS no questI~ It shall be deemed the LegIslature was [he CJty, would pre of vanous proceedlJ have With that, how{ that It by Its very n. see, baSIcally preclu. WIsh to be a party, a meamngful parnclpal Smutlon in the proce' Later, the coun dee that due process shoL . has never had anvlhlO body He' S slmpiy cc techmcality He's try! suspect IS not gomg : ~CI1)' claimed to have ~ cIting Drum 1/ Fresno Co, Cal Rplr 782J n~. v. CrfY OF OJ AI , Rptr 542 (Mar 19861 PALMER v CITY OF OJ "I Jig Cat App 3d 180. 223 (.It Rplr 542 [Mar 1986] 289 lid be e)l.tended once :"\J and the apphcant .Iv. section 65957 1 t 'requaes more than stabflsh tLme (1) for ~acb separate request orovrded. however, -llllot. m aggregare, d 65952 .. forma Public Resources Code ~~ 21000 et seq ) was substantially complet- ed . The proper interpretation of the Statutory Scheme's use of the term . apphcallon" as the tngger for commencement of time hmnatlons was not the pnmary ground upon which Cuy defended In the tnal coun )el City to Issue the tatUlory Scheme dls- ad I'IOt observed cer- t those provldmg for ~ complete and the 1- d. "complete" applI~ r!2 to follow the law j dw: what had been i become mandatory ropria1e action as en- enuded to a wnt 0 f lch lbe law specIally (la) CllY relIed on Hom v County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal 3d 605 [156 Cal Rptr 718. 596 P 2d 1134]. wherem the Callforma Supreme Court held that land use decIslOns which are adjudIcatory In nature and substan- tially affect the property nghts of owners of adjacent parcels may COnS!ltUle depnvauon of property wlth10 the context of procedural due process pur- suant to both the UOlted States and CahforOla Constitutions If there IS no prOVIsion for notIce and heanng pnor to the deCISions made It was Clty's posltlon that Since the citizens of O)al had not been afforded such notice and heanng wlthm the time frames contemplated by the Statutory Scheme. the ScalulOry Scheme llself was constltutlOnally defectl\ e and prOVIded no baSIS for compellIng defendants to bear the consequences of section 65956. sub- diVISion (b) The trial court. durtng the proceedmgs on the wrIt. declared not really applIed for specific requests for SLdered by those bod- jlviSlon and EIR cer- 'oJCCt. wlthm the next ~l1g of sections 65950. "Well, one. the matter of standmg I belIeve IS one that Drum$ has taken care of Secondly, as to the more substantIve Issue It'S a fascmatIng one There IS no questIon that the government code section says speCIfically that It shaH be deemed to have been granted [1l And I believe that obViously the Legislature was attemptmg to Insure that the lead agency. In thts case. the City. would proceed qUickly and would not use as a tactic the stalhng of vanous proceedmgs. which IS a laudable goal [1] The difficulty that [ have with that. however. IS that however laudatory and deSirable that goal, that U by ItS very nature, and With no way of gettlOg around It that [ can see. baSically precludes the lead agency and any other agencies that might Wish to be a pany. and certamly any members of the general publIc from a meanmgful partICipatiOn as required by both the U Sand CalI forma con- stItution In the process." 18. 1980 fihng of the led that .. On or about ,ental Assessment Ap- [CUP} for the Palmer ,RTMENT on the forms . for the required fees t said CUP apphcal10n ail other requests for leal review process un- after. 'CEQA') (Cah- Later. the court declared. to response to counsel for plaIntiffs' suggestion that due process should be afforded to everyone. Your clIent [plamtlffs] has never had anythmg He's not had the project already approved by any. body He's SImply commg In-lt's good lawyerlng-he's commg 10 on a techmcahty He's trymg to get thiS through the back door. what I agam suspect IS not gomg to happen through the front door, and while It has . t 1 ~Clly clauned lO have slandmg lO ctlum lhe constitutional ngnlS recogluz.ed In Horn by cHIng Drum v Fr~sno County Dtpt of Public Works (1983) 144 eal App 3d 777 (192 Cal Rplr 7821 ilia- 001):7 290 PALMER V CITY OF OlAI 178 CaLApp.3d 280.223 Cal Rptr 542 [Mar 19861 enormous Impact on him. r can't see that his due process nghts have been too trampled, as you said .. Dec1anng that the Legislature had not gIVen the problem raIsed m Horn sufficIent thought when draftmg the Statutory Scheme, the tnal court demed the petition and granted Judgment on the pleadmgs to Ctty on their first affirmal1ve defense THE STANDARD OF REVIEW (2) Judgment on the pleadings IS tantamount to that of sustalOmg a de- murrer wuhout leave to amend, In terms of the standard of review employed by an appellate court (6 WItkin, Cal Procedure (3d ed 1985) Proceedmgs Without TrIal. ~ 263, P 565) The appropnate standard requIres an appel9 late court to acceptfacls well pleaded 10 the pleader's pelltIon or complamt as true Arnvmg at legal conclusions, of course, remains the province of the court {Serrano v Pnesl (1971) 5 Cal 3d 584, 591 [96 Cal Rptr 601. 487 P 2d 1241, 41 -\ L R.3d 1187]. cert den 432 U S 907 [53 L Ed 2d 1079, 97 S Ct 2951] (] 977) ) THE ApPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF MANDATE (lb) As IOdlcaled. the trial court expressed the opinIon that Jl had no chOlce but 10 declare the Statutory Scheme descnbed above constItutIonally InvaJld because no provISIon had been made for heanng and nOllce to Citi- zens who mIght be adversely affected by a project wlthm the purview of the Statutory Scheme We observe. first of all, that the panles do not really disagree on the meamng of the Statutory Scheme as an expresslon of leglslatIve mtent, but only on the consequences attendant upon City's faIlure to comply with the applicable provlslons ThIS posture IS understandable, for the legislatIve ll\tem was made unmistakably clear in seCllon 65921 There was a dual concern for (1) establishmg gUidelines for commumcauon between devel- oper-applicants and public agencies, communlcauon mtended to remove gamesmanship from the applicatIon process, and (2) establishing time hm- Itallons which would allow full and fair conSIderatIon of applIcations for development by public agencIes whlle protectIng the apphcanls from the arbltranness and capnce assocIated With unjustifiable delay (3) In the face of the plain statulOry language. there IS no need I':> resort to rules of statutory constructIon to ascertam leglslauve Intent, It was made clear (Sol- berg v SuperIOr Court (977) 19 Cal 3d 182, 198 {137 Cal Rptr 460.561 P 2d 1148) ) o 0 I) 2 a -- -1 I ~1- PAL.\iER v. Cln 178 CaLApp.3d 28 Secondly. It s not purport to c wnh respect to ( placed a ume h however. that ( conStItute dem~ Scheme's proVl Thlrdly, It IS the Cahfomla E Act as well, anc hannomze WIth We hold that face (Ie) W court, 1 e , the for neJghbors 0 process nghts Counry of Venr statute WIll be .' validity whene\ 1985) LImltatlC statutory constr comltant of the SJstent WIth cor Saylor (1971) S (ld) The fat presented 10 He whatsoever Th SIons relatmg t. pears to be bas notice and hea: Horn ltself mak It IS the publIc No argument for a . lead" ag developmem ap assessmem of "II should be nOl ceO\ \0 the prolec: made complalms r .H:lCER V CITY OF OJAI Cat Rplr 5<12 [Mar 19861 PA LMER v CITY OF OJAI 1"'8 Cal .o\pp 3d :80 223 Cat Rptr 5~2 [Mar 19861 291 -ocess rights have been Secondly. It should be noted what the Statutory Scheme dId not do h dId nO[ purport [Q compel pubitc agencies [Q exerc'se theIr dIscretionary power with respect to development applications In am' :larucular manner H merely placed a tIme hmJ[atlon on that exercise of dIscretion It can fairly be saId. however. that one thrust of the legislatIOn was recogmtlon that delay can constitute denIal. time. accordmgly. was the essence of the Statutory Scheme's prOVISions on development appbcauon procedures lroblem raIsed In Hont ::. the trial court demed , to Cay on their first hat of sustalnmg a de- lrd of reView employed ed 1985) Proceedmgs iard requires an appel- i petlllon or complamt rnams the provmce of 9-1 (96 Cal Rptr 60 I. U.5_ 907 [53 L Ed Zd Thlrdly. It IS clear that [he LegIslature had II" mInd relevant proVISions of the California EnVIronmental Quallty A.ct (CEQJ..) and the SubdIVISIOn \1ap Act as well. and Intended that the lime I1mllS or the Statutory Scheme would harmOnize wah those provISions opmuon that I t had no ~e constltutlOnally nag and notIce to Cltl- :h:m the purvIew of the .f -< We hold that these realities about the Sta[utor... Scheme are eVIdent on Its face (Ie) We turn now to [he constltUUona~ defect perceived by the lrIal court. Ie. [he absence of provISions for some type of notice and heanng for neighbors of a proposed project who have consutuuonally protected due process rights 10 connectIon with the proposed development (Horn v County of Ventura. supra. 24 Cal 3d 605)6 (,a) h IS elementary that a statute Will be JudICially construed In a manner upholdlOg Its constautlonal validIty whenever poSSIble (1 Sutherland. Statutory Constructton (4th ed 1985) LImitatIons on LegIslative Power, ~ 2 01. P 15) ThiS approach to sIatutory constructIon has been strongly adhered to In thiS state. as a con. comllant of the Legislature's "plenary authority" to enact leglslauon con- Sistent with constitutIOnal standards (MethodISt Hospital of Sacramenro v Saylor (1971) 5 Cal 3d 685. 691 [97 Cal Rptr I. ~88 P 2d 161 J ) ASDA. TE ~ ..,:! "1 (ld) The fact that the Legislature did not see fit to address the problem presented 10 Ham has, III our VIew, no fatal etfect on the Statutory Scheme whatsoever The tnal court's determmauon that the absence of ume provl. slons relatIng to Horn rendered the Statutory Scheme unconstltuuonal ap- pears to be based on a mlsconceptJon of who It IS that owes the duty of notIce and heating to Interested neighbors of a development project ;\s Horn Itself makes clear, It IS not the developer-applicant who has the duty. It IS the public agencIes themselves. Includmg City. -e-.iliy disagree on the fqisiatJ\le mtent, but re to comply with the Ie. for the legIslatIve !.L There was a dual .:aDDn between devel- 1 lltIended to remove estabbshmg time lIm- :m of applIcatIOns for e ~hcants from the e delay. (3) In the i t.,) resort to rules of was made clear (501- 17 CaLRptr. 460. 561 :1 I ~ No argument has been presented here that one year IS not sufficlem tlme for a "lead" agency to address ItS functIons and concerns With respect to a development application Those functions and concerns undoubtedly mclude assessment of environmental Impact and economic effects as well as the 6lt sRould be noted that tRIS record does not contam an) mdlcatlon that landowners adJa- cent 10 the project auempted 10 have a heanng during [he penmenl lime penod nor 'lad made complaints relallve to nouce and heanng OO():2<0 292 PAL~ER v CITY OF OIAI 178 Cal.App 3d 280, 223 eal Rpu 542 [Mar 19861 i 1 I \ t I I I sense of whether a partIcular development wIll further a commumty' 5 de. sIred dIreCtlOn. (Assoczated Home Bu,lders ere . Inc. v City of l.wermore (1976) 18 Ca1.3d 582 (l35 Cal Rptr 41, 557 P.2d 473, 92 A.L.R.3d 1038].) They also now Include the duty to mfonn the neIghbors of a pro. posed development project of the posslblhty of approval and of the potennal consequences of such approval In the matter before us. City's faIlure to follow Horn may not be used by City to mvahdate legIslauve enactmems not m any way inconsistent with the procedural due process conslderatlons Involved m Horn. I ~ (Sa) The real problem presented by the Statutory Scheme IS In deter- mInmg the consequences of CIty'S noncomplIance We reject City'S mSls- tence that the apphcatlon of Developer on December 18, 1980, was not really an application at all We hold It was such an apphcatlon.7 None of the requIsite deadlines were met by City. for whatever reasons. Whether the conduct of the planmng commiSSion or the city counCil IS considered, their actIons before and on February 8. 1983 were well beyond those dead- hnes What IS reqUired IS constructIOn of the Statutory Scheme as directory or mandatory in nature If the Scheme IS directory. lack of compliance does not necessanly result In "deemed approved.' status for the project If the Scheme IS mandatory. however, 11 does (See generally, lA Sutherland. Statutory Construction, supra. Mandatory, Directory, Prohl bnory and Per- miSSiVe Statutes, S 25 03, pp 441.443) Section 65956. SUbdIVISion (b) contams the legislative mtentIon 10 plain language - WhIle the Scheme abounds w1th the use of the word "shall," that IS not dlsposlUve of the Issue (6) As was explamed In Moms v. County of Marin (1977) 18 CaJ.3d 901, 909-910 [136 Cal RptT 2S 1, 559 P 2d 6061 explamed. qUOlmg Pulczfer II Coumy of Alameda (1946) 29 CaJ.2d 258. 262 [175 P 2d I}, '.there IS no SImple, mechamcal test for determmmg whetller a prOVISIon should be given 'duectory' or 'mandatory' effect 'In order to determme whether a partlcular statutory provlSlon IS manda- tory or dIrectOry. the court. as In all cases of statutory conSlTuct!on and mterpretatlOn. must ascenam the leglslatlve Intent In the absence of express 'The application. whIch was lengthy and contamed conSiderable mformatlon prOVIded by Developer. was. In our VIeW, an appltca[lon for de~'elopme'" regardless of the title chosen by City 10 place on the forms. II has been included In Ihe record on appeal We conclude that the mal court .by addreSSing the conslltUltOnallSsue raIsed bv Horn. did detemune thaI the application of December 18 1980 was one within the meanmg of the statute or there would have been no :leed (0 proceed on the conSlitutlonal Ls~ue and rule on that partlclJlar defense ThiS clrcU'mstance compels the conclUSIOn [hat when the petltlon for mandate lS heard on LtS ments. the scope of triable Issues wltl be reduced to those determIning whether or not there has been comphanee "ltn lhe statute oon~o f~ ~ ~ ~ 1:'= ~ ;,0,- ~ ;t a; . r .~ OS ~- ~~- ~ f- .,.- f -- s c u ; it l i PALMU 178 eal langua! as a wt from th partlCUi some P' WIll be~ est In declanr whether 110n-1s Invahda mandan w1th th, a!ternat IS to be (7) Steele { tlme 1m rather tt supra. Two fac of the ec anee, l.t leglslatl was to ] pubhe a We com duector: Accor Judgmen for CllY The ql nauve re 'E g L Sess ) Sun Energy SI -\dmlnl~tr. ER V CITY OF OlAI Rplf 542 ~Maf J 9861 a commUnity's de- City of Ln'ennore ~73, 92 A L R 3d 1elghbors of a pro- and of the potenual s. Cuy's faJiure to IslaClve enactments cess consIderatIOns cherne IS III deter- -eject CH)o'S InSIS- 8. 1980. was not hcation 7 None of reasons Whether led IS consIdered. eyond those dead. ,e as dIrectOry or comphance does '1e project If the lA Sutherland. 'hibltory and Per- mentIon In plarn )rd .. shall." that ..tarns v County ~. 559 P 2d 606} 29 Cal 2d 258, for detenmnrng itOry' effect. 'In J .. is manda- :onstructJon and 'Sence of express mauon prov\ded by , of the urle chosen lJlClIl We conclude dJd determine that ne StaNtC. or thcre e on tha\ pan\tular Ion for mandate IS =tennulIng whethcr r .. i- - - t-- -.-=. P"'LMER v CITY OF OlAI l78 Cal App 3d 280 ::23 COli Rptr 5~:: ["1ar [9861 293 language. the Intent must be gathered from the terms of the statUte construed as a whole. from the nature and the character of the act to be done, and from the consequences which would follow the domg or faIlure to do the pamcular act at the reqUlred ume {CLtaUon] When the object is to subser\le some public purpose, the provIsIOn may be held dlfectory or mandatory as Will best accomphsh that purpose [cltauon) "(Fn ommed) Of lOter- est In Moms. also. IS the diSCUSSIOn 10 footnote 4. 18 Cal 3d 908-909. declanng that 'the 'dlrectory-mandatory' dlstmcuon IS concerned only WIth whether a parucular remedy-m...ahdauon of the ultimate governmental ac- tiOn-iS appropnate when a procedural requirement IS Violated, even when mvahdauon IS not approprIate, other remedies-such as inJunctive relief. mandamus or monetary damages-may be avallable to enforce comphance WIth the statutory provlslOn Indeed. the avaIlabilIty or unavailability of alternative remedIes may have an Important bearmg on whether a procedure IS to be accorded 'directory' or 'mandatory' effect" (7) We are aware that OUf Supreme Court has stated, In Edwards v Steele (1919) 25 Cal 3d 406, 410 [158 CaLRptr 662.599 P 2d 1365), that time limItatIOns 10 and of themselves are normally Viewed as "directory" rather than "mandatory H (See a~so 2A Sutherland. Statutory ConstructlOn. supra. Mandatory and Directory Construction. ~ 57 19, P 682) (5b) Two factors may. however, persuade to the contrary (1) Where "time 1S of the essence" 10 the legislation and (2) where the penalty for noncompli- ance. Ie, the consequences, has been specified In the legislation Itself The leglslauve matenals all suppon the vIew that the Intent of the Legislature was to place reasonable but firm time hmlta110nS an the dellberatlOns of publIc agencIes concernlOg land use decISions. I The penalty was speCIfied We conclude that the Statutory Scheme created a mandatory, rather than a directory duty AccordIngly, we hold that the lrial court erred In granting defendants Judgment on the pleadmgs We address next the Issue of the damages sought for CIty's noncomphance With the law DAMAGES The quesuon IS presented as to whether Developer IS enutled to the alter- native remedy of damages for the loss sustamed from CIty's breach of the IE g , LeglsJallve Counsel's Dlgesl of Assembly Resolution No 884. Statules (1977 Reg Scss ) Summary Olgesl. pages 338-340. Assembly Commutee on Resources. Land Use and Energy. Slaff AnalYSIS of Assembly Bill "(0 884 (1977 Rcg Sess), and see California Stale AdmmlSlralt...e Manual, Office of Plamung and Research, "Permll GUidelines" (i(78) 001131 294 P....LM.ER v. CITY OF OJ....I 178 Cal App 3d 280, 223 Cal Rptr 542 [Mar 1986) mandatOry duty 10 comply with the time hmItatIons set forth 10 the Statutory Scheme of chapter 4 5 of the Government Code We hold that Developer lS not so entitled Developer has pleaded vanous theOrIes, encompassmg the breach of man- datory duty. InVerse condemnatIOn and depravatIon of federally protected constItutional rIghts. In an effort to estabhsh financial hablhty on the part of City Cogmzam that eXlstmg Callforma law has generally rejected the use of finanCIal liabilIty as a Viable remedy In land use cases. Developer pomts to the growing body of eVidence that the federal courts, mdudmg the Gmted States Supreme Court. are loolong at California's poslllon In thiS regard with disfavor. detecting constitutional rnfinnny 10 the face of the 5tb and 14th Amendments to the Uruted States ConstItution, which preclude the destructlOn of pnvate property Interests by the government WIthout Just compensation. As was pungently stated In San Diego Gas & Electnc Co v San Diego (1981) 450 U S 621. 661 [67 L Ed 2d 551. 578. 101 S CE- 1287]. 10 footnote -26 of the dissenting opmlOn. ImpOSItiOn of financial ha- bllIty might spur more rational land use plannmg than less "After all, If a pohceman must know the Constlluuon, why nOl a planner?" Defendants rely on a long hst of Cahfornla deCISIOns whIch have ex- pressed a strong public pohcy insulating land use planmng from cIvil lia- bility The most recent and pertment of these declSlons IS Agtns v Cay of Tlburon (1979) 24 Cal 3d 266 [157 Cal Rptr 372. 598 P 2d 25]. affirmed (1980) 447 U S 255 [65 L Ed 2d 106, 100 S Ct 2138]. which rejected a claim for monetary damages stemmmg from a zonlOg determmatIon by TI- buron which was destructive to plalOuff Agms' property mterests After diSCUSSing the "chilling effect" the spectre of financial hablhty mIght mtro- duce mto local planmng arenas. the Cahforma Supreme Court declared that "the need for preservmg a degree of freedom m the land-use planmng func- llon. and the mhlbiting financIal force which mheres In the inverse condem- nation remedy. persuade us that on balance mandamus or declaratory rellef rather than mverse condemnauon IS the appropnate rehef under the circum- stances .. (ld , at pp. 276-277 ) Agtns has not been overruled While It concerned Inverse condemnation damages assenedly resultmg from a zomng determmauon-tradlUonaHy Viewed as both leglslauve and dIscreuonary govern me mal conduct-we perceive the statement of public polICY as suffi- cIently strong and clear to preclude both direct and mdlrect challenge to Its apphcatlOn In land use cases generally. whether 10 the legIslative or adJU- dicatOry context (8) ThiS dlVlSlon followed Aglns In GIlliland v County of Los Angeles (198]) 126 Cal App 3d 610 [179 Cal Rptr 73]. appeal diS- mIssed (1982) 456 U S 967 [72 L Ed 2d 840. 102 S Ct 2227], and now l t . 00032 PAL\lER. v ern OF ( 178 Cal App 3d 280, 223 holds agam that mon herem. In the context of contemplated mandar noncomphance With alternauve remedy f( new trail IS to be blaz of the Leglslature rat The Judgment den) Judgment dlsIDlssmg bear ItS own costS Lucas. J . and Ara A petition for a rer modified to read as F Supreme Court was were of the oplnlon t -ASSigned by the Chair '. CITY OF OJ AI 542 {Mar 1986J m the Statutory at Developer IS breach of man- ~rally protected Iit)' on the pan if y rejected the .ses. Developer 5. Includmg the :>Osition In UUS face of the 5th ::h preclude the 1t Without Just ~ Elecrnc Co )18. 101 S Ct ,f financIal ha- . After all. If a blch have ex- '-rom Clvtl ha- 'uts v. C1ry of 25]. affirmed lch rejected a mation by TI- lerests After ( mIght lntro- declared that lannmg func- erse condem- at'atot')' rehef r the clrcum- ed. While It rom a zomng ilscretionary ,hey as suffi- ulenge to itS live or adJu- uJ v. County . appeal dlS- 7}, and now PALMER v CITY OF OJAI liS Cal App 3d 2SO. 223 Cal Rpu 541 [\liar \986\ 295 holds agam that monetary damages are not presently available to plaintiffs herem In the context of the case before us. we conclude that the Legislature contemplated mandamus or declaratory rehef as the exclUSive remedy for noncomplIance wnh chapter 4 5 of the Government Code. and thus the alternative remedy for monetary damages is foreclosed to Developer If a new [rail IS to be blazed In thIS area, It IS more appropnately 10 [he provInce of the Legislature rather than the courts DrSPOSITlON The Judgment denymg the petlllOn for wnt of mandate IS reversed The Judgment dlsmlssmg the complaInt for damages IS affirmed Each party to bear ItS own costs. Lucas. j . and Aranda. J... concurred A petltlOn for a reheanng was dented Apnl 1. 1986. and the OpiniOn was modified to read as prmted above Respondents' petJUon for review by the Supreme Coun was denied. June 20. 1986. BIrd, C. J . and Reynoso. J . were of the OpInIOn that the petI1l0n should be granted -AS.S.lgned by the Chau"person of the ludl~\al COUft~\1 ()()1'32t ~LANlIING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT N~~BER: Tenant-Partic~patlng Convers~on 150, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590 LOCATION: 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard APPLICANT: Sunisa Pongputmong CASE PLANNER: Susan White, Ass~stant Planner REQUEST: To convert an eight-unit apartment building to condominiums. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 9/4/91 Date. Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. X Denied. Other. EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED: 9/14/91 9/14/91 Case #TPC 150 Case #VTTM 50590 Tenant-Participating Conversion Findings 1. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application 150 does not meet the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter of the city of Santa Monica along with all mandatory require- ments of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of Califor- nia in that participating tenant signatures were obtained through coercion and misrepresentation by the applicant, ~n that a letter was received by the City from the tenant of unit #4 in which the tenant indicated that she was threatened with "immediate eviction or going out of busi- ness if (the applicant) didn I t get enough signatures to convert to condominiums. ", in that her allegation of coer- c~on by the appl~cant ~nvalidated one signature and there- fore reduced the percentage of cosigning tenants from 75% to 63%, below the required 2/3rds or 67% of cosigning ten- ants requ~red for approval. On the date of the 9/4/91 o 0 n 34. - 1 - \.)J ,:fj',\ i( ..- A.-111\(Kn~1"" 'IE Planning Commiss~on hearing, the tenant of un~t #4 submit- ted a second letter to staff at the Planning and Zoning counter in '...,hich she stated she wished to IIretractll her in~tial letter and stated that she IIwrote the previous letter because of some misinformation rece~ved from other tenants and a JTlisunderstanding of my rights and respon- S~b1li ties II but the second letter did not specifically retract the previous letter's allegations of threats and coerClon. [reference Article XX Section 2002 (1)] 2. Tenant-Part1cipating Conversion 150 does not meet the re- quirements 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 in that the Planning Commission found that the specific allegation of coerC1on had not been retracted, and that there was suffic1ent evidence in the record to deny the application. 3. 'The following procedures have been followed 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 does not meet the requ1rements of Section 2002 of Article XX of the City Charter. (b) The Tenant-Participating conversion Application was filed by the owner on 2/6/91, not less than forty (40) days prior to the filing of the application for the tentative subdivision tract map on 3/19/91. (c) The application for vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590 was deemed complete on 3/27/91, Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 was continued at the 5/1/91 Planning COIDm1ssion hearing pending staff inquiry, but and no subsequent hearing date was set, and the Commission did not request an extension of the subdivision dead- line from the applicant at that time. (d) 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-Participating Conversi0n Application had been filed and that any ob] ections thereto may be filed with the City within twenty-five (25) days from the date of the notice. (e) Upon the filing of the application for the required tentative subdivision/parcel map, the Tenant- Partic1pating Conversion Application and required map were scheduled for hearing and processed in accordance with the procedures for the processing of subdivision maps. . r ' - 2 - OOtl~": (f) A letter from staff was sent to each participating tenant by registered mail on May 21, 1991 inquiring whether each tenant had been notified of their rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained e~ther through m~srepresentat~on or coercion, and whether any tenants had been offered money for signing the "Tenant Agreement to ConversJ.onll or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. Staff also requested that the participating tenants reply in writing within 10 days of receipt of the letter. Written responses were receJ.ved from the tenants of unJ.ts #1, 3, 7, and 8 on 6/3/91, 6/6/91, 6/4/91, and 6/4/91, respectively. Letters received by staff indicated that the tenants of units #1 and 3 agree to the conversion but rescind- ed their signatures on the "Tenant Intent to Purchase forms. The tenant of unit #7 stated that she agreed to the conversion but had no intention of purchasing her unit and the tenant of unit #8 did not wish to rescJ.nd her signature on either of the "1=enant Agree- ment to Conversionlt or "Tenant In":. -:t to Purchase" forms. (g) staff sent a second letter to the participating ten- ants of units ~2, 4, 5, and 6 by regular mail on June 24, 1991, requesting a written response within 10 days of receipt of the letter. Written responses were received from the tenants of units #4, and 6, on 7/8/ 91 and 6/27/91, respectively. Staff spoke with the tenant of unit #5 on 7/11/91. The tenant of unit #2 did not respond. The tenant of unit #4 indicated that coercion had been used to gain her signature on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and IITenant Intent to Purchase" forms and withdrew her signatures. Staff spoke with the tenant of unit #5 on July 11, 1991 at whiCh time the tenant indicated that she did not wish to rescind her signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversionlt and "Tenant Intent to Purchaselt forms. The tenant of unit #6 never agreed to the conversion. (h) A letter dated 8/26/91 was received after Planning Commission packets had been sent to the Commission on 8/28/91. A copy of this letter was given to each Com- missioner on the night of the 9/4/91 hearing. (i) staff noticed the May 1, 1991 and september 4, 1991 Planning Commission hearings and the October 8, 1991 City Council meeting for Tenant-Participating Conver- sion 150 as required per the Municipal Code. Tenants and property owners within a 300 foot site radius were notified of these hearings and the City Council meet- lng. Additionally, each tenant of 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard was sent copies of the application and of the staff reports for the Planning commission hearing as required by Article xx. The applicant did request that a copy of the staff report for the September 4, 1991 Planning Commission hearing be sent to her. - 3 - 00 n 3fi Through an oversight, the staff report was not sent to the appl~cant. ~. For information purposes, the fallowing persons are iden- tified in the application as partic~pating tenants: L'nit 1:n~t t:'n~t Crn t L'n~t Cnit t"n~t Gnlt 1 - Karin Hajek 2 - Soffy Sh~hata 3 - Dianne Bubb 4 - Edna wilson 5 - Terisa Gomez 6 - Gary Lee Myers 7 - Chr~st~na Gerona 8 - Laura Froehl~ch Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Susan White, Ass~stant Planner PC/st150 SMH VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Gilp~n, Morales, Nelson, Polhemus Pyne, Rosenstein Mechur 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 t~me within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, whlch provision has been adapted by the City pursuant to Munic~pal Code Section 1400. I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate- ly reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. signature date Ralph Mechur, Chairperson Please Print Name and Title I hereby agree acknowledge that to the above conditions of approval and failure to comply with such conditions shall - 4 - OOflj7 constitute grounds tor potential revocation of the permit approval. Appllcant's Signature Prlnt Name and Tltle PCjtempstoa DKW:bz r1 - 5 - 0003~ Ie.., PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION Land Use and Transportation Manaqement Department MEMORANDUM DATE: May 1, 1991 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning staff SUBJECT: TPC #150, VTTM #50590, Eight-Unit Tenant-Participating Conversion Address: 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Zoning: R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential) District Owner(s): sunisa pongputmong Background: This is an application for approval of a Tenant- Participating 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 hearing on the tentative map for the conversion. The two story building consists of eight, two bedroom units. Six parking spaces were required at time of construction in 1952. Twelve parking spaces exist on-site. Each unit will be assigned the use of one parking space. There are senior citizens residing in Units #2 and #8 of the building. There are no vacant units. The Planning COml1lission may deny this application ONLY upon a specific finding that the proposed conversion 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 threat or similar coercion. City staff has found no basis for denial of this application and therefore recommends approval with the findings and conditions set forth below. Summary Information Number of Total Units a Units with cosigning Tenants 6 (75% of total units) (63% of total units) Units with Tenants signing Intent to Purchase 5 Units with Senior or Disabled Tenants 2 OOO~9 - 1 - U ~'/ltUt'[ \ L- A T\AC.tt l'-'l E NT C Estimate of Conversion Tax $43,200 on sale of all units Owner(s) sunisa Pongputmong Last Hearing Date per Sub. Map Act June 21, 1991 Building Qualification: The sUbject puilding is a Qualifying Bu~lding 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 Division and the Rent Control Administration office. ObJections: No objections to this Tenant-participating Conver- sion were filed with the City within the 25 day objection period following notification to all building tenants of the Tenant- Participating Conversion Application, nor were any objections received prior to the time of distribution of this report to Planning commissioners. Additional Information: Additional information may be found in the attached portions of the Tenant-Participating conversion Ap- plication and Tentative Map Application. Analysis/Recommendation: A Tenant-participating Conversion, along with any required tentative map, may only be denied if it fails to meet the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter, is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, or threat or similar coercion, or fails to meet any mandatory requirement 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-Participatinq Conver- sion #150 and vesting Tentative Tract Map #50590 be approved with the following findings and conditions: Tenant-Participatinq 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] 2. The Tenant-participating Conversion Application has been deemed complete and accepted for filing. At the time of filing it met the requirements of Section 2002 of Article XX of the City Charter for a complete 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 details of which are incorporated into these findings by reference. - 2 - 00041 [\ (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 m~nlmum amount to be financed, the maximum rate of inter- est and the minimum term of the loan offered by the seller. (c) Sets forth, for each unit, the following 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 occupancy 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 building. 6) A prepared monthly 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 inspeccion report of the accessible portions of the entire build- ing, including but not llmited to, the roof, walls, floors, heating, air condlcloning, plumb- ing, electrical systems or components of a simi- lar or comparable nature, and recreational facilities of the building prepared by a Building Inspection Service or similar agency wi thin the preceding three (3) months. 2) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a written statement setting forth any sUbstantial defects or 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 report has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. ~) No eviction has occurred pursuant to Government Code Section 7060 et seq. (the Ellis Act) within a five (5) year period prior to the filing of an - 3 - Oon42. . application for Tenant-Participating Conversion. 5) No eviction has occurred pursuant to Section 1806 (h) of the Charter (relating to eviction for pur- poses of owner occupancy or occupancy by relative of 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, Ijwe, 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- ticipating 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 75% (not less than two-thirds) of all 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- 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 cosigning tenant was obtained in writing, to such tenant of in subsections (a) (b) (c) Section. the signature of each only after the delivery, the information required (d) and (e) of this ei) Contains a declaration 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 63% (not less than fifty percent) of the total number of residential units in the building. (If there is more than one tenant in a unit, the sig- nature of only one tenant is required.) (k) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a Tenant Intent to Purchase has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. 3. The following procedures have been followed in the pro- cessing of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application: - 4 - 00043 (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 Conversion Application was filed by the owner on 2/6/91, not less than forty (40) days prior to the filing of the application for the tentative subdivision tract map on 3/19/91. (c) Within five (5) days of the filing of the Tenant- Participating Convers~on Application, the City sent notice to every tenant in the building stating that a Tenant-Participating conversion Application had been filed and that any obj ections thereto may be filed with the City within twenty-five (25) days from the date of the notice. (d) Upon the filing 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 provisions its des ign and improvements, is consistent with the plicable general and specific plans as adopted by the of Santa Monica. [Reference California Government Sec. 66473.5 and Santa Monica Municipal Code Sec. (a) J for ap- City Code 9362 2 . The owner (s) and each tenant on the subj ect 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 Monica Municipal Code. 4. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium proj ect 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 will 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 application 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 to tenants shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply with the legal require- ments for service by mail. - 5 - 001144 5. Each of the tenants of the proposed condomin~um proj ect 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 condominium proj ect 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 limited by Sections 1941, 1941.1, and 1941.2 of the civil Code, and set forth herein as conditions of approval. 7 . Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium proj ect has been, or will be, given notice of an exclusive right 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 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 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 abridge the rights or obligations of the parties set forth herein as condi- tions of approval. 8. This proj ect has been found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Section 15301) and from the City of Santa Monica Guide- lines for Implementation of the California Environmental 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 inconsistent with or redundant with the requirements 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 cond1tion 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, binding upon the owner and any successors in interest, to comply with each and every condition imposed in connection with approval of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application. The City and any Participating Tenant shall have the right to specific enforcement of - 6 - 01)045 this Agreement in addition to any other remedies provided by law. 2. The owner shall 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, without change, for a period of not 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. Unless a participating tenant has already provided the owner with written acceptance of the offer, the Tenant Sale Price may be adjusted according to any change re- flected in the Price Index [as defined in Section 200l(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 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 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. However, in the event such transfer is to someone other than the Participating Tenant, the transfer shall be expressly made sUbject to the rights of the Par- ticipating Tenant to continue to occupy the unit as pro- vided for in Article XX of the City Charter. The provi- sions of California Government Code Section 7060 et seq. (liThe 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 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 parcell 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 r~ghts 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- - 7 - non!.€; Participating Conversion Application and who personally occupied a rental unit in this qualifying 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 time limitations to occupy their units subject to the provi- sions of Article XV!!! 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- ject only to just cause evictions provided that the evic- tion is not for the purpose of occupancy by the owner, occupancy by any relative of 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 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 improvements 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 the time of the death of the senior citizen. The person designated by the senior 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 Conversion Application. All other non-purChasing Participating Tenants who per- sonally occupied a rental unit in this qualifying building continuously for at least six (6) months immediately pre- ceding the date of filing of this Tenant-participating Conversion Application shall have a right without time limitations to occupy their units subject to the provi- sions of Article XVIII of the City Charter and shall be given the nonassignable right to continue to personally reside in their unit subject only to just cause eviction for a period of five (5) years from the date the first unit is offered for sale. No eviction shall be allowed during this time period 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 the unit. In addition, during this time period, should the maximum allowable rent provisions of Article XVIII of the City Charter no longer apply, the rent for each unit may be adjusted annually to allow an increase of no more 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 - 8 - Of)n~7 building1s common areas or agreed to capital improvements for the unit. All 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 condition, "just cause" means one of the reasons set forth in subdivisions (a) through (g) of Section 1806 of the City Charter. 7. The requirements of these conditions shall 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 bene:lts and protections of Artlcle xx of the City Char~er. The City Attorney shall review and approve for compllance with Article XX the Covenants, Conditions, and Restr lctions, or equivalent documents, ~ L ior to the ap- proval of the required final parcel/subdivision map. To the extent applicable, the requiremen~s of Article XX shall be made a part of the rental agree~ent with the Par- ticipating Tenants. 8. The owner 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 Tenanc- 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 monthly 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 accordance with subdivision -{d) 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 from the tax. 9. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions, or equivalent document, shall contain a non- discrimination clause in substantially the fOllowing 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, - 9 - 0004-8 race, color, religion, sexual orientation, ancestry, na- tional origin, age, pregnancy, marital status, family com- 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, ancestry, national origin, age, pregnancy, marital status, family composition, A.I.D.S., or the potential or actual occupancy of minor children." 10. 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 shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provi- sions of California Government Code section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 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 tentative 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 requirements set forth in Government code Section 66427.1, including notification of tenants regarding application for a public report to the Department of Real Estate and notification of tenants regarding approval of a final map for the conversion. l3. The developer/applicant shall provide the Engineering De- partment of the City of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print reproduction and microfilm of each sheet of the final map after recordation. 14. 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 Section 9366 (SMMC), at such time as a final determination is made by the City Council. 15. For- information purposes, the following persons are iden- tified in the application as participating tenants: Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit unit Unit Unit 1 Karin Hajek 2 - Soffy Shihata 3 - Dianne Bubb 4 - Edna Wilson 5 - Terisa Gomez 6 - Gary Lee Myers 7 - Christina Gerona 8 - Laura Froehlich ATTACHMENTS: A. Summary Cover Sheet B. Unit/Tenant Info. C. Seller Financing Info. D. Parking Plan - 10 - o fJ '! 4-9 E. Summary CC+Rts F. Tenant Notice G. Radius Map H. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590 Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Susan White, Assistant Planner PCjtpc150 SMW - 11 - /\ o J 0005") PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION Land Use and Transportation Management Department M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: september 4, 1991 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: TPC 150, VTTM 50590, Eight-Unit Tenant-Participating Conversion Address: 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Zoning: R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential) District Owner(s): Sunisa Pongputmong Background: This is an application for approval of a Tenant- Participating 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 hearing on the tentative map for the conversion. The two story building consists of eight, two bedroom units. Six parking spaces were required at time of construction in 1952. Twelve parking spaces exist on-site. Each unit will be assigned the use of one parking space. There are senior citizens residing in Gnits #2 and #8 of the building. There are no vacant units. At the May 1, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Com- mission requested that Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 be continued so that staff could contact each tenant to verify that signatures were legally obtained on the "Tenant Intent to Pur- chase" and "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" forms and to verify that each - tenant understood their rights under Article XX. A letter was sent by certified mail to each tenant asking whether they had been properly notified of their rights under TORCA, whether any signatures had been obtained either through mis- representation or coercion, and whether any tenant had been of- fered money for signing the "Tenant Intent to Purchase" or "Ten- ant Agreement to Conversionn forms (Attachment H). Staff also sent a second letter on June 24, 1991 by regular mail (Attachment I). Written responses were received by staff from the tenants in units #1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 (Attachment J). At the time that the TORCA application was filed, 75% of the ten- ants signed the application indicating that they approved,of the conversion of the apartment building pursuant to TORCA. However, in response to Staff's inquiry, the tenant of unit #4 has indi- cated that at the time she agreed to the conversion, she was - 1 - 001)51 i I t-'J , - ' l1 \ \ It \ L,., - _ OJ 1 1_ AT f.A crt t--1 Et.......i D threatened with i,... immediate eviction or going out of business if (the applicant) didn I t get enough signatures to convert to condos." (Attachment J). Coercing a tenant to agree to a TORCA conversion is grounds for denying the TORCA application. See TORCA section 2004 (a). So too is threatening to utilize the Ellis Act if the necessary approvalS are not obtained. See TORCA section 2002 (1). Moreover, without the signature of the tenant of unit #4, the application would not have been signed by tenants occupying not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the residential units in the building as required by TORCA. See TORCA Section 2002 (f) . Additionally, in response to Staff's inquiries, tenants of units #1, 3 and 4 rescinded their signatures on the intent to purchase forms. However, the tenants of units #1 and 3 did not indicate that they did not have the requisite intent to purchase at the time they signed the intent to purchase form. They simply state that they no longer intend to purchase. TORCA does not require that tenants actually purchase their units or that the tenants continue to intend to purchase their units. As such, these ten- ants' SUbsequent change of mind concerning their intent to pur- chase does not require that they not be counted as tenants in- tending to purchase given their intent at the time the TORCA ap- plication was filed. The Planning Commission may deny this application ONLY upon a specific finding that the proposed conversion 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 threat or similar coercion. Based on the correspondence received from the tenant of unit #4, Staff has found that a basis exists for denial of this applica- tion and therefore recommends denial with findings set forth below. s~~mary Information NUmber of Total Units 8 Units with Cosigning Tenants (As indicated at time or filing of original application) Units with Cosiqninq Tenants (Based on tenant correspondence) 6 (7S% of total units) 5 (63% of total units) Units with Tenants Signing Intent to Purchase (As indicated at time of original application) units with Tenants Signing Intent to Purchase (Basedoon tenant correspondence) 5 (63% of total units) 2 (25% of total units) - 2 - oon5Z Units with senior or Disabled Tenants 2 Estimate of Conversion Tax $431200 Owner{s) sunisa Pongputmong Last Hearing Date per Sub. Map Act June 21, 1991 staff did not request an extension of the 50 day limit for ap- proval of the subdivision map from the applicant and the appli- cant does not agree to an extension of this 50 day limit. Building qualification: The subject building is not a Qualifying Building per Sec. 2001 (l) of Article XX of the City Charter in that five tenants (53%) of the total number of units are co- signing tenants and a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) are required. Obj ections: Obj ections to this Tenant-Participating Conversion were not filed with the City within the 25 day objection period following notification to all building tenants of the Tenant- Participating Conversion Application. However, Objections were voiced at the Planning Commission hearing of May 1, 1991 and ob- jections have been received subsequently to the time of distribu- tion of the report dated May 1, 1991 to Planning Commissioners. Additional Information: Additional information may be found in the attached portions of the Tenant-participating Conversion Ap- plication and Tentative Map Application. A~alysis/Recommendation: A Tenant-Participating Conversion, along with any required tentative map, may only be denied if it fails to meet the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter, is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, or threat or similar coercion, or fails to meet any mandatory requirement of the Sub- division Map Act. In that this application does not meet the requirements of Arti- cle XX and all mandatory requirements of the state Subdivision Map Act, staff respectfully recommends that Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590 be denied with the following findings: Tenant-Participating Conversion Findinqs 1. This Tenant-participating Conversion Application does not meet the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter of the City of Santa Monica along with all mandatory require- ments of the Subdivision Map Act of the state of Califor- nia in that five tenants (63%) agree to the conversion and a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of units is required. [reference Sec. 2004 (a), Article XX] 2. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Application has been deemed complete and accepted for filing. At the time of -~ r\ - 3 ... OOf}53 filing it met the requirements of section 2002 of Article XX of the City Charter for a complete application. The subject application: (a) Identifies the building, its owner and its tenants and contains a declaratlon 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 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 m~n~mum amount to be financed, the maximum rate of inter- est and the minimum term of the loan offered by .the seller. (c) Sets forth, for each unit, the following 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 cornman area facilities. 3) The occupancy 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 building. 6) A prepared monthly 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 components of a simi- lar or comparable nature, and recreational 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 forth any substantial defects or malfunctions identitied in the building in- spection report regarding the unit and the common - 4 - o () 1154 . 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 tenant occupying the unit. 4) No eviction has occurred pursuant to Government Code section 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 to eviction for pur- poses of owner occupancy or occupancy by relative of 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 (5) of the building described in this ap- plication, neither offered nor agreed to pay mon- ey or other financial consideration to par- ticipating 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 63% (less than two-thirds) of all 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 pied by such tenants and lists all other tenants to the owner in the building and the units occupy. occu- known they (h) Contains a declaration that cosigning tenant was obtained in writing, to such tenant of in subsections (a) (b) (c) Section. the signature of each only after the delivery, the information required (d) and (e) of this (i) contains a declaration 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 63%, at the time of original filing of the application, and 25%, based on subsequent ten- ant correspondence, of the total number of residential units in the building. (If there is more than one tenant in a unit, the signature of only one tenant is required. ) - 5 - Of}n~5 (k) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a Tenant Intent to Purchase has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. . 3. The following procedures have been followed 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 does not meet the requirements of Section 2002 of Article XX of the City Charter. (b) The Tenant-participating Conversion Application was filed by the owner on 2/6/91, not less than forty (40) days prior to the filing of the application for the tentative subdivision tract map on 3/19/91. (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-Participating Conversion Application had been filed and that any obj ections thereto may be filed with the City within twenty-five (25) days from the date of the notice. (d) Upon the filing 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. (e) A letter from staff was sent to each participating tenant by registered mail on May 21, 1991 inquiring whether each tenant had been notified of their rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion, and whether any tenants had been offered money for signing the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" or ItTenant Intent to Purchase 'I forms. Staff also requested that the participating tenants reply in writing within 10 days of receipt of the letter, written responses were received from the tenants of units #1, 3, 7, and 8 on 6/3/91, 6/6/91, 6/4/91, and 6/4/91, respectively. Letters received by staff indicated that the tenants of units #1 and 3 agree to the conversion but rescind their signatures on the "Tenant Intent to Purchase forms. The tenant of unit #7 stated that she agreed to the conversion but had no intention of purchasing her unit and the tenant of unit #8 did not wish to rescind her signature on either of the "Tenant Agree- ment to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. - 6 - (}oosto . (g) Staff sent a second letter to the participating ten- ants of units #2, 4, 5, and 6 by regular mail on June 24, 1991 requesting a written response within 10 days of receipt of the letter. Written responses were received from the tenants of units #4, and 6, on 7/8/ 91 and 6/27/91, respectively. staff spoke with the tenant of unit #5 on 7/11/91. The tenant of unit #2 did not respond. The tenant of unit #4 indicated that coercion had been used to gain her signature on the ItTenant Agreement to conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase II forms and withdrew her signatures. Staff spoke with the tenant of unit #5 on July 111 1991 at which time the tenant indicated that she did not wish to rescind her signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchasell forms. The tenant of unit #6 never agreed to the conversion. 44 For information purposes, the following persons are iden- tified in the application as participating tenants: Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit ATTACHMENTS: Prepared by: PC/tpcl50 SMW 1 - Karin Hajek 2 - Soffy Shihata 3 - Dianne Bubb 4 - Edna Wilson 5 - Terisa Gomez 6 - Gary Lee Myers 7 - Christina Gerona 8 - Laura Froehlich A. Summary Cover Sheet B. Unit/Tenant Info. c. Seller Financing Info. D. Parking Plan E. summary CC+R's F. Tenant Notice G. Radius Map H. Letters from Staff to Tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated May 21, 1991. I. Letters from Staff to Tenants of 2021 C10verfield Blvd. 1 dated June 24, 1991. J. Letters from Tenants of Units #1, 3, 4, 6, 7, & 8 dated 5/28/91, 6/3/91, 7/1/91, 6/27/91, 5/30/91, & 6/1/91. K. Memorandum of phone conversation from staff & tenant of unit # 5 dated 7/11/91. L. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590 D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Susan White, Assistant Planner 00057 - 7 - TE~~~PAAT~o:P~T:~G :O~":~H APPL:=aTl~. fTOaca' S~_~.A"-i :::."':~ $ "~!7 CITY crs, ONLY: ,. ue '1""~.J; ~:.,"- ',::;0 :a~e Ae:ep~ed ~=: ~~~~rq -:./_ -", I Ap~:"_=a~_=... Fe. ia~~ S '2. I -.. "" f ... Recelp~ oy <...- -, S~;d~v~s:~~_~ap ~~~.r ....... "".a:.._ac.... ~::...; ~.-' ,'--....1 _a 7ax =cde :~.-~*~6=a~~~- "ap 90:<' ?age. ----=-_l'!lJ;::e;.. ~ Pr=:.~~ Add~.ss .2 :':;.ot:'':-4 ;:~E' ::::::: ~=- :::: ~Q a! .....::..:S ::::.....ee~ I :~;~:.. '.::"1::.;"'---- - .s~=..-:. :::.. - .... "- --I : ~eqa: :es=r_p~_~~ 5:3:'. ;~~~t~~~~~~ ;~~~;::;~ 5:a.....:a. :-i' Cede Vo-_:a :~ac~ ~: - .,- Z~r". 2a :~'e~'s; ~a~. .::r_.......oi:3.7&. -::-:"t:;p _:v::~_:; =~:po:a~_=~. ~~=;'~de ~a~.s =~ ?J;~nc_pa. s~=c~~=:"ce:s' C Addr.ss ...:2:5 _:.a....::: :'.t~ ~_ ::':"-:i' S~:e."1:.. ~a~~a ~~~::a :_ j]~:J S~ao;e 3.:'-=,.-:' ~.:..p :~d. = r=.....one At. ': ac1'" E 21'1"j ~;:_.....JLoo1. ?~.:~~l~a:y ~Lt:. R.pert} Ja A;.r~ ':~ a-y; 'Ia~e ....~.....e b !:.t.l.~ ::: :...~.. L ?'lc.n. ~ . A:idres. S,=::..t.. S~:..t; ;:;i~y S~a1;. Hi' C::od. ~ ros~-corvar.ion Form ot OWn'r.h~p rCQndCmL~4~:' '~Qck cQo~.J;at~v., communLty apart.ene, =QQper.t~ve a..oc~at~on, or ~i.1~~d .~~ey ~ou.~,~ c=op'ra~~v'} . :=':a()~L-~'_'lI 5a ~~~~. WLtn Cosiqn~~q ~e~ane.: ~umb'r: 6 P.rc.nt o~ :o~&l ~~L~S 7J~ b ~n~~s WL~'l ".nart. Si;n:~; so;aee.ant ot :-~.no; to ~J~=~asa 'lumbar 5 P.reant of ~o~al Cnits =~ 3~ e Vac:an~ ];rL'CS: "~.r'~ ?aJ;cant of ~otal ];n11:s' sa S~JaJ;. roota;e ot 8u~ldin9 65:"2 b square rootage of ~ot i~ t~: 1 7 R.n~ Ccntrol Board Statu. FQrs A~~eady s'~z:-~~ ~17,~ ~9ques~ :~~~~~!;:~ Cb~a1n II !'ORCA "Rant C~n1:rol Board Claaranc. I"Onl~ f:-oll R'~1; ::::r.e:::o:. Room 202. c~~y Hall. and prov~d. wlth app~ica1;ion r... ae~ac~.d sample:. aa. or1ql~al BUildLnq Parmit Data ~or ~..t asti~ata ot date at C:Qnst~J~t_=~ 1% -;:, BUildin; PermIt LS on City ti~.) :lata Cc~ 2. :~,2 Buildinq Permit ~umb.r 9:22:9 D ~.~as and daSoJ;iptlons of s~.aqu.nt modifications to buildi~q =r ~-~. '~r.clud1r:; chanqe. 1n number or Slze of unLo;s. parkLnq spac." nor.p.rm.~~.d .~rue~ur.. or ~nits~ .to ~ - l - OOQSg City of Santa "OB~Ca :.~ar~~.~~ o! :a-d .s. , :.a-spor~a~~Qr ~a-~g...r.~ ~.v.:op..n~ ~::y ?:AHNING ~IVISICN .;~': ~~:7!7EN~ :NFO~~~IO~ '10 c! ' r.nan~ '<:8drcOTS 'lam.. i1"laJ:l.e(s'l 0: less.. a-d a:': i!ldul~ occ:lpan~.) ~:c :' :' :' :- - :- ~ r r ~ :- -car.4:' Sc.f: .r :":a_I=-t SFt.1.::a~C3j I ter,q>:h ;o~ oc- :c~pancy "tIont"'ls ~~~~~~~~ :.:..a.r.J'le 3-:..:.":it :Ed...a ";11$:)"'1 2l=_c.~--::-_s: :~~1sa ~.:jez l~;ears: Garl :e~ Vvers ~J~cntt~ :~r~3t1~a :e~na l5~~~s :.a-.l:'a ?:'::e;I~:'C;--i ';::~a:.s~ IAgr.ad ;In<:ert ,~o con-!to !v.rSLon'purchasa 'plaaS.I:or.ll cr-.ck] ISL9red !pi.asa c~ack: .(X...I XA I XX ...~: XX ..I XX vi I XX vi X~( .." i ,,>\, _{X .. LX .G - 5 o 0 {1 59 Sanlor (65 yaars ~f aqe or 01:1.::- ~p1.ase c'l.ck~ , 015ab1.<1 '-r.c.~V- :-q qov- :e::-"':n.rt. ! ,:Lsa:C ll- - -=--., .p_ease :::""Elc<; .~x .I .\.\ .. i~:::t~::e~::::a I ZOZI ,-/,,.~tIII' tie/Of City of S&at~ KOD1C& :e~ar~~8~~ Q~ :a~~ :9. ~ 7:a~spo=~a~~o~ ~&~aq.~.~~ ~.V.:cp~.~~ ~:!y rUL~:NG JI(:S:C~ SE~:ZR F:NANC:SG !~Fo~~r:c~ i:~ ottered) :~ selle~ ~~rar=:~q lS ~ot ot~.r.d~ pl.as. crov~d. ~ax~m~ p~rc~as. orl=e and ~:r:eu~ down payment r.q~lred (1~ "'yi Apt. :era.r~ls 'Jame MaX:"lUiI: F'.J!:c:-asa F:--.:..;:::e. ''Ii po :l:lU~ 00101"I P'l't Requ.:.red Ml"::""tlUl'ft Am.o'~J':: o~ ~-oal"l 'laX:"lll.1e Ir"t.e!."Qs~ Rate C"l :'oa, S !er.n :If :"~a- - -:':o-<;''1s s :'-:l5, .:.:::: I :ra.r:~ ~..Ja,1e'< :9. ~C.J ":;O::j ;:'1:.'"a:a :95, .:J.::: ;o~:'::o : :'-=.r.:le 3''';':;"0 :. ;;- f :-o~ J~, :::::.c :::::~a :. <<:':'$::'- 1......._ _.-..... !oJ; I _,-V ':"-- ""';......... ,..;-,..;"",,- ... :~~e5a ""'.! G;:1l9Z !.1~,:::0 ~... ."i""'-'"\ ,i7r ............ ~{-:--:= -:";arl :'ee '\'l.:/ers 1:;:1, J.::::: .... I !, "o""r '".noLO< ,~:::::: ",::::;; J"a", '" .w,:, "'" '0"'"' IJ~ ;Ol:'cles of :~cai :'e~ce~s -ay req~~~e ~xe"::se t~e~r :~ttC~S at t~9 sa~e t:.-, 'r q~al~~y :~r :cnccrni~~'~ :O~~~ I L_ :~~'r ~a~ r~~S9 c~J ~r~ceS :Js~ed at:va ~v ~~v l~crease -~ ~'"~ ~~~~ ~f :._v:~~ :~~ex as Iset fcrt~ .~r- ar~:.clJ yx 0~e 79ar a:te~_~e-~~:c~ S:l~ ~s ,ss~ed or t~e date ~~e ::rs~ ~~:.: :.5 )::~red :cr ~J:el __ i . ~c ann~o'lai ~v ~~e;de~ar~~e~i ~f real ~s~a~~ I Il.::s~g-= atd'.re .....s 11S.ed ~or t~a~ L~:.t 2~ J "eEl rel~~rec S!~ ~: ......e "":=.....-1:5 -::: I I :~~er ::J~ .~~a-~ ~~ ~ac~ rnaY~""'l~r'" ~'~'!'"~-~.is~ n'!"", ~e ~=e 1's ....a"l.r!1.D. ~ - - :L5 J"""-,:",,.:::. :;~.:...J p.,ra':".:.:::. ;;r,- I I I --::;-.~ ':erant ...r..cse !~ ....,1 l:l~mur d:.:JW'l · ~n~ar ~he Article XX, Sec~ion 4004(a)(2}, atter 1 year ha. p....d tram the date ti=st un~t beco.e. available tor ..la, or the date of tinal approval by the Californla Oepar-~ent of Real Eatate, the tenant 8.1.. price may be adjusted according to any char-ga retlec~ed in the price :~dex cccllrr~ng during the preceding year as publ:shed by ~he Bureau ot Laber S::at:.st:cs - 6 - c 00 I) 60 S~A:OryE'I-S :r :-:=:'1"-'<:0 "G01!!":;:~1' :00 C::N"'til.S :CN ~~~acft 5~a~emen~s at ~.r4~~ Agr..~.~~ ~o Co.vers~cr s~g~.d bv Agr.el~g ~o :o~ve~s~on Terar~. occupy~~q ra~ ~ess t~ar ;:) ;57') O~ t~e to~a: ~'~er o~ !"es::Iert.;.al l,;.~~t. .;.n ~he b1.l.;.:d.;.-g Agreelllert :o=s are 1n<'::';,:d.fd -- ~, ~PP:l~at~o~ ?acxage and ar. avallable :rom the Planning and zon~ng J~v_s:=-. Roos 2:2. at Santa Mo~.;.:a C1ty Hal: STATEV!'iTS O~ TE'IAN! !~EN~ 1'0 ~_~cvASE At~ach ;t.a~.~..,-:s =~ :'e"'a.,~ :...t:..n.:. ':.0 p..J.rc""'il.se Sl;-ed by :r-t.erd=.-q ":0 ;~r=~as. ~e~ants oe~~py~rq ~oe :885 ~han rl~ty ~.r~.~~ '5C'1 ot ~~. ~c~al -_-be~ ~! res~de~tla: ~~~~s =.~ ~~e bu~:dl-q S~a~.~.-~ ~~~. ar. ava~~abl. ~=~- ':.~e ?:~r;~rg . Z~n~~q 01V_S~~~. ~oom 2~2, S&~~a ~cr~=a Clty ~a:: 3~:~~r'l~ &'10 S::o! ?LANS ~ttac~ crlq~-a: and ~WO =op~es 0: =ct~ Su.;.ld:rg P~ans a~d a :eq~ble ~rap~~c prese....-:.a~~O"".l a.~ ~/a't or :;":611 'Scale {....ot ~o .xe..d, :41t x 17"'. ~.l:.r.a:':_~tLq ~ark~;q layo~~, ~:cor plars ial: :evels} I S~~. layou~, all .x~.rl=~ ~Ul:~:r.~ e:evat~o~s, wl~~ a:: ~.asu~.~e~ts c::'early lrd:eat.d ?rov~d:-q t~~s l~~~~a~lcr ~s opt_o~sl aCI~::~G I'ISP~C~:CN R!~CRT A~~ac~ a eopy o~ ~he S~lldi~q :nspect~on Report prepared ~ur.~ant ~o C~ner's declarat:cn nu~.r 3 rSect10r X 0: t~15 Appl~cat~or). ~.port ~u.t cover ~~. aceess1b~e ~o~.;.cns o~ the ent.;.re bu.;.:d~-q, a~d ~ust be ~r.Dared by a : ~ce~sed BUl.::l.~~q Irspectl.on Ser:;:nca or :~d1v~dua::' nease ~ request ~~at y~~~ bUL:d1~9 :rsp.c~lcr ~.por~ ~ncl~de a sur~ary s.ct~on .v~l~a~~~q a~: ~a10r sys~.m5 erd s~r~~tures o~ t~e bu~:ding. '::I c~~c~ A~EA, ~:'~ENA~CE AND SUOGE~ :NFCRMArION r-. ~ollow.""q al: .-J....,~ ~5 .. ':':ar~e::.- is Cc~on A~ea, ~a~~te~ance and Budget into=ation COmmon ~o t"a aU1::':l.~"lg as raqu1rect under Sec,;~on 2002 (c) ot tre Ci,':y PARllING SPACIS ::"e:'e are 12 ~otal parki:-g spaclIlI !or the Build~ng eons~.tirq ot covered spaces ana 12 open space. creek any ~~ich apply' '< !ach un~~ will b. ass1qred the excluSlve use ot ___ park~nq spac.(s). Eaen ~rit wlll be .~titled to ~ parking epace(s), tne exact ~ocatlon ot "'h~ch :qay be reas.1~nect 'J.pon the duly authorized action ot the Govern~~q Body tor the ~omeown.r'. Assoc:at10n '/0 J.:~lt "'111 be eneit:ect to a parking .pace and _ parking spac.. w1ll be avallab~e on a basis ~o te~ants On:y ~hose unlts specified by attachment w~l: be asslqned par~ing spaces. (at~ach an explanat~on o~ this and label it "Park1r.gM). spaces ~ill be reserved tor V1S1eor park1rq spaces will be re.erved ~or commerciel tenant parki~q ~he initial monthly parxing space te. to the HOlleowner' e A.eociat1on wil: be $ per par~ing space. Other (Sp.ci~YJ: In additlon to ehe above ~ncluae a plan that clearly speci~i.. the parklnq availab:. t~ each speciti: unit and how it will be ailocated. ~abel this ~n~crmatlOn "parkinq plan" and attach 1t to this app11cat1on - 7 - 00061 COMMON ~A 'ACIt:T!~3 7'"'e !u:..::f~-g -as ~""a ~o~_ow.."'q =o:n..~o- area ~a::':"....l':..es ...a add~t_on ~~ res~d.r~ ~ark~-g p "'a.ll'Jays :'::::::::'185 :'..;,rns s..u~.. ?oo:' '~,:"sltcr :?ar~.:.rq iY E)C;t.8r:.o:" ~~ -;';alk#Jay S::crage :..t~l~::y Area ~CO'11.S ?ubllC ::::evat:::rs Roo",s ~..Ja!":''''o-...:.se Ga':.. iX ~ac~dry ~~~~ :.::r~e:rerCB Roc'lls C::"'er 'spe;;~fy) I:"'eck all a.ppl~cable; Yj: ~xce:::~ -.~r res~.c~ to ;ar~~-g space, descr1bed above, all ::::~cr Areas are ~~ be avaL:ab:e to a:: ~e~an~s ~n an equal baS1S ~~~"'~ut =~arqe ~sage cr aCCess fees wi:: be c~arged by the Assoc~a~~cr, _:~- :r~~~a: ~on::"':Y est::-a~Qd ~ees ~or ~sers as follows poo: sau"\a. gym co"\fere-Ce(publ:::: roo~s o:~er CC~'llo"\ Areas ~a.y :::e re"\ead =y ::re ASSOc:at1ons to parsors Jho are "\ot reslde-::s ot ;he b~lld~"\g COICIllor Areas r.J 1 1 ~ ........ be owned by ::~e HomeoW"\ers' ASSoc1atlo"\ XX =o~~cn Areas will be owned by purc~..s.rs as t:8"\ants ~n common OCCUPANCY, KANAgBX!~ PLAB8 AND POLICIES ~.."\..qement of the Building w1ll be vas::ed ~n a"\ lncorpor..t.d/un~ncorporatBd ~om.own.r'9 A.sociation. (c~rcle..s appli=ab:ej T~. ::erm of ex~.t.nce of covenants, condi~lon. and restrlotlO"\S of recor1 ''''.:.ll be ~O years T~8 Boar1 ot Oirec~ors of the Homeowners' ASBoclation w1l: have mell\be rs VO~ln9' There ~lll/will ~o~ o. cUm~lative votl~q of memb.rship. .he !ollow~nq occupaney ra.tr~etions will apply (ch.c~ all whic~ apply) : maximum ~umber ot re.idents per unlt pets will not oe pe~itted. ot:her (specify) XX Units will be restricted to re.idantial use. ~"\its wi~l be restricted to commercial ~.e. ~r.lts may be used for 81ther commercial or residertlal ~se - 8 - O()il61. ~ RESUME OF DECLARATION ,)F COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND BYLAWS FOR TRACT 50590 1. Type of Orqanization: Homeovners. Incorporated Association of 2. Membership: Each owner or group of owners of a condomlnium autornatlcally receives a non-transferable membership on conveyance to him/her of the condominium. There is a maximum of one (1) membership per condominlum. 3. Memb~rship termination: Membership 1S terminated automatlcally on sale of the underlyinq condominium; voting rlghts may be suspended, after hearing for failure to pay assessments. 4 . Votlnq Riqhts: Each unit owner owner. There shall be only one ownership. shall designate one voting voting owner for each unit 5. Vested in a three (3) person power to appoint a President, Treasurer. The Association outside management company to of the px:operty. Board of Directors with the Vice-President, Secretary and is authorized to enqaqe an supervise physical management 6, ProJect Life: Estimated to be sixty (60) years. 7. Effective Term of and Amendment to CC&R~: The initial term of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions is sixty (6) years, renewable automatically for successive ten (10) year periods. 8. Maintenance Prov~slons: will manage maintenance common areas. The Board of Directors and officers and set assessments to maintain REGULAR ASSESSMENTS: Expenses of maintaining the common areas on a day to day basis, together with provision for funding replacement reserves for items such as painting, electrical, roofing, pluming, paving and the like. 1 oon~? E. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: To cover extraordinary items, uninsured damages, or to specifically enforce penalties against individual members. In accordance with Civil Code Section 1366. special assessments in excess of five percent (5%) of the budgeted, gross expenses for the fiscal ear may be made by the Board only after a maJOrity vote of all unit owners. Maintenance of Units must be performed by Owners; the Association may authorize maintenance chargeable to Owner if Owner fails to comply with Association's demand for repair or clean-up, or tenant in Unit fails to get Owner to do the same after notice and hearing. 9. Damaqe: ASsociation 1S directed to obtain insurance, but if proceeds fail to cover at least eight-five percent (85\) of the cost of rebuilding, a seventy-five percent (75\) vote of members is required to authorize repairs. If less than eighty-five percent (a5\) of repair costs are covered by insurance, a seventy-five percent (75\) vote of members may determine that no repair take place. 10. Description and Ownership Condominium Unit consists of walls of the area permitted interior non-load bearing surface. of Condominium Units: A the airspace Within the outside to be occupied by an Owner, walls and the actual interior 11. Description and Ownership of Common Areas: Common Area are all areas not 1ncluded within Units and are owned by all owners as tenants in common subject to management by the Association. Certain areas, including parking and balconies, are exclusive use common areas, not encompassed by the Unit but subject to exclusive use given the owners of particular units. 12. Parkinq Space Assignment: Each condominium is entitled to the use of at least one (1) parking space. 13. Restrictions: (a) Ownership: There are no restrictions on the ownership of any condominium by any person. (b) Use: Units are restricted to residential use and may not be rented on a transient basis. (c) Pets: Two conventional household pets. Prepared by: Sunisa Pongputmong 1025 Idaho, II Santa Monica, CA, 90403 (213) 451-4041 2 City of santa Monica Department of Commun~ty & Economic Development CITY PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONVERT (for ex~stlng tenants) !)ATE: JPN 10 \Ciql ~o t~e oc~~pant(s) of .J.cJ I Street :;: fJ LC'fttZ ~ l i L 0 ~ L \ (' street 5""A to., TA City tiC^JIC(~ e 'A State &i (; 'f C q.. Z~p code The cwner(s) of this bUl1ding, at )..o~1 street # L\.-C Ybl FIr.. L '0 ~ cL Street sA 1\.;1 A j.(CN1EA &':1 QD4-o3 ,plans to file a tentative map with C~ty, State 21p Code the City. of Santa Monica to convert this building to a e..C(\j flc H ~ I\J I L: fv) (post-converslon form of tenant - ownership) You shall be glven notice of each hearing for which notice is required pursuant to Sections 66451.3 and 66452.5 of the Government Code, and you have the rlght to appear and the right t~e ~~3X~ny such h~arinq. ~ ( /-I!----- ~ (signature ~ owner or oyner1s agent) ./' c..:;...-k2 "- / C l ! cr it I (date) , NOTE: This notice must be given to all tenants at least sixty (60) days pr~or to filing any application for a tentative subdlvision map (as required by the State Map Act, Section 66452.9. . ,.ri- onn64 .....-- ~ / D /q q , ) '/ /::..,~ / J ,i.",[~l..C ~ I .-I .;- Ail- w ,,, . ~ {,..; --<. l-L 1:.V ..... -~.c~.{..","" < cl ...... , .,/C ~ -.:: , (.... , ......"... ......Lc.. 1....._ \ , I ~L. ""! G(. ~ 11.. Lc..... Lr / Cl( -&-'b...t..[:e-& '-)" /' } ./ &:L~L~{ L- ./{,cl"f tJ-k./ .? (. , -- '+ /, .\' r ,~/ V\~ ~~L-- ~ ~ h~( ff / ! ,.. - ~c. 2.'- vt,.: /..;c-<- f-.:.:.- k .. / 1/ ) , \.' ( (- '-\ S' ~ \ f\ S J b,-,-Q..6 -J ::> ..J -./ .J....... ~ j /l / ;S '~i./U'~ 7~ - ,;Y;,zy { 7~~ k,- ~ '\'1-",':.. (J 7 Cic:(k - q~. ~,j~~ A --- \. 0 ~r.' u d Ll..4..~ t, -- ;"~'V Of)I)BS"' r - -l D --' ~ -, l ~ - U'I ~ I --I . 'C D I ,.,., - - ,..,., - ~ - -I I - -- " . . :::; 'I ... a - 2201 '. I I I .- --. ~ f - I ,j;- - I - - ""I J ~ r::4 - ..... = , >- ~ . .. ~ i II - 1 E . """'" ~ . .. :-.; J- -a:- r . ,.. : = -- J .... ~ ~- .l_ ~t-:~ :; t'-' ...1 , - AV~E ~ ~ \li:JG;~:A ~~~ '0 S r .w_ I-.!, <: ' }' RK ~..~ J I' 'i . - .10. Q r.a s )" I J" [ i I ~ .... ~~A~SAS JJe .... I / ,...... ~ ~ ~ ,:. r--.. o 'C I, .j ~ : jj ~ ~ fI ~ ~;;- I 2.: , . c.;" -..... 2.! .. ""j 5-;-: ~ [~ ~ ~-\ ," ~-' ~ - -----.... -. €lll<EN~rtf.etl(K - ~iNdieATt---~~T(-) )Jc~.lIeFf_~r~-;')ei-s~ b-7rl , CJ=. tJW }J. So El "" So W . '1(p ~ ~ LEGAL oeSCRIPTION _ . ~ - ~ ~ _ - :... 'CASE NO - - TOWr.,j OF S~W-riL MO~l~ I(."'-T ZONE JlQ~ J eLo 'V' iR f=1 ~ l.. D S L APP\.lCANt - "- SUNISA A"nnce. AlIa Mil) - ShH1 No. Sn:lEET ADDRESS RADIUS r.1AP FOR PlJ\fHJlrJC D[ P^H rLn rJ r elf) (11 S4Llnt,l r\ton ica C\1.I1 OR"I \ R~ired Radius . 300' - on r! G6 ~ y 'Iy c\ Op SANTA M'ONICA C,ty p1a.r.nJ!1g DIYI$lor 1685 Main Street POBox 2200 (213) 458~8341 Santa Monica. CA 90407-2200 May 21, 1991 Karin Hajek 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. #1 Santa Monica, CA 90404 subject: Tenant-Partic.lpating Conversion Case TFC-1S0, Vesting Tentatlve T~~ct No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Hajek: On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight apartment units to cC:1.dominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. came before the Santa Monica Flanning Commission. Several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged that the applicant, sunisa Pongputmonq, had not properly obtained tenant signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms and that tenants were not fully appr.lsed of their rights under TORCA. As part of the TORCA conversion process, you were required to be informed of your rights under TORCA by the applicant and the Santa Monica Planning Division. The Planning commission has requested that staff determine whether you had been properly notified of your rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion: and whether you were offered money for signing either the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. Please read through the enclosed materials caretully and notify us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect information included in the enclosed application. Additionally, it you have any reason to believe that you did not receive all the enclosed information or if you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notify us of this in writing. w. are requesting that you respond to us, in writinq, within 10 44YS ot this letter. o 0 :~ 61 - 1 - All cor=esporde~=e stculd be addressed ~o: City of Santa Mon1ca Plann~ng and Zon1ng Division 1685 Main Street, Room #212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: Susan White, AssistAnt Planner, TPC 150 Please ca~l ~e a": 2:3 458-8341 if you have any questions or concer~s ~e;a=j:~g t~~ Tenant-partlclpatinq ConverSlon appl:cat~on for 2021 Clover::eld 51. (TPC-130) and your rights as a part:c:pat~ng ':enan~ u~der Art~cle XX - Tenant Ownersh~p Rights Amendment to the C~ar':er of the C~ty of Santa Mon~ca, Callforn~a. Thank you for your attent~on to thls matter. Sincerely, /"' ~.)-"/ ./ /!'" ,,1. v ! (J j, f . : V I","''' J""' ,. Su'~an White Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Information Sheet (TORCA) c. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Clovertield Blvd., dated 1/10/91- D. Tenant-participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. E. Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. I dated 1/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/91. F. Subdivision Application Summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Clovertield Blvd., dated 1/22/91. PCjclvrf1d SW OS/21/91 O()Oh~ - 2 - SANTA MON'leA City PlannIng DlvlSJon i213) 458-8341 1685 Main Street POBox 2200 Santa Monica. CA 90407 -2200 May 21, 1991 Soffy Shihata 2021 C10verfield Blvd., Apt. ~2 Santa Mon~ca, CA 90404 Subject: Tenant-Particlpatlng Conversion Case TPC-150, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Mr. Shihata: On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Clovertield Blvd. came before the Santa Monica Planning commission. Several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged that the applicant, Sun~sa Ponqputmonq, had not properly obtained tenant signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms and that tenants 'Were not fully apprised of their rights under TORCA. As part of the TORCA conversion process, you were required to be informed of your rights under TORCA by the applicant and the Santa Monica planning Division. The Planning Commission has requested that staft determine whether you had been properly notified of your rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion~ and whether you were oftered money for signinq either the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. Please read through the enclosed materials carefully and notify us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect intormation included in the enclosed application. Additionally, if you have any reason to believe that you did not receive all the enclosed information or if you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notify us of this in wr~ting. w. are requesting that you respond to us, in writinq, within 10 days of this letter. - 1 - 00069 . All co=respcr.de~=e s~c~:j te add=essed ~o: C4ty of Santa Monica Plann1ng and Zoning Division 1685 Main street, Room '212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 Please call me at. 2:3 ~ 58 -8 341 :.: you have any quest~ons or concerns rega=d~~g t~e Tenant-?a=ticlpatlng ConverSlon application for 2021 Cloverfleld 31, (:?C-lSO) and your r~ghts as a particlpatlng tenant ~nder Artlc:e XX - Tenant Ow~ersh~p Rights Amendment to the Charter 0: the City of Santa Monlca, Callfornia. Thank you for your attent.lon to th~s ~atter. S i~cerely , 1 f ~1,.f'!1;i~ ~l{~~ / Susan White Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the Clty of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Information Sheet (TORCA) C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/10/91- D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. E. Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/91. F. Subdivision Application Summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. I dated 1/22/91. PC/clvrfld SW OS/21/91 OfJ07C - 2 - \y .- \ '-' SANTA M~ONICA CIty Piannmg DIVIs'on i213) 458-8341 1685 Mam Street. POBox 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407.2200 11ay 21, 1991 Diane Bubb 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. ( Apt. ~3 Santa Monica, CA 9040~ SubJect: Tenant-Part.::.c~pating Conversion Case TPC-150 1 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Bubb: On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application tor conversion of eight apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. came before the Santa Monica Planning Commission. Several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearinq and alleged that the applicant, Sunisa Pongputmong, had not properly obtained tenant signatures on the ItTenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms and that tenants were not fully apprised of their righ-cs under TORCA. As part of the TORCA conversion process, you were required to be informed of your rights under TORCA by the applicant and the santa Monica Planning Division. The planning Commission has requested that staff determine whether you had been properly notified of your riqhts under TORCA1 whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion; and whether you were offered money for signing either the "Tenant Agree}!lent to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. Please read through the enclosed materials carefully and notify us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect information included in the enclosed application. AdditionallY, if you have any reason to believe that you did not receive all the enclosed information or if you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notify us of this in writing. We are requesting that you respond to us, in writing, within 10 days of this letter. - 1 - 0007! All correspo~de~ce s~c~l~ be add~essed to: City of Santa Moniea Planning and Zon1ng Division 1685 Ma1n street, Room ~212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 Please cal:' :--e a": 213 458-8341 If you have any questions or concerns ~egardlng the Tenant-Partlcipatinq Conversion applicatlon for 2021 Cloverfleld 81. (TPC-150) and your rlghts as a partlclpatlng tenant under Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of santa Monica, Cal~fornia. Thank you for your at~e~tlon to this matter. slncerely, , ....--. L I -f-J.... . -:=1.tJi,t.t-v \t '"'~t....-' ............... . Susan Whlte ASslstant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center 8arry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Informatlon Sheet (TORCA) c. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 C10verfield Blvd., dated 1/10/91- D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. E. Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 C1overfie1d Blvd., dated 1/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/91. F. Subdivision Application Summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/22/91. PC/clvrf1d Sw OS/21/91 Ofl072 - 2 - SANTA Op M~ONICA City Planning DIvIs,on i213l458-8341 , 685 MaH'l Street. POBox 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 May 21, 1991 Edna wilson 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. #4 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Subject: Ter:ar.t-Part1.c~pat~ng Conversion Case TPC-150, Vesting Tentat~ve Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Wilson: On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. came before the Santa Monica Planning Commission. several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged that the applicant, Sunisa Pongputmonq, had not properly obtained tenant signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms and that tenants were not fully apprised of their rights under TORCA. As part of the TORCA convers ion process, you were required to be informed of your rights under TORCA by the applicant and the Santa Monica Planning Division. The Planning Commission has requested that staff determine whether you had been properly notified of your rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion; and whether you were offered money for signing either the "Tenant Agreement to Conversionlt or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" fonus. Please read through the enclosed materials carefully and notify us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect information included in the enclosed application. Additionally, if you have any reason to believe that you did not receive all the enclosed information or ~f you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notify us of this in writing. We are requesting that you respond to us, in writing, within 10 days of this letter. 000721 - 1 - A~l correspo~de~=e sr.=~:d ~e addressed to: City of santa Moniea Planning and Zoning Division 1685 Main Street, Room t212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 Please cal: :-e a~ 2:3 458-834.1 Lf you have any questLons or concerns regard~~g the Tenant-Partlclpatlng Conversion application for 202~ Cloverfield B1. (TPC-1SO) and your rlghts as a partlcipatlng tena~t u~der Ar~~cle xx - Tenant ownership Rights Amendment to t~e Charter of the City of Santa Monlca, Ca1ifornla. Thank you for your at~er.~~on ~o thlS mat~er. Slncerely, c- I . .' .i , ..; .-+ xl&r~~"v C.l.l.~"".- .. ,: suri'n White Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Information Sheet (TORCAl c. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/10/9L D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfie1d BlVd., dated 2/6/91. E. Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/91. F. Subdivision Application Summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Clovertield Blvd., dated 1/22/91.. pc/clvrfld SW OS/21/91 oon71 - 2 - 1Y C \. Op SANTA M:ONICA Cty planl''\\'''g 01''''5\Q<' 1685 Main Street. POBox 2200 (213) 458-8341 Santa Monica. CA 90407 -2200 May 21, 1991 'I'er~sa Gomez 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. ~5 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Subj ect: Tenant-Par~lClpatlng ConverSlon Case TPC-150, Vestl.ng Tentat~ve Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Gomez: On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. carne before the Santa Monica Planning Commission. Several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged that the applicant, Sunisa Pongputmong, had not properly obtained tenant signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms and that tenants were not fully apprised of their rights under TORCA. As part of the TORCA conversion process 1 you were required to be informed of your rights under TORCA by the applicant and the Santa Monica Planning Division. The Planning commission has requested that staff determine whether you had been properly notified of your rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion: and whether you were offered money for signinq either the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. Please read throuqh the enclosed materials carefully and notify us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect information included in the enclosed application. Additionally, if you have any reason to believe that you did not receive all the enclosed information or if you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notify us of this in writing. We are requesting that you respond to us, in writinq, witbin 10 days of this letter. - 1 - OfJ""S A:l corres;o~de~~e s~~u~j be addressed to: City of Santa Monica P1annlng and Zoning Division 1685 Main street, Room .212 Santa Mon1ca, CA 90401 Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 P~ease call "9 at 2:3 458-8341 if you have any questions or concer~s regard~ng the Tenant-Part~cipating Conversion application for 2021 Clcverfield al. (TPC-1SO) and your rights as a part~clpatlng tenant under Article XX - Tenar.t Ownershlp Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California. Thank you for your atte~t~on to thlS matter. Sincerely, I' jh4-fttv It{cc6 Susan Whlte Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Information Sheet (TORCA) C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/10/91. D. ~enant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. E. Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 C1Qverfie1d Blvd., dated 1/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/91. F. Subdivis~on Application Summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/22/91. PC/ 01 vrfld SW OS/21/91 OOO'7E - 2 - 'ty C \. Op SANTA MrONICA City Plan n wg Dlvi SIOI1 1685 Mam Street. POBox 2200 i2131 458-8341 Santa Monica. CA 90407 - 2200 ~ay 21, 1991 Gary Lee Myer 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. ~6 Santa Monica, CA 90'04 Subject: Tenant-Partic..;at:.ng Conversion Case TPC-150, Vesting Tentat~ve rrac~ No. 50590, 2021 C10verfield Boulevard Dear Mr. Myer: On May-1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. came before the Santa Monica Planning Commission. Several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged that the applicant, Sunisa Ponqputmong, had not properly obtained tenant s~gnatures on the IITenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms and that tenants were not fully apprised of their r~ghts under TORCA. As part of the TORCA conversion process, you were required to be informed of your rights under TORCA by the applicant and the Santa Monica Planning Division. The Planning Commission has requested that staft determine whether you had been properly notified of your rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion; and whether you were offered money for signinq either the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. - Please read through the enclosed materials carefully and notify us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect information included in the enclosed applicat~on. Additionally, if you have any reason to bel~eve that you did not receive all the enclosed ~nformation or ~f you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notifY us ot this in writinq. we are requestinq that you respond to us, in writing, within 10 days of this letter. - 1 - Of)'l77 A~l ccr~espc~de-~e s~=~:j =e add~essed ~o: City of Santa Monica Plann1nq and Zon1nq Div1sion 1685 Main Street, Room *212 Santa Mon1ca, CA 90401 Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 Please cal:' -e a-:. 2:3 458-8341 :..f you have any questions or concerns ~ega~d~~g t~e Tenant-?artlclpating Conversion applicat10n for 202: C:ove~field 31. (TPC-150) and your rlghts as a partlclpati~g ter.ant ~~der Artlc1e XX - Tenant ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of ~~e City of Santa Monica, California. 7hank you for your at~ent:on to thlS matter. Sincerely, I : t ~ lvf~ ~ ~ L't 'f,.~cp u Susan White Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy C1ty Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - ~enant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Informatlon Sheet (TORCA) C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/10/91. D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. E. statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Aqreement to Conversion Forms I 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/91. F. Subdivis10n Application summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/22/91. PC/clvrfld sw OS/21/91 O'l!J78 - 2 - SANTA 0/:0 M;ONICA City Plar-nlrg DII/ISler (213) 458-8341 1685 Main Street. POBox 2200 Santa MOnica. CA 90407 -2200 May 21, 1991 Christina Gerena 2021 Cloverfie~d 31vd., An~. #7 Santa Monica, CA 9C~C4 Subject: Tenant-l?art~c:.pat:'I"'.g Conversion Case TPC-1SO, Vesting Tentative Trac~ ~o. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Gerona: On May 1st, 1991, the ~ORCA application for conversion of eight apartment units to condom~niums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. came before the Santa Mon~ca Plannlng Commission. Several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged that the appl~cant, Sunisa Pongputmong, had not properly obtained tenant signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms and that tenants were not fully appr~sed of the~r rl.g'hts under TORCA. As part of the TORCA conversion process, you were required to be informed of your rights under TORCA by the applicant and the Santa Monica Planning Division. The Planning commission has requested that staff determine whether you had been properly notified of your rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion: and whether you were offered money for signing either the "Tenant Agree.rnent to Convers~on" or "Tenant Intent to Purchasen forms. Please read through the enclosed materials carefully and notify us of any miss~ng, inaccurate or incorrect information included in the enclosed applicat~on. Additionally, if you have any reason to bel ieve that you did not receive all the enclosed information or if you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notify us of this in writing. We are requesting that you respond to us, in writinq, within 10 days of this letter. oon79 - 1 - '" . , 1"\.......... ccrresp~r1e-=e s~~~:j be addressed ~..... -'-' . City of Santa Monica Plann1ng and Zoning Oiv1sion 1685 Ma1n street, Room ~212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: Susan Wh1te, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 Please ca:: :--e ~~ 2:3 458 -83 41 ~f you r.ave a:1Y questlons or concer:1S ~e9~rjl:1g ~~e 7enant-Particlpatlng Converslon app11cat~on f8r 2021 Cloverf~eld B1. (7PC-150} a~d your rlghts as a partlc~patlng terant ~n~er Ar~lcle XX - Tena~t Ownership Rights Ame~dment to t~e Charter 0: the C:~y of Santa Monica, Callfornia. Thank you for yo~r attent~on ~o t~:s matter. slncerely, . ~~~~ lt~* s~an White Assistant Plan~er cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy Clty Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Information Sheet (tORCA) C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 C10verfield Blvd., dated 1/10/9l. D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. E. statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/91. F. Subdivision Application Summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/22/91. PC/clvrfld Sw OS/21/91 Ot)080 - :2 - 1Y -\ \...- SANTA M::ONI.CA CIty Planning DIVISion (2 ~ 3i 458-8341 1685 Main Street. POBox 2200 Santa MonIca, CA 90407-2200 May 21, 1991 Laura Snyder 2021 Cloverf~eld Blvd., Apt. =8 S?nta Monica, CA 90404 Subj ect: Tenan~-?ar~~c;.pating Conversion Case TPC-150, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Snyder: On May 1st, 1991, the rORCA application for conversion of eight apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Clovertield Blvd. came before the Santa Monica Planninq Commission. Several tenants of 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged that the appl~cant, Sunisa Pongputmong, had not properly obtained tenant signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and "Tenant Intent:. t.o Purchaselt forms and that tenants were not fully apprised of their rl.ghts under TORCA. As part of the TORCA conversion process, you were required to be informed of your rights under !ORCA by the applicant and the Santa Monica Planning Division. The Planning Commission has requested that staff determine whether you had been properly notified of your rights under TORCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through misrepresentation or coercion: and whether you were offered money for signing either the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent to Purchase" forms. Please read through the enclosed materials carefully and notify us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect information included in the enclosed application. Additionally, if you have any reason to believe that you did not receive all the enclosed information or if you were coerced in any manner by the applicant to obtain your signature on the forms, please notify us of this in writing. We are requesting that you respond to us, in wri~ing, wi~hin 10 days of ~his le~~er. - 1 - Of)08f L All correspo~dence s~c~:d be addressed ~o: City of Santa Monica Plann~ng and Zon1nq Division 1685 Ma~n Street, Room .212 Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401 Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 Please call -e 3.": 2:3 458-8341 if you have any q'.les't:.ions or concer~s regard~~g t~e :enar.~-Part~c~patlng Convers~on appllcatior. for 202: C:averfield 81. (TPC-130) and your r~ghts as a part~cipatl~g tenant under Ar~lcle XX - Tenant Ownershlp Rlghts Amendment ~o t~e Charter of ~~e City of Sar.ta Monica, Cal~fornia. Thank you for your attentlon to thls ~atter. Sincerely, ~ ~,{i"~ ld~ Susan White ASslstant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy C~ty Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, california B. Tenant Information Sheet (TORCA) C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/10/91. D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. E. Statements of Tenant Intent to PurChase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated l/9/91, 1/10/91, 1/12/9l, 1/16/91, and 2/4/9l. F. Subdivision Application Summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/19/91. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/22/91. PCjclvrfld SW OS/21/9l Of)n~2 - 2 - SANTA MONlrCA CIty Planning DIVISiOn (213) 458-6341 1685 Main Street. POBox 2200 Santa MOnica. CA 90407-2200 June 24, 1991 Edna Wilson 2021 Cloverfield., Apt. #4 Santa Monica, CA 90404 SUbject: Tenant-Participating Conversion Case No. lSO, vesting Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Wilson: On May 2l, 1991, a letter requesting your written response regarding the renant-participating Conversion CQS~ for 2021 Cloverfie1d Blvd. was sent to your address from the Planning and Zoning Division. We requested that you respond in writing within 10 days of receipt of the letter. We need to know whether you have any questions or concerns regarding this application Please call me at 213/458-8341 or send correspondence to: Planning & Zoning Division 1685 Main street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn.: Susan White, Assistant Planne~ regarding the Tenant-Participating Conversion application for 2021 Clove~field Bl. (TPC-150). We are requesting that you respond within 10 days of receipt of this l~tter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, c:: l;~~ ~V~ sudn White Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Eupport Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy city Attorney o 0 ~\ ~ ~ - 1 - , I -~~_I'"- __ ............_ MONICA SANTA _...........- ....:_~-------+..._- City Planning DIVISIon (213) 458-8341 1685 Main Street. POBox 2200 Santa MOnica, CA 90407-2200 June 24, 1991 Gary Lee Myers 2021 Cloverfield., Apt. #6 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Subject: Tenant-Participating Conversion Case No. 150, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Mr. Myers: On May 11, 1991, a letter requesting your written response regarding the Tenant-participating Conversion Case for 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. was sent to your address from the Planning and Zoning Division. We requested that you respond in writing within 10 days of receipt of the letter. We need to know whether you have any questions or concerns regarding this application Please call me at 213/458-8341 or send correspondence to: Planning & Zoning Division 1685 Main street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn.: Susan White, Assistant Planner regarding the Tenant-participating Conversion application for 2021 Cloverfield Bl. (TPC-150). We are requesting that you respond within 10 days of receipt of this l~tter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, c.... I " 1./I.tV /.1 ~ '"''I V'" l.Jv~ s~an White Assistant Planner Of)OR4- cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood .support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney - 1 - ,. C,ty Planning DIVISion (213) 458.8341 1685 Main Street. POBox 2200 Santa MonIca, CA 90407-2200 June 24, 1991 Terisa Gomez 2021 C1overfield., Apt. #5 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Subj ect: Tenant-Participating Conversion Case No. 150, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Ms. Gomez: On May 21, 1991, a lett.er requesting your written response regarding the Tenant-Participating Conversion Ca~e for 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. was sent to your address from the Planning and Zoning Division. We requested that you respond in writing within 10 days of receipt of the letter. We need to know whether you have any questions or concerns regarding this application Please call me at 213/458-8341 or send correspondence to: Planning & Zoning Division 1685 Main street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn.: Susan White, Assistant Planner regarding the Tenant-participating 2021 Cloverfield Bl. (TPC-150). respond within 10 days of receipt your attention to this matter. Conversion application for We are requesting that you of this letter. Thank you for Sincerely, ~tMf'<Mv ldivb Susan White Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Of)O~5 - 1 - SANTA MONI:CA City Plann:ng DIVISion l213} 458-8341 1685 Main Street. POBox 2200 Santa Monica. CA 90407-2200 June 24, 1991 Soffy Shihata 2021 Cloverfield., Apt. #2 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Subject: Tenant-Participating Conversion Case No. 150, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Dear Mr. Shihata: On May ~l, 1991. a letter requesting your written response regarding the Tenant-Participating Conversion Case for 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. was sent to your address from the Planning and zoning Division. We requested that you respond in writing within 10 days of receipt of the letter. We need to know whether you have any questions or concerns regarding this application Please call me at 213/458-8341 or send correspondence to: planning & Zoning Division 1685 Main street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn.: Susan White, Assistant Planner regarding the Tenant-Participating 2021 Cloverfield Bl. (TPC-150). respond within 10 days of receipt your attention to this matter. Conversion application for We are requesting that you of this letter. Thank you for Sin~ ~ Susan White Assistant Plamner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney o t} (}~6 - 1 - , ..... .... P~A'" f z,o IV 1{EU-~Iv'S I? ~/31<t j~ ~ All correspondence should be addressed to: City of Santa Monica Planning and Zoning Division 1685 Main street, Room #212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150 Please call me at 213 458-8341 if you have any q'..lestions or concerns regarding the Tenant-Participating Conversion application for 2021 Cloverfield Bl. (TPC-150) and your rights as a partic~pating tenant under Article XX - Tenant Ownership R~ghts Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California. Thank you for your attention to this matter. S2;~.;~.,~ {Art~ sutln White Assistant Planner cc: Lydia Acosta, Neighborhood Support Center Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Attachments: A. Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California B. Tenant Information Sheet (TORCA) C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/10/91. D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC lSO, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. ~ E. Statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement to Conversion Forms, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/9/91, l/lO/91, 1/12/91, 1/16/91, and 2/4/9l. F. Subdivision Application summary Cover Sheet, dated 3/l9/9l. G. Building Inspection Report, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 1/22/91. PC/clvrfld SW ~ OS/21/91 LI v\~ W o..ih- ~~ A,pl.-. l /.)~~-vA. +\t\JL... ~ C~~i& (..o.rUL cle~+~ I r o..~ Uj I~h -I-h-R.- ~~i~ L\.. r h<A~ ~~ \J.A.~ ~..J..,; QM. L-u.y ~ }h~ U lA.~ 1 . O()O~7_ 2 - vC QAW. L\ ~k. ~\ t~lq\ ~ .... ..... wriT':' C= C. - I f"\'-"" ,. I" - ,) - 1. - l ~ - 2021, Cloverf1.eld Blvd. ,:13 Santa Monica, Ca 90404 "91 JJ.~ -6 P 4 '21une 3rd 1991 Susan WIute C1ty Plann1ng D1viS1on City of Santa Mon1ca 1685 Ma1n Street P.O. Box 2200 Santa Mon1ca, Ca 90407 - 2200 Dear Ms. Wh1te: After read1ng the 1nformation sent to me by your office, I would l1ke to resc1nd my s1gnature of Intent to Purchase. I would l1ke to aff1rID my 51gnature of agreement to convert, but as I see no poss1ble way that I would e1ther want, or be able to purchase un1t #3 I see no p01nt to s1gn1ng an 1ntent to do so. My signature for the conversion should remain valid, but please resc1nd my Intent to Purchase s1gnature effect1ve as of the above date. Thank you. Yours truly, ~ S. Dianne Bubb Tenant Unit t!3 2021, Cloverf1eld Blvd. Santa Mon1ca, Ca 90404 cc Sunisa Pongputmong - owner Of)f)~a -- 9~ I, (~c;! '91 JIJL -8 P 4 :39 tdl1C{ J' tud'~ - f/ot~ 80;;>../ C/~/U{c1 f3lu:1tf-~ ~n-fa., ()~ ( Ca ' loVe' Ci r y ,...':-- .... ~ ! ~J r- 11' ~ '" f"~.c1 ';.,' - - v . _ "," . U<1;t) mS LU/~ c1/~ , Lvffr C-o /lL~ ~ ~ ~~~ &:~~ ~ ~~.w~ ~ (~ VA.J, t"uj~ J /U~, V to'-[;'Jd uJu_ <1-0 Lui:f4:f-~ ~ ae..J~ cUu- ~<to W~ t1A~ U;t,~-'[A~10$ ~l~ U ~ ./~~ tJ.A-e vU.L(fLf? ~ '1~ CA:'1. <./-Iv~~ ~ . CU<4 'fu;/~ (.U~ (/}1~ JJJ~ vV ~~'&~ c/\C1 dJ ~ ~ 6?~ ~~ cyJ JA,-(l~ .~~~ ~l 0fJ-Uj~. chJ CA'~'-?~ vl{~ aA..t cV~' ~-u~ Cd- L~ wYk /h{A, Q)u"1" ~~ ~ -#~.oiJ ~L/ ~ H'-VU . U~ r~ flA ~. I1U u~ H_~ cf~ WU-eds ~ V?dl,~cfaJ-u.x. diu:, ~.:u0 a.,J /wv IVA<-eju~ (lUI {2.w"- uve LUd f. aI~~..li~ e~d O-X-d ~/jtU-ct~7J-LY-~oC ~~ vJv ~~ Cf-/Jv;:; ~(..r ~ V 0t.-cL-]-~~l- Iu~ V--<J ~) vr-l-o o()n~". _t!-~ C;;ILWl U7}~l-V\.0 ~~ [vLUV HL-'fzu..fLfJ. \j?~ ~/ ~ Cf:.0-uu./tl. rJl...._~ ~I Ii .""-,..1'Lf) ~ ~ ; ~ -T~V~~, - 0 ~L~h::r ~ ~ JVY~ ~ Cft< ~I ~ &az'k- ~!J./u~-~ {Jf)I}!JO From the desk of 6.a7-'I. 0J fr1~. evJu't.. / CITY C:: - ~ CF~ :- - ~ o;_I~"'" _ . Gary Lee Myers Wh~rJ P€d#~ rL1~"h ~ blu"/d,fJ'S /,..., S'-rT4 f!O/V /(); / fA ~ I (J.tl.. q '-vAr.t 0 r- R ~ 1- <-::>~tf'6\ .. ~..~ c..o,...t-rb~ \,F ~N~'f~~ is " ~-tf\~'~ \'W.c ~ '"9 -t" '-t\-..a.. \..pwc...:. 'fr"hG\~\...... c...lV-l, W~ l't\s ~O~'\ \S ~l:l'\N'\. S: ~"l,\ ;~ ~\~~ck~~", \b\ft..rr~ u."'~ Q\"\'\{'-I '\ C)r-1 ~-\o~\....) S'\~l'~,"\J. S~ ~~~\~ \\~~ ~~~"fT~N\ h~'"t ~ ~(..\.. ~\.~~\~ L~~~, S'^- 'r. ~ >' ~tc.~ ~ ~~ \ \o""'~~ c..~"""3: \.::a ~\..., L'\II c... ~ tl ~.. ~ So..~"t~ \)\b~\ (...~ ~) ..s\.t)~~ 1 ~~U::'~lf'I~ CI\ (...~ \- 0'" ..y.,... {', 0,.,. "\\.... \'1\,~~...."- ........ 1..0.\,:>.., \'I. ~ \-'>,. ~ \j..'S~ Co.( '- ~";.t-'\ \~((...t-~ t)~~ W ?()~'\. '!. \o-t.\-t.,,,,, \> t:I~' tlx- ~ \-~ ",,~'-/) \~ 1"\~ ~ 1te\\~ 1- \?\~4..~"- L.o~ -to c\.....r 1\\'~. " "'I~ ~tli\ ~\...o " ''', G~(. \ o HELPING Y~L~k -- 1.Ii: - . PO Box 2';] Sanla Mcnrca CA 90406. aOO~262 J347. 2133953221 . .AX 21~ 'OJ 61'7 J J.. [). ~ ~~ o f) (} q I L.~ ~ L~... b-cl1''1\ ~ WhP~' i:\~~~~: :~,:;~ . ~<o-+ t\s 'M,",~ '-. 0..50 5100 0 :="- "-..J b'\....... <:I f f .. r-" \~ '91\~Jt-l~ p~~~' -:t\(v\ N o~ C.........,.c.:.lr-J C:>'(--..~ ~~'\...~ l::)\ -\'\..,1 L\" \~. \tu.f'l... (Y\"brt- ~SS'-\~\'\ h".$ ~ IT b,-q,rJ q~ f\\\;t.i\\'fb ~ . \ .,. \. n M ~ f)., '" <. "" ~\v. -t,r'"c......~1 '~S\Al~ ~ S \.. r \ 0,-\ S l>.. N J. '-. ~ 't:::.,,1\ I ~ As f\ tor-c:.F\ c.cf'EVu 5 t\l,.r. ~> ~~. ~~f'~ -...~ ~ Of}!lq2.. ~ ~ -- From the desk of Gary Lee Myers ~ PIUAbfrj w.rk !.J4J r..(.",1t, C'''''f'!'~ ftJ~ 1t." f. Si 1 J.hJ... fa J ,'f-iU d, f.... 10 r( f'. C 6rlU <r ti orJ T<U.w,,( ~".<1 Jli.1~'. ~l<~II~ irJ7'rrilr fllh"j;,.v. @ 71.. two ft' po. or fllhi/'-(j fl.qf.. d;J.;f SiW h... ()... 6-rql-' ft. (e <ft rJ.< d Iv:tt, ell i did;.i<J oJb~ FOrfl "r fJ.rJ6fJ..~t. o T,J1:~I'J.~.~ srb;:./(~II~ &,J4{ LcJ~oI 'f4ir..r+ !1'1lvJf~, b4 6jl-Z CdNlf,PIl-lf {UI"eft ~r1" 7lv. c,*? erftb"vf1 t. ed. io ,'tv1--r'Vft"'t Or tJ1;.f()j"Jj tv6ltlol htf~ IKff~~~tetf s't - @ /1l! .\i."'1 rbl\,1 J-i.s bl-J/) t () 'J'"t Gh it.. f ~ . r'4(~ '5(,(~ j,'11... )'f"'+ 1--rutls tJ.1-t" t>>,4toj dr. the fr,J',Jtf Cv.J/I b'tf4r<"(c{ 1'41 LC~Vt dr b t(. d v, G fr-l. HELPING YOU - HELPING CHILDREN I ., I . f! ~ ,~? . 2'33953221 . FJ.X 2133946017 POBox 2: : 3 Safl'il\,/(Jn,Cil CA 904G6 · 80" ,(62 .....H (,- .J7-~{ @ ~ "I'lL ~ --:-,t Of)rlQ3 ~ ~ From the desk of ~\1,t ~ '.~7-91 . <9 ,- - -- C,TY Ot o ...... CJT~ D qJto.W~1 r '~[.e,\JoL th.. t;f 0. fA.r'~lh ~\.-(11f-1'f~~ WOoS aOAlt OA) Wh1 +k f 411F~ (rcN&,.,hJ OF ~6~1 clG\1lrf4~1~ 511N~ I{ t-c,JtJ't- {Jl4ftU"'4.J-:N, Q.1.,.-(~tI1-<,.rf f.r (A)hVCfJ';'JI M~""l i!.Sta"$ wot.1tl b~ 6r,~,ll to Li~ht. @~orh~F ,..,~ I 1-~".,,1- c...ld f,u:b\ h. (,.. 7L f.rJ4.rJ'~'( ~t,~ir~cA T4 <(tr~;J m"Jtr,tf\ c,,)J.{.:~tr fClr!iClffd.foJ? I'" fc..rcJ,I.I,rJ1 Hot" tc,."f. rJ) rn'S'i"'f'rft1~T;4,J tAf'd t-'I'(~fr1 o,r1. Vtrj diJf:Alc.t PbJS I'b: ),.t ,'(J 1.41 fJ, to O't...IN ~17f\1..~rtS. ([) r't'? LtJ.. rd 6-(J.,;",,- fAY4r.! h..f..u.. bY'tr lYa.Nfc.J. ~ fhOH +A~+ S ifIVt4 . OIJ~ Cl'il.r e.X4ftp/.... ;j S'"",c. l.\rJ,'j.) ~/t ~lhl."t~ to 1'''*''.1 Jh~~ Ill.! )C*.fJ ;N A f~rk.~1 ~rt.4. 0/1.,., J,4f1,"" 6'('(;.1 ft~<f",JeJ (."d-~ +" WI ""1 'f eCh,.J ~ f"~.~ i.' kJ iooJ fJ.. c/, s: i- tl"rJ. jf fH.-<. "ft rJ".tj ) f41'~.f 0,1 1')... -S--f...'( ct. r ~ HELPING YOU. HELPING CHILDREN Gary l_ee Myers ~ . I PO Box 2113 Sar.fa Monrca CA 90406 - 800-262-4341- 213-395-3227 - FAX 21339460,'7 ~ ~ Of)Oql\- L- ~~ ~-r ~ .-,.. ~ C. \ E;o -~-~---;-;)-~ -/?j -- ~;:~---- "~~~ ~')l71/ __u____. _0 _ :'S ~ F~) __ . ---- ---- ----- -- - - -- - - -- --- - ---- - - - -__n:Z; --&~~n - l~t~ ~-J-"oLiJ -------- ,;t:L..Z _C!::DPLJ/E--s-<-"O'--__ -~ n_~-(-_d.<- 2: - _n_ -----;-: _';bJ?:-1. -~ 1/..---., r~ - JI ,/d J a --4"-Z _ _ - ---. ./?;--t-Y-~ed. -- +0 ~ ~ _ <0~...--- :;-<. 'a ~-' _ ___ --- ---1?fv-~h!=-7--I:--0~-~ ;d--~~~~ --- -- - -: _0,-:- u_ -~7 ~ - o/~ ~ ~:;z" 7Zc,~ - -- ---- -~-J.~~c{(". __ _ . - - -- -- --~ n ----.::~_~_: ~ ~__ __~ - - no ~tfr 1 - _ __ -~ _n ~-7 :~-_ ~~_:n~-~: -:-- -~=-~~-.:: }Lk>r--.:-- ~-. _u - ~~ ---- - - - - - ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_ '__ ~ 7 _ _ ~ ------ ------...--- - -- - --- -. . ----- -...........----------........ ---- - ---- - ~~ -~- - - - ------ ~-- ~ -- -- -- -------- ------------------ - - - ..... -- ro"'\ -------- <. ---- - oo:::r--- --~----- ----- - - .z.. c_ _ c.'! ....' --___ _-i ~,_ :; c:c <<..;. ; [ . - "'"l:t - I I l - ----<:.. I, ~_ '""} '.' ~ -- ..... ~ l.l- -- , - ~ - - ou- ~ - >-...... - -'::: P' - --~ '3<-> h - - - ___~_ - __-P _.._ _ ____ _~_ __ -- -- - ~ - - -..- - -~ --- -~ - --- -- - ~- - - ---- --- - -- OI)Oqs , I --~~ -- -- ----~.... - - -- --~-- - --- - -- - - - - ~ -~ -- - - -- - - ~ -------~--.- -- --- -- -~ -- -- _._~ -------- - - - -- - ~-- - - - -- - - - - - ';1 T Y ~ -: :. - I .' · r!TV - ....' . "91 JL~ -4 25 :C4 Laura F. Snyder 2021 Cloverfleld Bl. #8 Santa :fonlca, CA 90404 June 1, 1991 CITY OF SA~TA NO~ICA Plann~ng and ZonIng DIVISIon 1685 11aln Street, Roo'il 212 Santa MonIca, CA 90401 RE:Tenant Partlclpatln~ ConverSIon Case IPC-150 VestIng TenatIve Tract 1.'50590 2021 Cloverfl21o ~'l"""'. AttentIon Susan whIte,AssIstant Planner TPC 150 ReceIved your booklet on ARTICLE XX-TE~~AKT OW~ERSHIP RIGHTS A~l~~DEXT, REGARDI~G rental apartment converSIon to condomInIuBs. Afte~ readIng the InforMatIon and careful thought, I realIzed that persons In #2 and if 5 felt that certaIn tenants had SIgned, WIthout full knowledge) the converSIon for~. BeIng a hlgh school and bUSIness college graduate, I fully understand the InformatIon regardlng apartment converSIon to Co~do~lnlums and the forms. In ~o way have I been coerced) frlghtened) MISInformed, threatened, promIsed anythlng, or paId to SIgn the converSIon agreement form agaInst BY CIVIl rIgnts by the owner of thIS bUIldlng. I) the underSIgned, Laura F. Snyder, SIgned the converSIon agreement form of MY own free wlll and l~ full knowledge of my rlgrrts as a tenant. SIncerely, f1 .--, /' r1 d- <<- V./ 2M- ./,. __i tkJ c.l.e '"t..----"" Laura F. Snyder Ot}Oqb ..- o rpl Q "? L- .-- .- J- . P _\.1:Y 0 v /;> SANTA .11 MO " _L,.""."""'" S N I C A _ ~~0v "t' "'1 ~~_. ..... From the desk of ( I ~ . FO~ SUSAN M. WHITE Wo-re {O FI U? = -, 111 /"1 J -- 1'f31<13-5A- G,6J.<16Z.) r&fVA-rtT OF UN} T t:f.:. 5'") z..o Z I C f..,Oll'el?PI ~ L-17 13 L-V D .} f<.~C;6f\J6D ";/21/"11 f 6/Z1/ei, f?A/~f? L.-6in::~f(.~ r==~O M ptAN f z.oAJ. 01 V. svr DOe:S f/O-( t<.~aC-lNO Hl7te A-GK"t;E- 1013"';"'-- ,0 CO;-!vc:;K:SJON Or( -trJ--rf3.Ni To pv'~cHA-8e Por't.t<1 -- oI6tJ/r-rvr<~5 \ -0 ., -- [H I "O~~ 'D"'7/11 '7'z'~sO :~' I i 0 ' CF J.L1~f1-/ ~.. AREA cl)[;~' -.. _ \10,0 , N: , I,,, <l ;;z..y -f..s:/02 " ! E 'M I._ , AAnt. to Co^"'. . ! M ! ~ i-~' )-O~( C~JI' () X I ><;: ! E is; CU. ~ S" ,A,Q.1Z.!J - A rYJ : M I G i . W"lA/ Ji.;;JO 'O'lEi ~_ 'f ' I ci ~G"U ?H _", _.. "iG~.E' c",,~ [l -::Ak~' _:;E7<..;Pt.EO .-----. '. ,1.-/' : oAC";:' ..../I.:! ; :J',,~NTSTO r: I W'........\. W , ,v ~~ '-- : SEE <lU ~; ",d;iN""kl I/"::; ,~:A;;"" .~ - ~ - ... _ _ ---=-_ ____ -L-., , URGENT L ~ . .'L...--"'-- ~ ~ I..... I~ ~ ! ~ K XX of the City Charter for a complete application. The subject application: (a) Identifies the building, its owner and its tenants and contains a declaration that such bu~lding is a Qualifying Building, the specific details of which are incorporated into these findings by reference. (b) sets forth, for each the following sales incorporated into reference: tenant occupied unit, information, which is these findings by 1) The maximum sales price for each unit. 2) The minimum down payment for each unit. 3) If seller financing is offered, the m~n~mum amount to be financed, the maximum rate of inter- est and the minimum term of the loan offered by the seller. (c) Sets forth, for each unit, the following common areal 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 occupancy and management plans and policies. 4) A list of all repairs and alterations I if any I which will be performed before the close of the first escrow. S) The plan for allocating costs and expenses for the building. 6) A prepared monthly 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 tOI the roof, walls, floors, heating, air conditioning, plumb- ing/ electrical systems or components of a simi- lar or comparable nature, and recreational 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 forth any substantial defects or malfunctions identified in the building in- spection report regarding the unit and the common - 2 - Of);"'l ~q P~~NING AND ZONING DIVISION Land Use and Transportation Management Department M E M 0 RAN 0 U M DATE: September 4, 1991 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: TPC 150 I Vl'TM 50590, Eight-Unit Tenant-Participating Conversion Address: 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard Zoning: R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential) District Owner: Sunisa Pongputmong Summary The attached letter was submitted today by the tenant of unit #4 indicating that she wishes to retract her original letter (see Attachment J, letter dated 7/1j9l), and that she does agree to the conversion. The tenant states that she had written the first letter based on misinformation received from other tenants. Based on the tenant's retraction of the letter dated 7/1/91 and that she is requesting her signature agreeing to Tenant- Participating conversion 150 to remain, staff is recommending that Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 be approved subject to standard findings and conditions for TORCA conversions under Ar- ticle xx. Staff recommends that if the Planning Commission de- cides to deny Tenant-Participating Conversion lSD, that a finding of coercion or fraud must be made. With the retraction of the letter claiming coercion of the tenant of unit 14, and in that now the application meets the require- ments of Article XX and all mandatory requirements of the State SUbdivision Map Actl staff respectfully recommends that Tenant- Participating conversion l50 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590 be approved with the following findings 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 all mandatory requirements of the Subdivision Map Act of the state of California. [reference Sec. 2004 (a), Article XX] 2. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Application has been deemed complete and accepted for filing. At the time of filing" it met the requirements of section 2002 of Article - 1 - Ol)i)qg ~. . : i ;""'1 .' ,., p. 1:' \; - "- . --- '-' _ ,............... >../ A:TTA;CrtM"ENI \:.. 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 tenant occupying the unit. 4) No eviction has occurred pursuant to Government Code section 7060 et seq. (the Ellis Act) within a five (S) year period prior to the filing of an application for Tenant-Participating Conversion. 5) No eviction has occurred pursuant to Section l806 (h) of the Charter (relating to eviction for pur- poses of owner occupancy or occupancy by relative of the owner) within a two (2) year period prior to the filing of an application for Tenant- Participating Conversion. 6) In obtaining the slgnatures of cosignin9 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- ticipating 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 75% (not less than two-thirds) of all 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 pied by such tenants and lists all other tenants to the owner in the building and the units occupy. occu- known they (h) Contains a declaration that cosigning tenant was obtained in writing, to such tenant of in subsections (a) (b) (c) Section. the signature of each only after the delivery, the information required Cd) and (e) of this (i) Contains a declaration that all lawful notices have been given of the application for conversion. (j) Has attached to the application statements of Tenant Intent to purchase, was signed by Intending to Pur- chase Tenants occupying 63% (not less than fifty per- cent) of the total number of residential units in the building at the time of filing of the original ap- plication. (If there is more than one tenant in a unit, the signature of only one tenant is required.) - 3 - 001jO (k) That, for each tenant occupied unit, a Tenant Intent to Purchase has been delivered to the unit or a tenant occupying the unit. 3. The following procedures have been followed 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 Conversion Application was filed by the owner on 2/6/9l, not less than forty (40) days prior to the filing of the application for the tentative subdivision map on 3/l9/9l.. (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-Participating Conversion Application had been filed and that any obj ections thereto may be filed with the City within twenty-five (25) days from the date of the notice. (d) Upon the filing 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 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 Monica Municipal Code Sec. 9362 (a)] 2 . The owner (s) and each tenant on the subj ect 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 Monica Municipal Code. 4 . Each of the tenants of the proposed condomini urn proj ect 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 will have, received all applicable notices and - 4 - 01'}101 rights now or hereafter required by the Subdivision Map Act. Each tenant has received or will receive lO days written notification that an application 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 to tenants shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply with the legal require- ments for service by mail. 5. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium proj ect 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 condominium proj ect has been, or will be, given lao 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 limited by Sections 1941, 1941.l, and 1941.2 of the civil Code, and set forth herein as conditions of approval. 7. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium proj ect has been, or will be, given notice of an exclusive right 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 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 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 abridge the rights or obligations 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 1970 (Section 15301) and from the City of Santa Monica Guide- lines for Implementation of the California Environmental 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 inconsistent with or redundant with the requirements 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 consent shall be filed prior to the approval of the requlred final parcel/subdivision map - 5 - O()\Ol 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, binding upon the owner and any successors in interest, to comply with each and every condition imposed in connection with approval of this Tenant-Participating Conversion Application. The City and any Participating Tenant shall have the right to specific enforcement of this Agreement in addition to any other remedies provided by law. 2. The owner shall 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, without change, for a period of not 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. Unless a participating tenant has already provided the owner with written acceptance of the offer, the Tenant Sale Price may be adjusted according to any change re- flected in the Price Index [as defined in section 200l(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 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 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. However, in the event such transfer is to someone other than the Participating Tenant, the transfer shall be expressly made subject to the rights of the Par- ticipating Tenant to continue to occupy the unit as pro- vided for in Article xx of the City Charter. The provi- sions of California Government Code Section 7060 et seq. (l'The Ellis Act") shall not be used to evict any non- purchasinq Participating Tenant. 4. Each unit shall at all 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 Convers~on. 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. - 6 - Ofll()3 5. Prior to the approval of the required final parcell 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 ci tizens or disabled on the date of filing the Tenant- Participating Conversion Application and who personally occupied a rental unit in this qualifying 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 time limitations 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- ject only to Just cause evictions provided that the evic- tion is not for the purpose of occupancy by the owner, occupancy by any relative of 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 allow an increase of no more than the increase in the Price Index [as defined in Section 200l(j) of Arti- cle XX of the City Charter) plus a reasonable pro rata share of capital replacements for the building cornmon areas or agreed to capital improvements 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 the time of the death of the senior citizen. The person designated by the senior 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 Conversion Application. All other non-purChasing Participating Tenants who per- sonally occupied a rental unit in ~his qualifying building continuously for at least six (6) months immediately pre- ceding the date of filing of this Tenant-participating Conversion Application shall have a right without time limitations to occupy their units subject to the provi- sions of Article XVIII of the City Charter and shall be given the nonassignable right to continue to personally reside in their unit subject only to just cause eviction for a period of five (5) years from the date the first unit is offered for sale. No eviction shall be allowed during this time period 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 - 01)\04 the unit.- In addition, during this time period, should the maximum allowable rent provisions of Article XVIII of the City Charter no longer apply, the rent for each unit may be adjusted annually to allow an increase of no more 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 buildingls common areas or agreed to capital improvements for the unit. All 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 condition, "just cause" means one of the reasons set forth in subdivisions (a) through (g) of Section 1806 of the City Charter. 7. The requirements of these conditions shall 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 benefits and protections of Article XX of the City Charter. The City Attorney shall review and approve for compliance with Article XX the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or equivalent documents, prior to the ap- proval of the required final parcel/subdivision map. To the extent applicable, the requirements of Article XX shall be made a part of the rental agreement with the Par- ticipating Tenants. 8. The owner 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 ci ty 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. rf there is no monthly maximum allowable rent, the tax shall be computed on the basis of the monthly 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 accordance with subdivision (d) 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 from the tax. - 8 - 01)105 9. The Decla-ration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restric- tions, or equivalent document, shall contain a non- discrimination clause in substantially the following 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, marital status, family com- 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, ancestry, national origin, age, pregnancy, marital status, family composition, A.I.D.S., or the potential or actual occupancy of minor children." 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Unit 1 2 3 4 5 Approval of the Tenant-participating Conversion Applica- tion shall expire if the required final parcel/subdivision map is not approved wi thin the time period set forth in Condition 11. The tentative parcel/subdivision map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provi- sions of California Government Code section 66452.6 and Sections 9380-9382 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period, the final map shall be presented ~o the city of Santa Monica for approval. If the tenta- tive map is a vesting tentative map pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.2, the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9325 also shall apply. The applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth in Government code section 66427.l, including notification of tenants regarding application for a public report to the Department of Real Estate and notification of tenants regarding approval of a final map for the conversion. The developer/applicant shall provide the Engineering De- partment of the City of Santa Monica with one Dizal Cloth print reproduction and microfilm of each sheet of the fin~l map after recordation. 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 section 9366 (SMMC) / at such time as a final determination is made by the City Council. For information purposes, the following persons are iden- tified in the application as participating tenants: Karin Hajek Soffy Shihata Dianne Bubb Edna Wilson Terisa Gomez OtJltl6 - 9 - 6 Gary Lee Myers 7 Christina Gerona 8 Laura Froehlich Prepared by: Susan white, Assistant Planner Attachment pc/ewh Sw Oflt07 - 10 - 8D - - y f~ ~ to ~ Sunlsa Pongputmong 1Q25 Idaho Ave. ,.,-il _, ~ Santa Monical Ca 9~403 -~ '"'(' ;, SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION C/0 Ms. Susan WhIte Sarta ~onlca Clty PlannIng DIVISIon 168) MaIr. Street, P.O. Box 2200 Santa MonIcal Ca., 90407-2200 Augllst 26, 1991 SubJect: Tenant PartIcipating ConverSIon Case TPC-1S~J VestIng Tentative Tract 50590, 2021 Cloverfleld Boulevard Dear Ms. WhItel On May 1, 1991, my Tenant ConverSIon ApplIcatIon as stated above was before the Plannlng CommIssIon AC that hearIng none of the tenants who SIgned the "Tenant Agreement to ConversIon" form appeared to protest the matterJ however, two persons from unIts on ~he property that had opposed the conversion from the outset argued to the CommIssIon that the applIcatIon should not be approved. Although neIther of these persons claImed that they had been subJected to mLsrepresentation or coerCIon to obtaln their cooperatIon, one person made general allegatIons that others on the property had been subJected to such treatment. Thereafter, the CommISSIon continued the matter to an IndefInIte date w~lle an 1~ve3tlgatlon ~as conducted by the ~lannlng DiVISIon. OP or about August 22, 1991 I receIved notice from the PlannIng DIVISIon that a nev Staff report vas beIng prepared and that the matter would be heard again on september 4, 1991. I am hereby requestlng that upcoming staff Memorandum address the Issue or the timeliness of any action the Commission might take on September 4, 1991. I belIeve that my applIcatlon should be deemed granted as a matter of law due to the failure oE the CommiSSIon to take actIon WithIn the time lImIts set by ArtIcle XX Sectlon 2003(d) of the city Charter (the "TORCA Amendment") 3nd SectIon 9361 of the Santa MonIca MuniCIpal Code. According to the two Sections of law stated above, the Commission had fifty (50) days from the date my tentatIve subdiVIsIon map was accepted for fIlIng to schedule a hearing on the matter and process my applIcatIon. My tentatIve subdIVISIon map was accepted for flllng on March 27, 1991 and the matter was flrst heard on May 1, 1991, therefore the latest dates that the matter could have been deCIded was eIther May 16 or June 21, 1991 respectIvely depending upon whether one calculates from the date of fIlIng set forth by Ordlnance and Charter or the follows the practices of the Planning CommISSIon WhIch calculates tIme from the flrst date of hearing rather than the date of fillng. -1- O()tOS ','I j.,. \1 ,1 ''''\....I r 1 ~ \(- "--' ,. .~.v \.. L V '-' .A.. TIAGrtNe.NT F 8b Whethe~ the date of decision as ~equired by law was May 16 or June 21 1391, there 1S no conce1vable ~ay that the Comm1SSion ~an render a t1mely deC1s1on on September 4, 1991. Therefore my Application should be approved pursuant to Sect10n 2003 (e) of the Charter ~hlCh provIdes that ~Any Tenant Partlc1pat1ng Co~version Appl1catlon shall Be deemed approved subject to the condit:)nS set forth 1n Section 2004 of this Art1cle If It IS not dppr0ved or den1ed within the time perlod requlred by thlS S~ctlon." (EmphaSIS added). Where a city plann1ng commiSSion fal~s ~o render a deCISion within the time Ilm1ts granted by the la~, ard where the law specif1e3 that the remedy for failure t~ comply i5 granting of the appllcatlon, that remedy must be followed as a matter of law. See Palmer v. City of OJal, (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 280,223 Cal. Rptr. 542. I am hereby requesting that the upcoming staff Report address thIS Issue, and that the COffiffilssion take the follo~ing act10ns at tr.e pUblIC hearIng of September 4, 1991. FIrst, I am requestIng tbat the 1ssue of timelIness be addressed before any eV1dence or public comment IS taken on the matter. :f the CommISS1on rules that the Application should be granted as a matter of law, then no further eVIdence or publIC comment 3hould be allo~ed. Second, I am ~eque5tlng that the untImely ~espon5es of Gary Lee ~eyers (Un1t 6) and Edna WIlson Hoesch (UnIt 4) not be conSIdered in any event. The documents on f1le in thiS ca~e reveal the only ~rltten OpposIt1on to my applIcat10n vhich claIm coerc:on were flled after the deadlIne to deCIde my case had passed. On May 21,1991 the Planning D1vlsIon maIled a letter to t~e tenants gIv1ng the them ten days to respond. On June 24, 1991 a second letter was malled gIVing the tenants an addItIonal opportun1ty to respond. FInally, the PlannIng DiViSion telephoned non-respondlng tenants on or about July 11, 1991 to fInd out why they had not responded. Myapplication should have been decided on May 16, 1991 and therefore all of the letters were sent and responses were received after the deadlIne for deClsion. In the event that the Commission elects to take eVIdence on the matter, I wlll be forced to Impeach ~the cred1b11Ity of Edna W~lson Hoesch If she attempts to substantiate the llbelous claIms made about me in her letter dated July 1, 1991 (stamped July 8). I am therefore requesting that if the CommiSSIon deCides to consider these vritIngs, that ! have the oppurtunity to cross exam1ne ~ltnesses. It then be made clear that 1t IS my refusal to partICIpate 1n a fraud and not my wIll1ngness to do so ~hich has caused these false claIms to be made agaInst me. 00109 SincerelY,-;) -.e::~y SunlS. pongputm~g -2- ~ l-:J ::.. It': .:511 511JJ {l/fIJ1'b/ - ? .) ~--~ / ' :1//_//11' &0../11 t.{//t--5d7V - HOC5(!.H I?{: -r(l2tA /lrJ?J.Jc;ir1tf,v :ft'JL.. 2&'2/ CLo t/B~r/€tO .~,-rl/J. ffl./j} i',(!ei/lu)/!! U~rL--' ~ o l)t?/J/l /lJ-5 fU fJ7 f8 : J tVZltI t-O A 11<:15 10 I! Gf7&4-C:7 /l7;/ /teJ;/trIl5 ,~/V jl..e6frlUJ/Aff, (J7'i 5!6;V/f1l(U- ~6/let-//\jA ~ 7;3)zcP hJO ,fi.pcftd6/e-e r"tL- II , j7J:.. G;H5C )) I,'; R-u?~ /J1 'I /l~tf r./~-57 7tJ /fJ / irO/!/J1u' /7' 'i :5 '4/v.lf7Z1" U ;2;e/JYJ ;7-f6' 7fT~ tlfJpA/{'fflc'X>j f /}d /l6/?z;e Ti; ~. ~L!/I :)C:}1;?-[L5Yf)"i ;411./0 Jctf2tw j.JU ~V 5lGN/8tt/&c 'ib:!1v '5~O 'I ~ ft.-/(O$ fJI~ l'..eardk5 ~ ~C/ltd& t/ F ~'$,-rm-r;. InI5flV~t9t4?IW1~::; .eeCc-l'~ ~ C/17iC--:?f./ ~7\I71?JiS .r7u'o ,a- /}Jf5t.1N,06!C:.siTJ'11'V;bI/VA (if /11:.[ !Z{6f115 ,Prvl) ~5Pc'/lJ5/~;~/~es-... ~L ;2-n&ltV(/V?1 ~/tVt7 /f-tv'O Geffj~10 r.tJP/' ?7O/V/'f"L.- - ~ - it' ;1;rt72/J/.417iJr..J J- ;e~/ZL' 7OkC,.4-- /5 //IJ my /?C~-r ...J!:~rS M/t? ~~ /'Va A-tf/v66J'V Nt:5H- IV ~~ /J1Y 516A//hPL-E ItMhor&-o . - J/J /J1 Y LE-~ .:T 1f1G7tfr7 cW'C7:J + ft./?t5 .z.10-7P1fNFJ .,I- (.../rWSlt/1 /2E4/?-tUJ/A-i/1 c?ve~/IV~r- t1f3 ~ 77r/5 /S NO A..J7/1/t7~ ~ :/5'5uG. ~ ~OAc7?O &~y /?C7t-r5) /f?Jr> -c 11mb ~ vt;:? -we /J11$4'tV~S7'?9o(/t?/N-c) "'. Ii PI U /,Jor -7-;1./ UO"-()~ /t~ h{ft1 /fP,t:Jt T7C/J/-lL jJJJtIb'Nrn; 5' () :Tm lIVe; r/~/A;{7 ,1- L/f11/qut!: /fQfrl;J :r A1tA- 5372/2/ i ~v .,tIJJi L!vl'J:rtt5/nJ my Jt<lf1f.tr1.-- ~ /J1ffZ( /#fVC [/rJ1?&O, JJLt!k5? ~ ~ m6 ~- G C l t~i !~(.\.) i1Gtl- ATTAC-rl t-',~N"\ :;I ,:) - ~ 7H/s --- - /J1 i rl /V'ftt.,5'77f-7C;/}1 ~ a~ L4t~?2~) 0/1./ ilt1rllJ IL C/{lf L' ~. . ~ __ /l. .~ {,.d~v~ Jxu~Y'- f-Id.t f-P~~ 01)111 SAN T P. . MONICA City Planning DivISion (213) 458-8341 March 27, 1991 Sunisa ponqputmonq 1025 Idaho Avenue '1 santa Monica, Calitornia 90404 1 ~85 Main Street Santa t/.onlca. CA 90401-3295 Subject: TPC 150 Dear Ms. Ponqputmonq: Your preliminary submittal ot a tentative .ubdivision map, alonq with accompanyinq data and reports, for property located at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. haa been reviewed for completen... in conformance to Sections 9321-9322 (SMMC) and has been: ~ Accepted tor tilinq. ____ ~.j.ct.d tor tilins_ For applications rejectea for iil1nq, the follol!inq It... ii~;.;~ been found .is.inq or inadequate, and must be submitted, completed and/or corrected, a. appropriate, betore proce..in~ ot your application say proceed. Note: While an applica.':ion may be tound complete and acce!'J-.eQ for tiling, per Section 9J22 (b) SMHC, the various time 11,,1..;. .et forth in the Subdivision Ordinance ahall not be d...ed to commence until 'the aubdivision i. found. exempt Qr an initial study is completed. and a neqative declaration or environaental impact report, a. a~ropriate, i. prepar~, proc:e..ac:t and considered in accordance with the California Enviroa.ental Quality Act._ This project has been found ex..pt tro. CEQA. ", Ple... contact thi. ot~lce for detail. or Clarification. Sinc.r.1Y,~ ~~u Assiatant Planner hp/d2021 03/27/91 - 1 - GOttZ ,(' \+ 'I r (1{ fllAl- A IT Ac.rt 't-1 &J -;-- ti