SR-7-A (53)
LUTM:PB:DKW:SMW:alSO.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: October 8, 1991
2;~~
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
city Staff
FROM:
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.
ot
the
to
INTRODUCTION
This report recoJl\lD.ends that the council deny t.he appea.l and
uphold
the
Planning
conunission's
decision
to
deny
Tenant-Participating Conversion 150, 2021 Clovertield Boulevard,
on september 4, 1991. The Planning co~ission 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 conunission 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 1, 1991.
At the May
hearing, in response to several participating tenant objections,
- 1 -
7-,4
O""T
L-,
.S JO)~
- '~JJ
the commission requested that staft verity that signatures wure
legally obtained on the intent 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
had 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 0). The letter requested a
written response within 10 days. Responses were received by the
tenants of units i1, 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7 rescinded their signatures on the tenant intent to purchase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 7/8/9l, respectively
(Attachment D). These letters were received after phone
- 2 -
conversations 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
misrepresentation 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 -
misunderstanding of my rights and responsibilities." 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
complete (Attachment A).
the date the application was deemed
The subdivision application was deemed
- 4 -
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) .
staft 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 Attorneyts 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 tound 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 Planning 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 -
Required Notification
staff noticed the May 1, 1991 and september 4, 1991 Planning
commission hearings and the October B, 1991 City Council meeting
for Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 as required per the
Municipal Code. Tenants and property owners wi thin a 300 foot
site radius were notified of these hearings and the City Council
meeting. Additionally, each tenant of 2021 Cloverf1eld 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 -
E. Supplemental Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission dated
9/4/91.
F. Letter from Sunisa Pongputmong to Planning Commission
dated 8/26/91.
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 LuTM
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Susan M. White, Assistant Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
PC/a150
09/30/91
- 7 -
t
FEE- $100.00
Cl~ of
Santa Monica
Community and Eccnomlc Dewlopment Department
Planning and zoning ~vtIIcn dL-.- a ,__ 4l/} .//
(213)458-8341 'Y'-YL V.~~
APPEAL FORM
Date Flied /JJ~_ C{ / CVJ / qIl
RecetY8d by _----'-If I~~ /f/k/?J
Receipt No - 'e- 11 r ~
~ .. \ -
,
. /'
Name S V N I SA Pc Iv&- pur ?1( I\J G-
Address rei s '-;fp~ l"U9 .M v ~ 4t I S r1 N1A H<! rV f t.r~ (?~4 q C If ()3
ContactPef'SOn S(...NIS'~. rCN~Pcrr.~(cN€- Phone l~ \~~I ~) ~~I -Ltt;:.rl
SiN -(&\.3.) g ~c; - (.1, S .,
Please descnbe the project and deCISIOn tl be appealed ~ ~ d1....~ A """ ~ ;tiv.. ;L;~,~
C~t~9t.. ~""'" tluM-~ ~J_ ~~.u....fA......... ;/,nIJUl.:UL~""'" TiVc I_I ~o
ffiI..,- '1/4-( q l Sf Z t~ TT-A c2~f n ~-i (-
( I -
Case Number T ~e - l.s 0
Address ~O~I a.LCv.z:.K.FI~LD 13\.... ..sANrr~
Applicant ..suf..JtSn ~ N 6-' \"\/n-l O/~ G---
Onglnal hearlr1g date q:; i-f- I 4' I
Onglrlal actIOn Cf, 111- { 9 ~
Please state lt1e spedfIC reasan(s) ror Ihe appeal
f...lo,\j 10'2) GH ere V-O 't
~4~ AT'~\-\ ft)
......._ L"
-.. -.....~ '
/
, use b8ck of form.
Call
9j'i / q,
/ /
Cj-\.-\J CC.d1( \L-
A 1\ ACTiMENr A
List of Anneal Oeadlines*
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 (SMMC 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 (SMMC 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
Sunlsa Pon9~utmong
1025 Idaho Ave., ~1
Santa Monica, Ca 90403
MS. CLARICE JOHNSON
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1685 Main Street, P.O. Box 2200
Santa Mo~tca, Ca., 30401-8211
September 3, 1991
SubJect: Appeal f~om deCiSion of the Planning CommiSSion
Decis~on DenYIng Tenant ?artlclpating Conversion Case TPC-150,
Vestlng TentatIve Tract 50590, 2021 Cloverfleld Boulevard
Dear Ms. Johnson,
I, Sunlsa Pongputmong, Applicant
~ereby appeal the DeCISlon of the
CommiSSion rendered September 4, 1991
the follOWing In declaratlon 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
known by street address as 2021 Cloverfleld Blvd, Santa Monlca
Ca., County of Los Angeles. The property 15 subJect to the
restrIctions of Articles XVIII and Article XX, of Charter of the
city of Santa Monica.
~. On or about February 6, 1991, I filed the prellmlnary
appllcatlon for Tenant PartIcipating ConverSIon 150 ( herelnafter
"TPC 150"). ApplicatIon 150 WhICh was deemed complete and
accepted for flllng 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 slgn as Consigning Tenants" ( 6 or more
unlts) and not less than 50% of the ConsIgnlng Tenants had to
also Sign an Intent to purchase form. See Article XX Sectlons
2002 (f) and (J) of the Clty Charter. My applicatlon quallfled
Without the cooperation of two of the uni~s (units NO.5 2 and 6)
WhlCh dId not partICIpate In elther category.
3. On or about March 21, 1991 I submitted a tentatlve
subdlvision map which was deemed accepted for flllng on March 27,
1991. From the date that the subdivision map was accepted for
fIlIng, the PlannIng CommISSion had fifty (50) days to approve or
deny the applIcation or else the applIcatIon was to be deemed
granted as a matter of law due to the fallure of the CommlSSlon
to take action WIthin the tIme llmlts set by Article XX Sectlon
2003 Cd) 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 declded was May 16, 1991.
-,-
....
A
4. On or about April 25, 1991 a Memorandum was Issued by the
planning DIVISIon ~hich recommended approval of the applIcation
and a public hearing was set for May 1, 1991. I do not know the
actual date of the Memorandum becau5e copIes w~re sent only to
tenants and not to the o~ner/applIcant At page 5 of thIS
memorandum It states that the owner was receIved copIes of the
3taff report, but thIS IS not true.
5 At the public hearing of May 1, 1991 I did not
spea~ to the CommIssIon, but when two persons trom
conslgn~ng unIts spoke In OppOSItIon to the proJect,
frIend James Jacobson speak In rebuttal because I am not
publIC speakIng.
initially
the non-
I had my
good at
6. Of the two ~eople who spoke agaInst my applIcation, one
of the persons, Mr Shoukry Messlh, made general allegatIons that
the sIgnatures of the Co-signIng unIts were procured by fraud or
coerCIOP. Mr. Messlh was not a tenant of the bUIldIng but was
allowed to resIde on the property as a health care aide for the
tenant of unIt 2 who IS a tenant under a HoU.D. SectIon 8 hOUSIng
contract. Mr. Messih and the tenant of unit 2 were beIng evicted
tor refUSIng to prOVIde access to the Inspectors from the Santa
Monica Housing AuthorIty. After the HOUSIng authorIty canceled
theIr lease, the occupants then refused to pay the Santa MonIca
Re~t Control Rent. Based upon the unsvorn general allegatIons of
Mr. MessIh, the CommIssIon Instructed the PlannIng DIVISIon Staff
to contact the tenants and gIve them an addItIonal opportunIty to
3ubmlt InformatIon.
7. Based upon the allegations of Mr. MessIh that others had
partICIpated In my applIcatIon under fraudulent CIrcumstances,
the CommIssIon voted to continue the matter so that the Planning
staff could InvestIgate. CommISSIoner Nelson seconded the motIon
and stated that the Item should be contInued to no date certaIn.
8. At no time during the hearIng was I asked for an
extenSIon or the tIme lImItatIons contaIned at ArtIcle XX SectIon
2003 (c).
9. Although the CommIssion dIrected the staff to investIgate
the matters raised by Mr. Mes51h at th~ hearIng at May 1,1991,
Staff did not do so until three weeks later. On or about May 21,
1991 a letter complete WIth an informatIon package was sent to
all of the unIts. I given no notice of thls, but ~as lnformed 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 DIviSIon to Inspect the fIle and see if
there were any claims of fraud or coerCIon made agaInst me. I
found a number of responses In the fIle, but none of them accused
me of any wrongdoing 50 I took nO action.
III
-2-
11. On or about August 20, 1991, I ~ent to the office of the
?lan~lng DiVISIon to fInd out why my applIcatIon WdS not be~ng
scheduled for another hearing. At that time I dIscovered that the
Qlannlng DIVISIon Staff had sent addItIonal letters and
1~f0rmatlor. to the tenants of 2021 Cloverfleld and that
addlt~onal telephone calls had been made ~Ithout gIvIng me ~ny
~ot:ce or opport~nlty to respond to the InformatIon WhICh had
been placed IP the fIle. I was Informed that a new meeting wuu1d
be ~cheduled for September 4, 1991 and was asked by Planner Susan
WhIte If I ~ould SIgn a waIver of tIme lImIts. I was not wIllIng
t~ SIgn such a waIver wIthout fIrst seekIng advlce on the matter
and l~formed ~s. WhIte that I ~ould return later In the week.
12. On August 22,
OffIce wIth a WItness,
Planner Susan WhIte.
followIng Issues.
1991, I returned to the PlannIng DIVISIO~
Mr. James Jacobson, and we spoke to
DurIng thIS meetIng, we covered the
A. I requested lnfo~matlon as to the tImelIness of any
deCISIon In my case. After reVieWIng the amount cf tIme
which had passed SInce the first meetIng of May 1, 1991, we
dIscovered that approximately 126 days would have passed
between thdt first hearing and the hearIng to be scheduled
for September 4, 1991. Since the maXimum extenSIon of tIme
under Charter Amendment XX SectIon 2003 could only prOVIde
for 100 days, we pOInted out that there was no conceIvable
yay that I could waive the time limits to extend tIme to
September 4, 1991. Ms. WhIte 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 1, 1991 Staff
Memorandum had been sent to me. We reviewed the fIle and
found thIS to be true. The self stIckIng labels that I
prOVIded with my home address on 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 of not
sending notIce to the Owner/Applicant and informed Ms. WhIte
that I wished to have copIes of any additional Staff
Memorandums sent to me and not Just tne tenants.
13. On or about August 22, 1991 I receIved by mail, a copy a
notIce of the publIC hearIng for September 4, 1991. No other
information was included in the envelope.
III
III
II/
/1/
-]-
14. Upon revievlng the flIes on August 20 and 22, I
dlscovered that the tenant of unlt 4, Edna WIlson Hoesch had
claImed that I used threats of eVIctIon to obtaIn her sIgnatures
J~ my application. In response to this claim, I had Mr. Jacobson
a3S13t me In vrItlng a letter to the Plannlng Dlvlslon VhlCh ~as
typed on August 26, 1991 and submltted to the Plannlrg offIce on
AUg~5t 29, 1391. T~lS letter contaIned the three relevant Issues
as follo~s:
A. Flrst, I requested that the Issue of timelIness be
addr~~~ed before any eV1dence or publiC comment 1S taken on
the matter. I argued that, If the Comm1SSlon rules that the
ApplIcatIon should be granted as a matter of lav, then no
furt~er eVIdence or publIC comment should be allc~ed.
3 Second, I requested that the untimely responses of
Gary Lee Meyers (UnIt 6) and Edna Wilson Hoesch (UnIt 4) not
be consIdered In any event. The documents on fIle in thls
case reveal the only wrItten OppOSItIon to my applicatIon
which claIm coerCIon were flIed after the deadllne to declde
my case had passed. On May 21,1991 the Planning D1vision
mal led a letter to the tenants glvlng the them ten days to
respond. On June 24, 1991 a second letter vas maIled giving
the tenants an addItIonal opportunIty to respond. FInally,
the PlannIng DIVISIon telephoned non-respondlng tenants on
or 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 were sent and
responses were recelved after the deadllne for declslon.
C Thlrd, I requested that In the evellt that the
CommISSIon elects to take eVIdence on the matter, I be
allowed to cross examine the ~ltnesse5 agalnst me.
15. After revlewing the flIes on August 20 and 22, I was
reluctant to contact Edna WIlson Hoesch about her letter because
it mIght appear as though I was pressuring her to reSCInd the
July 1, 1991 letter agalnst me. However, when I came to collect
the rent on Monday September 2, 1991, I was approached by Edna
WIlson Hoesch and her husband ~ho asked about the converSlon
proJect. In response to the questIons askeu, I Informed them that
my application could be denied because of the letter that she
vrote and that any disputes bet~een us had nothIng to do vlth my
conversion applicatlon. She agreed vlth me and offered to vrlte
to the PlannIng 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
Commlssion that evenIng. I asked Ms. White if Edna Wllson had
contacted her or sent in a letter clarIfying the earller letter
of July 1, 1991. Ms. White told that no such communicatIon had
been receIved.
-4-
17. After dIscovering that Edna Wilson had not delIvered the
letter clarifYIng her posltlonl I telephoned her at work and told
her that there could be no further delay 1n sendIng a letter to
the PlannIng DiVIsion because the Publlc hearing was that evenIng
and therefore the letter had to go Into the fIle that day. She
agreed to meet wIth me at approximately 11:15, at her home. I met
wIth ber and her husband at the stated tlme and p13ce. They
l~EQr~ed me that they were not concerned about being eVIcted
because of the converSIon; they were concerned because Edna
Wllson had orIgInally rented the unit as a Single parent with one
Childl and that her husband and two minor chIldren were not
covered by the w~ltten rental agreement. She feared evictlon for
subleaSIng. I lnformed her that I had no intentIon of eVictlng
her for subleaSIng to members of her family and Immediately
prOVIded her WIth a wrItten agreement In the name of herself, and
her husband to prove It. She then agreed to hand deliver the
letter that she had earlier wrItten to CIty Hall ImmedIately
after maklng a mITIOr wodItlcatlon :~ my presence.
18. At approxImately 12:30 pm'l I went to CIty Hall pIck up
a copy of the Staff Memorand~m and be certaIn that Edna WIlson's
letter had made It to the fIle. As I entered the front door of
CIty Hall I sav her leaVIng and spoke to her for a few mInutes. I
then checked WIth 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 Halll I reVIewed the Staff
~emorandum concerning my applIcation and discovered that my
letter of August 261 was not included In the report and that the
Report had not addressed any of the Issues I raIsed except the
follOwIng at Page 3 of the report:
"staff did not request an extension of the 50 day limIt
for approval of the subdiVISIon map from the
applIcant and the applicant does not agree to an
extension of this 50 day limit."
20. ThiS above stated paragraph from the September 41 1991
Staff memorandum 15 prejudiCial and m1sleadIng for the following
reasons.
A. The sentence does not logIcally make any sense. Ii
the Staff dId not request an extenSIon 1n the fIrst placel
then how does Staff come to the concluslon that I did not
agree to an extenSIon in the second place?
B. The sentence 15 factually mISleadIng. NobOdy
raIsed the issue of t1mellness with me untIl August 201 1991
when I went to the PlannIng dIvision to find out what was
happenIng to my case. By that time over 150 days had passed
Slnce my tentatIve map was accepted for fIlIng. III
III
-5-
C. The sentence 15 legally mlslead1ng 1n that under
Charter Section 2003 (e) and SectIon 9361 of the Santa
Monlca MunICIpal Code the total allowable tlme for
Commls51on actIon 15 50 days plus a possIble waIver of
an addltlonal 60 days for a total of 110 days. When a
wa1ver of tIme was first mentIoned on August 20, 1991,
::: ,::1 L''! 'lot hcive the legal capac i ty to extend the t lme
ll~lts to over 150 days even If I wanted to.
2]. The Staff ~emarandum of September 4, 1991 recommended
that my applIcatIon be denIed. ThIS recommendatIon was baspd
301ely upon the clalms made by Edna WIlson 1n her letter July 1,
1991 that I had wrongly obtaIned her SIgnature. By elimInatIng
her SIgnature as a Conslgnlng tenant, the Staff concluded that I
had lost the necessary two thIrds of conSIgnIng tenant SIgnatures
needed to qu~llfy my bUIlding pursuant to Sec. 2002 (fl of
ArtIcle XX. See fust full paragraph titled "BUIldIng
Qual1ELC'atIcn" on page 3 of the Septewber 4, 1991 Staff
~emorandum.
22. On the even~~g of September 4, 1991, I appeared at the
publIC hearIng WIth three witnesses on my behalf. No person
appeared agaInst me. Before I was allowed to address the
Commlsslpn, the PlannIng Staff made a report to the Comm1SSIon
Whl~h totally Ignored my correspondence In the case and made no
mentlon of any of the lssues r raised in my letter to the
CommiSSion of August 26, 1991. The Staff dld, however, inform the
CommiSSion that Edna Wllson Hoesch had resc1nded her letter dated
July I, 1991, and recommended that the ApplIcation be approved
based upon the letter of clarlflcatlon of she subm1tted that day.
2~. Arter the Staff had concluded It'S report I was given
flve mlnutes to argue agaInst the preJudICIal Informatlon
submItted agaInst me after the time llmits had expired. I gave
the five mInutes of allotted tIme to James Jacobson who argued
the Issues that I ralsed 1n my August 26, 1991 letter and
obJected to consideratlon of the letters filed after the deadline
as untImely, preJudlC1al and unsubstant1ated hearsay eVIdence
that should not be cons1dered by the Commlss1on. I also spoke 1n
response to questIons about the slgnatures.
24. After Mr. Jacobson concluded hIS fIve minute speech,
CommISSIoner Nelson proceeded to do a handwrltlng 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 net wrltten by the by the same hand that wrote the f1rst
letter of July 1, 1991. Commlssioner Nelson did not state hIS
qualIf1catlons as a handwrIting expert and became Irate when
obJectIon was taken to hIS actIons. Mr. Jacobson's objectlons to
consIderatIon of these documents as untImely preJUd1clal and
unsubstantIated hearsay eVidence were ignored.
III
-6-
25. After dIscussIng the matter, the CommISSIon overruled
the Staff RecommendatIon and denIed my applIcatIon at the PubllC
rearlnq of September 4, 1991.
25. I am hereby appealIng to the CIty CounCIl on the
follow:ng 1rou~d5:
A. For the reasons stated In my letter of Aug~st 26,
1991 3nd the arguments made at the PublIc hearIng of
September 4, :991, by appllcdtlon should be deemed granted
as a matter of law. SectIon 2003 (e) of the Charter WhICh
~~ovides that "Any Tenant PartIcipatIng ConversIon
ApplIcatIon ~hall be deemed approved subJect to the
co~ditlons set forth in SectIon 2004 of thIS Artlc~e If It
15 not approved or denIed wIthIn the tIme perIod requIred by
thIS Sect:on.~ (EmphasIS added). Where a CIty plann1ng
commlSS10n falls to render a decIsIon wIthIn the tIme llmlts
granted by the law, and where the law specIfIes that the
remedy for faIlure to comply is granting of the application,
that remedy must be followed as a matter of law. See Palmer
v. CIty of 0:1a1, (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d. 280, 223 Ca!.
Rptr. 542. I have attached d true and correct copy to th~5
appeal as Attachment ~A~.
B. I was denIed a faIr hearing in that the CommIssion
faIled to act In a tlmely manner and gathered all of the
eVIdence against me after the tIme limIts for deCIsion bad
passed. None of that l~formatlon 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. The CommiSSIon's DeciSIon 15 not supported by the
eVIdence In that the denIal of my application was based
solely on conflIctIng, unreliable unsubstantlated and
unauthentIcated hearsay eVIdence over my obJectlons. 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 1n that
It Ignored the lssues raIsed In my letter of August 26, 1991
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 Commlssion tWIce failed to provtde me With the
notice ~equlred by Santa Monica MunlcIpal Code SectIon 9361
by fallIng to provide me with Staff Memorandums at least
three days prlor to any hearing. ThIS was espeCIally
preJUdlCl?l In that the September 4, 1991 Staff ~eport was
not gIven to me untIl I went to the Plannlng Dlvlslon Office
on the day of the Hearing.
-7-
F. Commissioner Nelson caused additional preJudIce to
my case by contInuing my hearing of May 1, 1991 to a date
uncertain and then makIng handwriting analySiS of documents
and comIng to conclugio~s that he was not qualIfied to make.
G. That as a result of the unlimited time gIven to
investigate the matter, I ~as no~ gIven any notice of the
repeated co~municatiQn5 made to tenants after the first
letter of May 21, 1991. It ~as not the first communIcation
Issued on May 21, 1991 ~hich caused my ApplicatIon to be
denIed, but the additional letters and telephone
co~munl~atlon5 whICh ~ere sent WIthout notice to me and
WIthout gIVing me any opportunity to respond which caused
the denial of my ApplicatIon TPC-150.
H. As ~ result of the unauthorized tIme given by the
CommiSSion, the persons opposed to the proJect were able to
organize 0pposItlon to my application request. Their effort
was aSSisted by repeated letters and telephone calls from
the Planning Staff asking ~hether I had partIcIpated In
coercion and/or fraud to obtain the tenant Signatures needed
for my A~plicatiQn.
I. The CommISSIon acted arbitrarily and capriciously
by consIdering letters written against me to be truthful and
written by the ten~nt who's SIgnature appeared, whIle at the
~ame tIme considering letters In my favor as suspect and
ErauJule~tly obtained.
27. Unless the City CouncIl expedItIously moves to grant my
applIcatIon, irreparable InJury 1S lIkely to occur because I am
reqUired to comply In a tImely manner With all relevant
proviSions of state and local la~ 1ncludIng SubdiVISIon Map Act
of the State of Callfornia. In addition, I have invested over SIX
thousand dollars and many hours on thIS applIcation and cannot
afford to start over agaln.
28. For the reasons stated 1n this appeal, I respectfully
request that Application TPC-150 be deemed granted by the CIty
Councll Without further unreasonable delay.
I declare under penalty of perJury that the foregOIng IS
true and correct, except as to matters of information and bellef,
In which case I believe them to be correct, and that thls
document was executed on September 9, 1991 at Santa Monica,
CalifornIa.
_L.
~
.............
//
Sunlsa
( ~
pongputmong/
(
/
-8-
ITY OF OIAI
2 [Mar 1986]
enaIn land
-, permIt, a
's acquJes-
Impact re-
-.enmt pro-
e than two
h tIme the
to compel
nCles, and
:rmlt The
tImely ap-
It for dam-
s, seeking
velopment
ned. judg-
from that
'i1l33 and
Jil for WrIt
t for dam-
.al of de-
whJch any
- must de-
1 In whIch
[Ther pro-
'plOve or
such fatl-
-Dun held
Ar!on was
lsapprove
wrongful
long lIst
,
L
J
....
l
I
..
l
-:t
~
""'f
."t
~iI
It
~J
~l~
;
.l
''t
N~
i~- --.
flu_
f -
I
L
~
2 --
f
~
.
,
PALMER V CITY OF OJ Al
178 Cal App 3d 280, 223 Cal Rptr 542 [Mar 1986]
281
!'
of CalIforma deCISIOns expressmg a strong publIc polIcy msulanng land use
plannmg from cIvli lIabIlIty. the court held the mal court dId not err in
dlsnussmg the complaInt for damages rOpInlOn by Hanson (Thaxton), A.ct-
mg P J , WIth Lucas. J . and Aranda. J . * concurrIng)
HEADl'IiOTES
ClaSSified to Cahforma DIgest of Offictal Reports. 3d Senes
(la-ld) Zomng and Planning ~ 9-Content and Validity of Zonmg Or-
dinances and Planning Enactments-Review and Apprm"al of De-
velopment Projects-Validity of Statutory Scheme-Notice and
Hearing to Citlzens.- Under Gov Code. ~ 65920 et seq . setting
forth procedures for the reVIew and approval of development projects.
and provldmg that a pubhc agency must approve or dJsapprove a de-
velopment project wnhm one year from the date the application IS
receIved, (Gov Code. ~ 65950). and that fallure to do so IS deemed
to be an approval (Gov Code, S 65956. subd (b)), the fact that CItI-
zens of a city had not been afforded notice and heanng concernmg a
development project applIcatIOn WithIn the Hme hmlts contemplated by
the statutory scheme dId not render the scheme Itself constltutlonally
defectIve and did not preclude applIcation of 9 65956, subd (bL in
favor of the developer It IS not the developer-apphcant that owes the
duty of notice and heanng to mterested neighbors of a development
proJect, but the publIc agencIes themselves
(2) Judgments ~ 8-00 the Pleadings.-Judgment on the pleadmgs IS
tantamount to sustammg a demurrer without leave to amend, III terms
of the standard of review employed by an appellate court The appro-
pnate standard reqUIres an appellate court to accept facts well pleaded
in the pleader's petmon or complamt as true Arnvmg at legal conclu-
sIons femalllS the provInce of the court
(3) Statutes ~ 20-ConstructIon-Judicial Function.-In construmg a
statute, III the face of the plam statutory language, there IS no need to
resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertam legislative mtent
(4) Statutes ~ 37-Construction-Giving Effect to Statute-Sustaining
Validity.-A statute w1l1 be JudicIally construed m a manner upholdmg
Its constitutional validity whenever possible
· ASSigned by the ChaIrperson of the JudiCial Council
c..: 0
A TTAe l-I M[I\) -r A
.,
,A.;TT ACtt ~t:=.N I' po... G.-'~..n
f.
l
i
1
,
f
J
i
J
!
!
~
280
PAL~ER v CITY OF OJAI
i 78 Cal App 3d 280, 223 Cal Rp[r 542 [Mar 1986)
[Nos 8003987, 800:5635 Second Dlst ,DIV One :v1ar 3. 1986 )
HOWARD PALMER et al , PlaIntIffs and ':\ppeUants. v
CITY OF OJAI et al , Defendants and Respondents
SliMM~RY
1
~
)
.1
t
.illi
Plamuff. a real estate developer, filed Its plan to develop certam land
located In defendant CIty WIth defendant, seekmg a subdIvIsIon penult, a
condmonal use permIt and a buddIng permIt DespIte plamuff's acquies-
cence wIth defendant CIty's demands, mcludmg envIronmental Impact re-
ports. and despIte plaIntiff's numerous attempts to expedne the pernut pro-
cess, defendant Clty faded to gram or deny the permits until more than two
years after plamtJff's inItIal apphcatIOn for the permits. at whIch hme the
permIts were demed. Plaintiff then sought a wm of mandate to compel
certam actIOns by defendant CIty council and CIty planmng agenCIes, and
their mdlvldual members, mcludmg the Issuance of a buIldmg permIt The
petltlOn was demed. judgment was entered for defendants and a tImely ap-
peal from the judgment was taken Plamtlff also filed a complamt for dam-
ages agamst the CIty, the cay counCIl. and CIty planmng agenCIes, seelang
damages for the CIty's wrongful refusal [Q take actJOn on the development
project After defendants' demurrer to the complamt was sustamed, Judg-
ment was entered for defendants and a tJmely appeal was taken from that
judgment also (SuperIor Coun of Ventura County. Nos SP 51133 and
81161, WIlham L Peck and Joe D Hadden, Judges)
-I
I
:"1
iiil
::~1
i
I
,I
.]
I;
ij
The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment denymg the petltlOn for wnt
of mandamus and affirmed the Judgment dlsmlssmg the complamt for dam-
ages Gov Code. ~ 65920 et seq . govermng reVIew and approval of de-
velopment proJects, speCIfically sets forth time hmltauons wlthm whIch any
publIc agency receIvmg an applIcatIon for a development project must de-
termme whether such apphcatlOn IS complete. as well as the penod In WhICh
such applIcatIOns must be approved or dIsapproved The statute funher pro-
VIdes that, In the event a responSIble agency falls to act to approve or
disapprove a development project wlthm [he tIme lImns reqUIred, such faIl-
ure shall be deemed approval of the development prOject The court held
the cIty not only faded to determ10e whether plamtIff's applIcation was
complete w11h1O the statutory Bme penod. It faIled to approve or disapprove
the apphcallon wlthm the statutory tIme penod, and thus. by Its wrongful
delay. approved the development project Hov.ever, 10 View of the long hst
'i
llll
"
PAL\1ER
178 Ca1 A
~
of Cahfo
planmng
dIsmlssI!'
109 P J
; HEADNO-
I
-I
ClaSSified I
j
- (la-ld) 2.
dim:
velo
Hea
foni
and
..do
:ece
to b
zens
deve
the ~
defe
favo
duty
proJ(
(2) Jud~
tanta
ot th
pnat.
10 thi
Slons
(3) Statt
statu'
resor
(4) Statt.
Valic
11s cc
* o,sslgned
i
~
...-.:....:r..
---
~=;~- --
282
PALMER V CITY OF OlAI
178 Cal App 3d 280. 223 Cal Rptr 542 [Mar 1986]
(5a, 5b) Zomng and Planning ~ 38-Enforcement of Laws and Regula-
tions; Offenses and Penalties-Enforcement by Private Persons-
Approval of Development ProJect-FaIlure of Public Agency to Act
Within Time Lunits.-In an aCHon by a developer agamst a city and
related defendants for a wnt of mandate to compel certam actions by
a defendant, mcludmg the Issuance of a bUlldmg permit for a shoppmg
center. In relIance on Gov Code, S 65920 et seq . setting fonh pro-
cedures for reView and approval of development projects. panlcularly
S 65950. provId1Og a publIc agency must approve or dIsapprove a de-
velopment prOject wIthm one year from the date the apphcal10n IS
received, and that fallure to do sa wlthm one year IS deemed an ap-
proval (9 65956, subd (b)), the tnal court erred 10 grantmg defendants
Judgment on the pleadlOgs Because the mtent of the legislature was
to place reasonable but firm Hme hmnatlons on the delIberations of
publIc agencies concermng land use deCISIOns, and because the penalty
was speCified, the statutory scheme created a mandatory rather than a
directory duty Accordmgly. the developer was entnled to the relIef
requested
~- ~-
-#
~
-l
~
~l
~
(6) Statutes 9 3-Performance of Pubhc Duty-Directory or Manda-
tory. - There IS no sImple, mechanIcal test for detenmmng whether a
statutory provlSlon should be gIven directory or mandatory effect In
order to determme whether a pamcular statutory proVISlon IS manda.
tory or directory, the court, as In all cases of statutory constructIon
and lOterpretatlon, must ascertam the leglslatlve mtent In the absence
of express language. the lntent 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 lhe consequences WhICh would follow the
domg or fallure to do the partIcular act at the reqUired tlme When the
object IS to subserve some publtc purpose, the prOVISIon may be held
dtrectory or mandatory as Will best accompltsh that purpose
(7) Statutes ~ 3-Performance of Public Duty-Directory or Manda-
tory.- Time hmitatlOns In a statute are normally VIewed as "dIrecto-
ry" rather than .. mandatory," unless Ume IS of the essence In the
legIslation and the penalty for noncomphance. 1 e . the consequences,
has been speclfled 10 the leglslatlon Itself
(8) Zomng and Plannmg 9 38-Enforcement of Laws and RegulatIons;
Offenses and Penalties-Enforcement by Private Persons-Land
L'se Declsions-Remedies-Mandamus or Declaratory ReJief-
Damages.-Under Gov Code. S 65920 et seq , settmg forth proce-
dures for reView and approval of development proJects, [he Legislature
contemplated mandamus or declaratory rehef as the exclUSive remedy
PALMER v Cn
178 CaJ App 3d:
for publI
cludmg t1
proJect, t
ages by c.
[See (
Am.Jur.
CotJ!'tSEL
Drescher, Me
Fadem, Berg(
Appellants
Monte L \V
KatherIne E ~
OPIMO~
HAl'lSON (Tt
ments rendere
PetltlOners I
pany and Qjal
of mandate to
of a bUlldmg p
Named as res
Department. <:
indiVidual me
respondents aT
Plamnffs al~
CIty council.
architectural c
J!n our dLSCUS~
Developer The
referred to as the
the development
Unless otherw'
pertinent prOV1Sj,
somellmes be rer
II. v CITY OF OlAI
p{r 542 [Mar 1986]
aws and Regula-
"nvate Persons-
,lic Agency to Act
agamst a CIty and
cerulln actions by
lIut for a shoppmg
settmg forth pro-
jJects, partIcularly
r disapprove a de-
(he apphcatlOn IS
IS deemed an ap-
I ammg defendants
,e legIslature was
~ dehberatlOns of
; cause the penalty
-tory rather than a
ntled to the rehef
::tory or Manda-
fummg whether a
ndatory effect In
OVlSlon IS manda-
ltOry construction
at In the absence
" the terms of the
:. character of the
would follow the
d tIme When the
SlOn may be held
Jurpose
tory or Manda-
wed as "dlrectO-
Ie essence 10 the
he consequences,
;;.nd Regulations;
- Persons-Land
ratory Relief-
Img forth proce-
", the legIslature
exclusive remedy
4
s
,
1
".
-,
~
'1-
-
t
.,
~
~
~~.;'" -
~:::
---
::~--
-=-~~==-
~~=--
...."""--...-
i~;~ -
- ~ .
-+'-
....:-fd
PAL\1:ER v CITY OF OJAI
178 Cal App 3d 280, 223 Cal Rplr 542 [Mar 1986)
283
for publIc agencIes. noncompliance with the procedures therem, In-
cludIng the tIme wlthm whIch to approve or disapprove a development
proJect, thereby foreclosmg the allernauve remedy for monetary dam-
ages by a developer for ViolatIOn of the procedures
[See Cal.Jur.3d. Zonmg and Other Land Controls. 9 208,
Am.Jur.2d. Zonmg and Plannmg. 9 351 J
COU"lSEL
Drescher. McComca & Young. Lagerlof, Senecal. Drescher & SWIft,
Fadem, Berger & ~orton and \ihchael M Berger for PlaIntiffs and
Appellants
Monte L Wldders. CIty Attorney. Burke. Williams & Sorensen and
Kathenne E Stone for Defendants and Respondents
OPINION
HANSON (Thaxton). Acting P. J.-Consohdated appeals taken from Judg-
ments rendered 10 supenor courts In Ventura County
PeutlOners Howard Palmer, domg busmess as Palmer Development Com-
pany and OJaI Investments, a CalIforma hmIted partnershIp, sought a Writ
of mandate to compel certam actIOns by respondents, mclud10g (he Issuance
of a buddIng permit for a neighborhood commercial shoppmg center In OJal
Named as respondents were the City CouncIl. the Planmng and Bmldmg
Department. and the Planmng Commission of the City of OJal, and theIr
mdIvldual members The petItion was demed, Judgment was entered for
respondents and a tImely appeal from the Judgment was taken 1
Plamtlffs also filed a complamt for- damages agaInst the City of Opl, the
ctty counCIl, the plannmg and buddmg department and the planmng and
architectural commlSSlon, as well as Does, seeking $6,375,000 In damages
IIn our diSCUSSIon. Palmer and OJa] Investments wdl be referred to as [he pla]ntlffs. or
Developer The various city depanmenls or bodIes and theIr mdlvldual members WIll be
referred [0 as the defendants or City The shopping center will sometimes be referred to as
the development project or Project
Unless otherWIse speCIfied, the statulOry references WIll be to the Government Code The
penment prOVISions of the Government Code WIth whIch thiS Imga!lon ]s concerned WIll
sometimes be referred to as the Statutory Scheme
-
Sidewalk Repair 91-176
NAME ROBERT & NANCY PRATT
NAME-2
MAIL-STREET 1203 MAPLE STREET
MAIL-CITY-STATE SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
SITE-STREET 1203 MAPLE STREET
TRACT EAST SANTA MONICA - PARCEL 4284-023-008
LOT-&-BLOCK LOT 31, BLOCK 23
TOTAL-COST 525.00
ASMNT-COSTl 262.50
WORK-DONE-1 REMOVE & REPLACE 25 SQ. FT. SIDEWALK
WORK-DONE-2 REMOVE & REPLACE 50 SQ. FT. SIDEWALK IN DRIVEWAY
WORK-DONE-3
WORK-DONE-4
NAME BRURIA & DAVID FINKEL
NAME- 2
MAIL-STREET 1225 HILL STREET
11AIL-CITY-STATE SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
SITE-STREET 1225 HILL STREET
TRACT 5217 - PARCEL 4285-011-026
LOT-&-BLOCK LOT 61, BLOCK 11
TOTAL-COST 450.00
ASMNT-COST1 225.00 (PAID BY CHECK ON 5-29-91)
WORK-DONE-1 REMOVE & REPLACE 75 SQ. FT. SIDEWALK
WORK-DONE-2
WORK-DONE-3
WORK-DONE-4
NAME JOHN & RICHARD ROBBINS
NAME-2
MAIL-STREET 711 OLYMPIC BLVD.
MAIL-CITY-STATE SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
SITE-STREET 1440 9TH STREET
TRACT SANTA MONICA LOTS - PARCEL 4282-027-034
LOT-&-BLOCK LOT H&I, BLOCK 27
TOTAL-COST 375.00
ASMNT-COST1 187.50
WORK-DONE-1 REMOVE & REPLACE 50 SQ. FT. SIDEWALK
WORK-DONE-2 REMOVE (ONLY) 25 SQ. FT. PARKWAY
WORK-DONE-3
WORK-DONE-4
NAME THOMAS & JUDITH JOSEPH
NAME-2
MAIL-STREET 1044 CHELSEA AVENUE
MAIL-CITY-STATE SANTA MONICA, CA 90403
SITE-STREET 1044 CHELSEA AVENUE
TRACT 5239 - PARCEL 4277-020-008
LOT-&-BLOCK LOT 8, BLOCK 20
TOTAL-COST 733.50
ASMNT-COST1 366.75
WORK-DONE-1 REMOVE & REPLACE 81 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY APRON
WORK-DONE-2 REMOVE & REPLACE 12 LIN. FT. CURBING
WORK-DONE-3
WORK-DONE-4
:':R \.' CITY OF OJAI
Rptf 542 {Mar 19861
PALMER v CITY OF DIAl
178 Cal -\pp 3d 280. 223 Cal Rplr 542 [Mar 1986J
285
5 assertedly wrong-
Ie, the shoppmg
PrIor to the December 18, 1980 filIng. Developer had discussed the proJ-
ect WIth City officIals for nearly a year An ear her filing had been rejected
because of a mIssmg form. the December 18. 1980 filing mcluded a sue
plan
ederal CIVII nghts.
latlon of Caltforma
uluTe to dIscharge
good falth and faIr
:omplamt was sub-
ce per se
There was no formal response by City to the apphcanon. e>;:cept CIty's
planmng director marked It "accepted" as of February 1981 DISCUSSIOns
contmued between City and Developer On Apnl 14 1981. Ctty decIded
that an "Environmental Impact Report" (EIR) was required Em'lronmental
diSCUSSIons contInued between eny and Developer Develooer 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 had expressed
concern
, sustaIned without
Jrth and the sixth
lng four causes of
hgence per se De-
d Without leave to
:rf a third amended
leave to amend
""as taken. The tWO
V Ith respect to the
~rk's transcrIpt has
les of Court
In September 1981. Developer complaIned [hat no EIR consultant had
been selected by CIty An EIR was prepared but rejected by City Ifl Ylarch
1982 In May 1982. Developer made specIfic requests for the subdlv1S1on
permn and the condItional use permIt By August 1982. the second EIR,
for WhICh Developer had aJso paid, was not complete and Developer com-
plamed In wntmg about the passage of tlme
lORY
On January 20. 1983. Developer requested Issuance of the necessary per-
mlts On January 25. 1983, Developer submmed buIldmg plans and re-
quested a buildmg permit The request was refused. On February 8, 1983.
two meetlngs were held on the same evening by the OpI ArchItectural and
Plannmg CommISSIOn and the Cuy CounCIl of OJaI Peuuons had been CIr-
culated among OJal CLtlzens about the proposed development project, and
the pubhc mood was generally dlsapprovmg At the meetings local ClUzens
spoke adversely about the proJ ect, stressmg the need [0 protect OpI' s artis-
tIC sImphcny The plannmg commiSSIon dented Developer's requests for
the necessary permIts The city counCil held a public heanng and dented lot
dIvlslOn and certificauon of the EIR
lIental Assessment
Jp 3 1 acres of land
'Iear the local hIgh
hnonal use permtt,
'Ierly been a farm,
. It was filled WIth
~e of 21 acres for
; to be used for a
Jumor department
= stores PrOVISIOn
was necessary for
rrent general plan
j commercial and
IS, Increased nOIse
rns were noted
-1
-.J
ThiS two-pronged lItIgatIOn ensue~ for mandate and for damages as the
result of CIty's refusal to permIt Developer to proceed Developer com-
piamed below, as it does here. that Clty, by protracted delay. had f10t com-
plIed with applicable statutory law
:..5:
~~
THE STATUTORY SCHEME
~
In 1977 the Cahfornta Legislature added chapter 45. entitled "ReVIew
and Approval of Development ProJects" to the Government Code, com-
mencmg wlth sectIOn 65920 (Stats 1977. ch 1200,91, P 3993)
~
~
284
PAL:-.fER v CITY OF OJ AI
178 Cal App 3d 280. 223 Cal Rptr 542 {Mar 1986)
--="1
(as well as attorney fees, expenses and mterest) for CitY's assenedly wrong-
ful refusal to take actlon on the development project, I e., the shoppmg
center, aJlegmg vanous theones of recovery
51 x causes of actIon were stated (l) vlOlatlon of federal cIvil nghts,
pursuant to 42 UnHed States Code sectIOn 1983, (2) vIOlatIon of Cahfornla
consututlOnal nghts, (3) mverse condemnation. (4) faIlure to dIscharge
mandacory duties. (5) breach of the Implied covenam of good fanh and faIr
dealmg, and (6) entitlement to declaratory rehef The complamt was sub-
sequently amended to add a cause of action for negligence per se
Defendams' demurrer to the amended complamt was sustamed without
leave to amend save for two causes of acuon, the fourth and the sIxth
PlamtIffs then filed a second amended complamt allegmg four causes of
acaon for fallure to discharge mandatory duues and neghgence per se De-
fendants agam demurred and the demurrer was "ustamed without leave to
amend By stlpulatlon, the parttes agreed to the filmg of a thIrd amended
complamt. WIth defendams demurrer sustaIned without leave to amend
Judgment was entered for defendants. a tlmely appeal was taken The twO
matters have been consohdated for review In thiS court WIth respect to the
complamt for damages. a JOint appendix. In lieu of the c1erk's transcnpt has
been prepared. pursuant to rule 5 1 of the Callforma Rules of Court
F-\CTl:AL SL:\1MARY A:"ID PROCEDL:R-\L HISTORY
On December 18. 1 980. Developer filed an . EnVironmental o\ssessmem
Application" WIth defendants concerOlng a plan to develop 3 1 acres of land
appropnately zoned on the Mancopa HIghway In OJa1. near the local high
school Developer sought a subdiVISIOn permn and a conditional use permit.
as well as a bUIlding permll
The acreage subject to proposed development had formerly been a farm.
but had not been used for agncultural purposes for years It was filled wnh
shrub grass and weeds The project contemplated the use of 21 acres for
the constructIOn of 73 housmg umts The remamder was to be used for a
shoppmg center whIch would house a grocery store and a JUnIor department
store along with 3 restaurant. bankmg faCllmes and servIce stores ProVlSlon
had been made for parkmg The condItIOnal use permIt was necessary for
[he grocery store and the JUnIor department store, the current general plan
proposed zomng mcluded the remainder of the proposed commerCIal and
reSIdential usages With the exception of dramage problems. Increased nOlse
and glare. no partICular environmental or hIstoncal concerns were noted
PAL\.iER v CITY
178 Cal App 3d 28
Pnor to the D
ect WIth City of;
because of a ffii
plan
There was no
planmng dlrecto
contmued betwe
that an "Envlror
discusslOns com
proposed EIR. I
such matters as
concern
In September
been selected by
1982. In May l~
permit and the c
for which Devel<
plamed in wnun
On January 20
mlts On Januar'
quested a bUlldm
two meeungs we
Plannmg Comml
culated among 0
the publIc mood'
spoke adversely Co
tic slmpllcLty n
the necessary per'
dIVISion and certl
ThiS two-prong
resuh of City's r
plamed below. as
plIed with apphca
In 1977 the Ca;
and Approval of
mencwg WIth sect
.R v CITY OF OlAI
Rplr 542 {MaT 1986]
PALMER v CiTY OF OlAI
\78 Cal >\pp 3d 280. 223 Cal Rptf 542 [MaT 1986}
285
) assenedly wrong-
Ie. the shoppmg
Pnor to the December 18, 1980 fi1mg, Developer had discussed the proJ-
ect with City officIals for nearly a year An earl1er filmg had been rejected
because of a missing form, the December 18, 1980 fil1ng mcluded a site
plan
~deral Clvtl fights,
atran of California
.ilure (0 dIscharge
good faIth and falf
omplamt was sub-
:::e per se
There was no formal response by City to the applicatIon. except Clty's
p1annmg dlfector marked It "accepted" as of February 1981 DISCUSSIons
contInued between City and Developer On Apnl 14. 1981. CIty decIded
that an "Envlronmental Impact Report" (EIR) was reqUIred EnVironmental
dlSCUSSlOns contmued between CIty and Developer Developer paid for the
proposed EIR, Developer also hIred consultants who reported to City on
such matters as oak trees on the property for whIch CIty had expressed
concern
sustamed without
I rth and the sIxth
Lng fOUf causes of
I1gence per se De-
d wIthout leave to
If a thud amended
leave to amend
"as taken The tWO
W uh respect to the
-rk's transcrIpt has
les of Court
In September 1981, Developer complamed that no EIR consultant had
been selected by CIty An EIR was prepared but rejected by CIty In March
1982 In May 1982, Developer made specific requests for the subdivIsion
permIt and the condItIonal use permIt By August 1982, the second EIR.
for which Developer had also paid. was not complete and Developer com-
plamed In wrmng abour the passage of tIme
-,
On January 20, 1983, Developer requested Issuance of the necessary per-
mIts On January 25, 1983, Developer submItted bUlldmg plans and re-
quested a buddmg permIt The request was refused On February 8, 1983,
two meetIngs were held on the same evemng by the OjaI ArchItectural and
Plannmg ComnllsslOn and the City CouncIl of OJal PetltlOnS had been Clf-
culated among Ojal CItIzens about the proposed development project. and
the public mood was generally disapprovIng. At the meeungs local cItIzens
spoke adversely about the proJect. stressmg the need to protect Ojal's artIs-
tlC SimplICity The planmng commiSSiOn demed Developer's requests for
the necessary permIts The City counct! held a publIc heanng and dented lot
diVISion and certificatiOn of the EIR
lORY
11ental Assessment
,p 31 acres of land
lear the local high
~Ltlonal use permIt.
-lerly been a farm,
It was filled WIth
se of 21 acres for
" to be used fOf a
JuniOr department
e stores PrOVISIOn
was necessary for
rrent general plan
::l commerCIal and
''', mcreased nOIse
- ms were noted
~~
:e
c;3
ThIS two-pronged litIgatIon ensiled 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-
phed. WIth apphcable statutory law
~
~~
~~
'-
THE STAit:TORY SCHEME
In 1977 the Cahforma LegIslature added chapter 4 5, entitled "Revlew
and Approval of Development Projects" to the Government Code, com-
mencmg with sectIOn 65920 (Stats 1977, ch. 1200, ~ 1, P 3993)
!
~
286
PALMER V CITY OF OJAI
178 Cal App 3d 280. 223 Ca1 Rprr 542 [\1ar 19861
-
-,
~
PADoIER V CITY OF
178 Cal App 3d 280, ::
In sectIOn 65921. the LegIslature declared 'The LegIslature finds and
declares that there IS a statewide need to ensure clear understandmg of the
specIfic reqU1rements whIch must be met In connecuon wIth the approval of
development projects and to expedIte decIsIOns on such projects Conse-
quently, the provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all publtc agen-
CIes. mcludmg charter cmes .. In the years Since enactment. certam clan-
fymg and expandmg amendments have been made. but there have been no
matenal alteratIOns In the ongmal Statutory Scheme
.. completeness" of
cantly, the 30-day t
Chapter 4 5 cantamed some defimtlOns which are pertment to our dISCUS~
Slon here Sectlon 65927 defined development 10 a very broad manner,
induded was the subdIVISIOn of land pursuant to the SubdiVISIOn Map Act
(Gov Code, S 66410 et seq j, and the constructIOn of all pnvate as opposed
ro publIc faCIlIties 2 A. development project was one which Involved the
Issuance of a permit for constructIon or reconstructJOn but not a permIt to
cperate (9 65928 )
The next time 1m
SectIon 65950 state
development proJee
year from the date
proJecr has been re
speclfied 10 sectlom
the penod specIfied
added )3 SectIon 6Y
agency for a develoI
wIthm whichever of
days from the date (
such project ['l (b)
phcatlons fot such p;
each such responsIbl
A "lead agency" meant the pubhc agency which has the pnnclpal re-
sponsIbilIty for approvmg a project (s 65929) and a "responsIble agency"
was defined as 'a pubhc agency. other than the lead agency. whIch has
responslblluy for carrymg out or approvmg a project " (~ 65933 )
WIth respect to th
lImItatIOns. sectIOn E
With respect to "expedlllous deClslon-maklOg," one object of legislatIve
concern. the ume lImItatIOn sections of chapter 4 5 began with sectIon
65943, whIch, as it read durmg the events WhlCh gave nse to thIS hugallon,
Slated "Not later than 30 calendar days after any pubhc agency has re-
ceIved an apphcauon for a development proJect. such agency shall deter-
mIne In wntmg whether such applIcauon IS complete and shall ImmedIately
transmIt such determmatIon to the applicant for the development project {f
such written determmanon IS not made wllhm 30 days after receipt of the
appllcatLOn, the applIcation shall be deemed compiete for the purposes of
thIS chapter In the event that the appl1catlon IS determmed not to be com-
plete. the agency's determmauon shall speCIfy [hose parts of the appbcatJon
whIch are mcomplete and shall IndIcate the manner In whIch they can be
made complete ,. (ltallcs added.)
"(a) If any prov1sI
cy to hold a pubhc r-
not held such heann
hmIts estabhshed by
representatIve may fi
CIVIl Procedure to c(
shall glve such prece
ceedmgs. except aIde
"(b) in the event tl
to approve or to dlS(
reqUired by thlS amci
development project
ThlS sectIOn was substantially amended by Statutes 1984. chapter 1723,
sectIOn 1, to prOVide procedures for handlIng dIsputes that might develop
between the publIc agency and the apphcant concemmg whal constitutes
"(c) Failure of an ,
may consUtute grount
added )
'Pubhc Resources Code
memal Qualny '-\ct CEQ-\
envIronmental reVII~w In (
'.mlls by a lead agency v.,
prepared ou rsuant to sectK
agency must act on the pre
'SUbdlVlSlon (a) was add.
~'Development" was declared :0 Include placement or erection. discharge or dIsposal,
grading. removIng. exttacuon. change '11 density of land use land dIVISion (other than
Public). change In IntenSity of use of water. construcTion reconstructIOn. demollllon aiter-
allon. removal. on land. In or under water .
>"UtER v. CITY OF OIA]
3 Ca.! Rpl:r 542 [Mar 1986}
le Legislature finds and
~ar understandmg of the
Ion WIth the approval of
'1 such projects Conse-
[cable [0 ail pubhc agen-
~nacunenl, certam clan-
o but there have been no
e.
. penment to our dlscus-
L a very broad manner,
he SUbdiviSIOn Map A.ct
of all pnvate as opposed
one which Involved the
'aOD but not a pemut to
ch bas the pnnclpai re-
a "responsible agency"
lead agency, which has
'ct.'. (~ 65933 )
one object of legislative
4 5 began wtth section
LVe nse to thIS htlgauon,
..J public agency has re-
.uch agency shall deter-
te and shall 1Uunediately
development project If
fa)'S after recezpt of the
lele for the purposes of
ermined not to be corn-
parts of the applicatIOn
r 1D which they can be
es 1984. chapter 1723,
lte-s that might develop
eIll1ng what constltutes
.lIOD. discharge or dl5po5al.
=. land drvlSlOn (other than
.,,;:!'"....~. demohuon. alter-
,
P>\LMER V CITY OF OJAI
178 Cal App 3d 280, 223 Cal Rptr 542 [\.far 1986]
287
"completeness" of an apphcalIon for sewon 65943 purposes. bm slgntfi-
candy. the 30-day tlme hmltatlon remained Intact
The next tIme limitations were contained m sectIons 65950 and 65952
SectiOn 65950 states' .. Any public agency whIch IS the lead agency for a
development project shall approve or dzsapprove such project wuhm one
year from the date on which an applzcatlOn requesting approval of such
project has been receIved and accepted as complere bv such agency As
speCIfied In sectIons 21100 2 and 21151 5 of the PublIc Resources Code,
the penod speCIfied m such sectIOns shall also begm on such date . ({tahes
added )3 SectIOn 65952 stales .. Any public agency whICh IS a responsible
agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove such proJecl
within whIChever of the followmg tIme peflods IS longer ['J (a) WIlhm 180
days from the date on which lhe lead agency has approved or dIsapproved
such project. ('1 (bl Wlthm L80 days of the date on whIch compLeted ap-
phcatIons for such projects have been received and accepled as complete by
each such respom.lble agency"
Wnh respect to the consequences for fatlmg to comply wlth these lIme
hmnal1ons. seCUon 65956 declared
j
'(a) If any prOVISIOn of law reqUlres lhe lead agency or responsible agen-
cy to hold a public hearIng on the development prOject and the agency has
not held such heanng at least 60 days pnor to the eXplratlOn of the ume
hmns established by Sections 65950 and 65952, [he appltcant or hIS or her
representative may file an action pursuant to Sectlon L085 of the Code of
CiVil Procedure to compel the agency to hold such heanng and the court
shall give such proceedmgs preference over all other CivIl actions or pro-
ceedmgs. except older matters of the same character [.1)
J
,
~
-'io
~
J
1
,.
"
"Cb) In the event that a lead agency or a responsIble agency jalls to act
10 approve or to disapprove a development prOject wlthm the tlme lzmrls
reqUIred by thIS artIcle. such failure 10 act shall be deemed approval of the
development project
.e
"(c) Failure of an applicant to sub nut complete or adequate mformatiOn
may conslitute grounds for disapprovIng a development project " (ItalIcs
added )
J:
'Publlc Resources Code SeCtlOn5 21100 2 and 21151 5 (found In the Cahforma EnvHon-
mental QualllY Act. CEQA) both have reference to a one-year [[me hmltallOn In compleung
environmental review In Government Code 5ectlon 65951. a provl510n for waiver of lime
!imlts by a lead agency wa5 enacted If a combmed 11l1pacl report and statement are being
prepared pursua.nt to seenon 21083 6 of tbe Public Resoorces Code (CEQA), but the lead
agency must act on the project withIn 60 daY5 of receipt of the repom and statement5
4SUbdwlslon {a} was added to the section by amendment in 1982
288
PAL\1:ER V CITY OF OlAI
178 Cai App 3d 280. 223 CaJ Rptr 542 [Mar 1986]
It was further provIded that these tIme llmltaUons could be extended once
for a penod not to exceed 90 days tf the pubhc agency and the apphcant
agreed to such extenSlOn (~65957) !viore Importantly, sectIOn 65957 1
provIded that "In (he event that a development project requIres more than
one approval by a pubhc agency, such agency may establish time (1) for
submIttmg the infOrmatIOn requtred In connectIOn WIth each separate request
for approval and 12) for acting upon each such request, provrded, howewr,
that the nme perIOd for acung on all such requests shall not, In aggregare,
exceed those tlme limits specified m SectIOns 65950 and 65952 "
THE WRIT OF MANDATE
The petltlOn for wnt of mandate. seekmg to compel City to Issue the
necessary permIts for the proJect, was based on the Statutory Scheme dIS-
cussed supra, m effect. Developer claImed that CIty had not observed cer-
tain tIme lImItations set forth In the statutes. mcludmg (hose provldmg for
a 30-day penod to accept Developer's applIcatIon as complete and the 1-
year penod for approvmg or dIsapprOving the accepted, "complete" applI-
caHon. and shoukl thus suffer the consequences of faIlmg to follow the law
deemed approval of the project Developer contended that what had been
discretIonary dunng the allowable tIme peflods had become mandatory
when those periods elapsed wnhout CIty'S takmg appropnate actIon as en-
vIsiOned by the LegIslature, and thus Developer was entItled IO a wrIt of
mandate "to compel the performance of an act whIch the law specIally
enjOInS .. (Code CIV Proc , ~ 1085 )
In the trIal court. CIty clatmed that Developer had not really applied for
CIty actlOn on the project unu.l May 1982, when the speCIfic requests for
plannIng commISSion and CIty councIl actIOn were consIdered by those bod-
Ies. Ie, the requests for COndItIOnal use permIts. lot divIslOn and EIR cer-
tIfiCahon The Cay thus argued that rejectIon of the proJect, wlthm the next
year on February 8, i 983. was tImely wlthm the meaOlng of sectIOns 65950,
65952 and 65956
Plamuffs, however. pleaded not only the December 18. 1980 filing of the
"EnVIronmental A.ssessment ApplIcatIOn" but explamed that "On or about
December 2. 1980. Petltloners presented an EnVironmental Assessmem Ap.
phcatlon and an applicatIon for conditIOnal use permit [CUP] for the Palmer
Development prOject to Respondent PL>\NNING DEPART'>1E"'T on the forms
prescnbed by the City of OJal. together With a check for the required fees
Respondent PU,NNI'\IG DEP....RTMENT refused to accept saId CUP applicatIon
and [Old PetitIoners that the CUP apphcatlon and all other requests for
approval would not be accepted untIl the envIronmental review process un-
der the Cahforma EnVIronmental Quahty Act (hereinafter. CEQA. ') (Call-
I-~-""
.r--
:.:~ ~-
1-~
II
PAL\lER v en
J 78 Cal App 3d 2:
forma Public R.
ed .. The prope
"appliCatIOn" a.
the pnrnary grOl
(1 a) CIty reI
[156 Cal Rptr 7
held that land us
l1ally affect the p
depnV3tIOn of pr
suant to both the
proVJSJon for notI
pOSltIOn that Slllce
hearmg wIthm the
Statutory Scheme
for compellmg de
dIVISIOn (b)
The tnal COUrt, i
"Well, one, the
care of Secondlv.
There IS no questlo
H shall be deemed
the LegIslature was
t~e Cay, Would pre
ot vanous proceedu
have with that, hOWt
that It by ItS very n.
see, baslcaJ1y prec1u,
WIsh to be a party, a
meanmgfuI partlcIpal
stJtutlOn In the proce'
Later, the coun dec
that due process shoL
has never had anvthIn
body He's SImply cc
techmcalrty He's try]
suspect IS not gOing t
'Cay claimed to have st<:
,'ling Drum v Fre,Jno CO!
Cal Rptr 782]
lUt Y_ CITY OF OJAI
1 Rpu. 542 [Mar 1986]
PAL"'lER v CITY OF OJ...I
178 Cal A.pp 3d 280. 223 r.1J Rptr 542 [Mar ~986]
289
lid be extended once
::v: and the apphcant
:1;", sectIon 65957 i
t 'reqUires more than
stabbsh time (1) for
~ach separate request
llrovrded, however,
'iI nor, In aggregate.
d 65952 ..
fornla Publtc Resources Code 99 21000 et seq ) was substantially complet-
ed ,. The proper mterpretatlon of the Statutory Scheme"s use of (he term
.. appllcauon"' as the tngger for commencemenr of ume limitations was not
the pnmary ground upon which CIty defended In the trIal court
Jel City to Issue the
tatutory Scheme dIs-
ad not observed cer-
t those provIdmg for
~ complete and the 1-
d. "complete" apph-
[112 to follow the law
j: 'that what had been
i become mandatory
ropnale actIon as en-
enbtled to a wrIt of
Ich the law specIally
(1a) City relIed on Horn v County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal 3d 605
[156 Cal Rptr 718, 596 P 2d 1134], whereIn the Cahfornla Supreme Court
held that land use declSIons whIch are ad]udlcatoG In nature and substan-
Hally affect the property nghts of owners of adjacent parcels may constitute
depnvatlOn of property wIlhm the context of procedural due process pur-
suant [0 both the Umted States and CalIforma ConstitutIOns If there IS no
provIsion for notICe and hearIng prIor to the declSlons made [t was City' 5
posmon that smce the CItIzens of OJaI had not been afforded such notIce and
heanng wIthm the tIme frames contemplated by the Statutory Scheme, the
StafUfOry Scheme ICself was constltutlOnaHy defectl\ e and provIded no baSIS
for compelhng defendams [0 bear the consequences of seCtion 65956, sub-
divISIOn (b)
The trial court, dUrIng the proceedings on the WrH. declared
not really applIed for
: specIfic requests for
sldered by those bod-
dIviSIon and EIR cer-
roJect. withIn the next
109 of sectIons 65950,
"Well. one, the matter of standmg I belIeve IS one that Drum~ has taken
care of Secondly, as [0 the more substantive Issue n.s a fascmatIng one
There IS no question that the government code seCl10n says specifically that
It shall be deemed to have been granted [1J And I belIeve that obvIOusly
the LegIslature was attemptIng to Insure that the lead agency, In thIS case.
{he ClIy, would proceed qUIckly and would not use as a tactIc the stalling
of varIOUS proceedmgs. which IS a laudable goal [1] The dIfficulty that I
have wIlh that, however, IS that however laudatory and deSirable that goal,
that It by Its very nature, and wlIh no way of gettmg around It that I can
see, baSically precludes the lead agency and any other agencies that might
Wish to be a party, and certamly any members of the general publIc from a
meanIngful partIcipatiOn as reqUIred by both the L 5 and Callforma con-
stitutIOn In the process ..
IS. 1980 filIng of the
;red that .. On or about
1enta1 Assessment Ap-
[CUP} for the Palmer
.llTMENT on the forms
. for the reqUIred fees
t saId CUP apphcatlOn
an other requests for
~tal reVIew process un-
lafter, 'CEQA') (Cah-
Later, the court declared. In response to counsel for plamtlffs' suggestIOn
that due process should be afforded to everyone. Your client [plaIntlffsl
has never had anythmg He's not had the project already approved by any-
body He's Simply commg In-It's good lawyerIng-he's commg In on a
techmcahty He's trying to get thIS through the back door, what I agam
suspect IS not gOIng to happen through the from door, and while It has
-
t
t
~Ctty claimed 10 have standing 10 claim the constitutional r'ghrs recognized In Horn by
citing Dru.m v Fresno County Dept of PuMe Works (1983) 144 Cal App 3d 777 [192
CaJ Rptr 782]
construction, even though there may be no change in user
classification, an additional sewer connection fee may be imposed
as determined by the Director of General Services.
SECTION 6. That utility bills which overlap the effective
dates in sections 1 through 4 of this resolution shall have the
sewer service charge prorated over the period as though the sewer
use were equivalent on each day of the billing period.
SECTION 7. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
Approved as to form:
"'" .. "'"1lor1l":;. "'~~"7 ....----
.; ~...-&::o,...........!. ~~...,.... s .. ;- :
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
(seweraso)
- 7 -
-\L\tER V CITY OF OJAI
Cal Rptr 542 [\1ar 1986]
ocess nghts have been
}roblem raIsed m Horn
:. the trial court demed
, to Cay on theIr first
.hat of sustamIng a de-
'rd of reVIew employed
ed 1985) Proceedmgs
i:ud requires an appel-
~ petlUon or complaInt
-mams the provInce of
,9-1 [96 Cal Rptr 601,
C S. 907 [53 L Ed 2d
"."COATE
opuuon that It had no
aOOve conslltutIonally
rmg and notIce to CItI-
tbm the purvIew of the
really disagree on the
r regislatIve Intenr, but
m: to comply wnh the
.Ie'~ for the legrslal1 ve
::t _ There was a dual
c.a!rofI between devel-
n Intended to remove
'esu.b-hshmg hme lim-
on of applIcatIons for
Ie' apphcants from the
:e delay. (J) In the
d ~ resort to rules of
1 was made clear (So/-
TI Cal.Rptr 460, 561
,-
\
P....Lo,fER v CITY OF 01-\1
1'8 Cal App 3d 280 223 Cal Rptr 542 ["'1ar 19861
291
Secondly. It should be noted what the Statutorv Scheme drd not do It did
not purport to compel public agencIes to exerc;Se their drscretlOnary power
With respect to development applIcauons In any partIcular manner. It merel~
placed a trme lImItation on that exercise of dlscrel10n It can faIrly be said
however. that one thrust of the legislatIon was recognition that delay can
constuute demal. ume. accordmgly. was the essence of the Statutory
Scheme's prOVISIOns on development application procedures
Thirdly. It IS clear that the Legislature had In rTund relevant proVIsions of
the CalIforma EnVironmental Quality A.ct (CEQA.) and the SubdiVISion \1ap
Act as well. and Intended that the tlme limits of the Statutory Scheme would
harmomze WIth those prOVISions
We hold that these realltres about the Statutory Scheme are eVident on Its
face (Ie) We turn now to [he constltutlona: defect perceived by the trial
court, Ie. the absence of proVISIOns for some type of notice and heanng
for neighbors of a proposed proJect who have consutuuonally protected due
process rIghts In connectIon with the proposed development (Horn v
County of Ventura, supra, 24 Cal 3d 605)6 (4) It IS elementary that a
statute Will be JudiCially construed In a manner upholding ItS constitutional
vahdlty whenever pOSSible (1 Sutherland, StalUtory Construction (4th ed
1985) Llffiuauons on LegIslative Power. 9201. p 15) ThiS approach to
statutory constructton has been strongly adhered to In thiS state. as a con-
comItant of the LegIslature' s .. plenary authonty" to enact legrslaHon con-
sistent wuh constItutiOnal standards (Mechodw Hospual of Sacramemo v
Saylor (1971) 5 Cal 3d 685.691 [97 Cal Rptr 1. 4.88 P 2d 161] )
I
-=1
~
(ld) The fact that the Legislature did not see fit to address the problem
presented In Horn has. In our VIew, no fatai effect on the Statutory Scheme
whatsoever The trIal court's determinatiOn that the absence of tIme proVI-
sIons relating to Horn rendered the Statutory Scheme unconstltutlonal ap-
pears to be based on a mrsconcepuon of who It IS that owes the duty of
notice and hearIng to mterested neighbors of a development project -\5
Hom Itself makes clear. It IS not the developer-applicant who has the duty.
It IS the publIc agencres themselves. mcludrng City
--
!1
1
No argument has been presented here that one year IS not suffiCient time
for a "lead" agency to address Its functions and concerns with respect to a
development apphcatlOn Those functions and concerns undoubtedly Include
assessment of environmental rmpact and economIc effects as well as the
6lt should be nOled that thiS record does nOI contam an} indication that landowners adJa-
cent to the prOject attempted to have a hearmg dUring the penment time pertod. nor had
made complaints relall"e 10 nonce and hearing
292
P.\L\l:ER v. CITY OF OlAI
178 Cal App 3d 280, ::23 Cal Rptr 542 lMar. 1986]
1
l
--l
Ii
=l
-I
=f
~!
-~l
.'
sense of whether a partIcular development WIll further a community's de-
sIred dIrectIOn. (AssocIated Home Budders ete . Inc. v City of Lzvennore
(1976) 18 Cal3d 582 [135 Cal Rptr 41, 557 P 2d 473, 92 A L R 3d
lO38] ) They also now Include the duty to mform the neIghbors of a pro-
posed development project of the possibilIty of approval and of the potentIa]
consequences of such approval In the matter before us, Clty's faIlure to
follow Horn may not be used by City to lnvahdate legIslatIve enactments
not In any way inconsIstent with the procedural due process consIderatIons
mvolved In Horn
o.
-.
-I
-~
(Sa) The real problem presented by the Statutory Scheme IS In deter-
mmmg the consequences of Clty's noncomphance. We reject City's inSIS-
tence that the apphcatlon of Developer on December 18, 1980, was not
really an apphcanon at all We hojd It was such an applicauon 7 None of
the requlSlte deadlmes were met by Cay. for whatever reasons. Whether
the conduct of the plannmg commIssIon or the city councIl IS consldered.
their actIons before and on February 8, 1983 were well beyond those dead-
tmes.
--,
~i
_..j
~I
What IS required IS construction of the Statutory Scheme as directory or
mandatory in nature If the Scheme IS directory, lack of comphance does
not necessanly result In "deemed approved" status for the project If the
Scheme IS mandatory_however, It does (See generally, 1A Sutherland,
Statutory ConstructIon, supra. ~1andatory. Directory. Prohibitory and Per-
mISSiVe Statutes, S 25 03. pp 441-443)
=:1
SectIon 65956. subdiVISion (b) contams the legislatIve mtentlon In plam
language - While the Scheme abounds with the use of the word" shall," that
IS not dISpOSitIVe of the Issue (6) .\5 was explaIned In Morns v County
of Marm (1977) 18 Cal 3d 901. 909-910 [136 Ca1 Rptr 251. 559 P 2d 606]
explamed, quaung Pulelfer v Counl}' of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal 2d 258,
262 [175 P 2d I]. . 'there IS no SImple. mechamcal test for determIning
whether a proVISIon should be gIven directory' or 'mandatory' effect. 'In
order to determme whether a particular statutory prOVISlOn 15 manda-
tory or directory. the court as In all cases of statutory canstruc(1an and
interpretation. must aScertam the leglslauve mtent In. the absence of ex.press
~~
m
-..
.--
~u:
-:1
iil
ill:
~~!,
'The appJlcatJQn, whIch was Ie'1g1hy and cQl1lalned conSiderable IrformalJon proVided by
Developer. was, In our view. an 3ophcanon for de~elO{)me'lT regardless of the mle chosen
by ellY to place on the f"orms II lJas been Included In the record on appeal We conclude
that [he tnal COlin by addresslnE! the conslHutlonai Issue raised bv Hor'l. dId determlOe that
the appllcatJon of b~cember J 8~ ] 980 was one ""lIhln the meaning of the statute. or there
would have been no need to proceed on the CO'lSlltullonaJ 's~ue and rule on that particular
defense ThiS circumstance compels l"e concluSlOI1 'hal when the petlllon for mandate IS
heard on ItS meflts the scope of triable Issues will be reduced :0 those dete-mln;ng whether
or nolthere ha:> been compliance ~ Irn rhe s:arure
fee:
~
~-
~
~
i:::
~
..",...
~
~
1;
...
,.
..
~
~-
~ -
:"-
r-
l
::!
.'
-
$
.;::
:;
)l:
~
f
., ,
l '" ~
I;, "
PALMEF
178 Cal
languag
as a wi
from th
partlcUl
some p1
WIll be~
est In
decianr
whethe:
tlOn-IS
mvahdc.
mandan
WIth tho
alternat
IS to be
(7)
Steele (
rlme 1m
rather tr
supra,
Two fac
of the e'
ance, I t
leglslall
was to 1
pubhc a
We cone
dIrecto~
Accor
Judgmen
for City
The ql
nallVe re
aE g , L
Sess ) SUIT
Energv. s:
Admlnl~r,
ER v CITY OF OJAI
Rptr 542 [\-lar i 986J
a communlty's de-
City of LIvermore
H3, 92 A L R 3d
'elghbors of a pro-
~nd of the potenual
" Cny's faIlure to
slatlve enactments
ess consideratIOns
heme IS In deter-
eject City's mSlS-
8. 1980. was not
ICatlOn 7 None of
reasons Whether
ell IS considered.
-jond those dead-
Ie as directory or
compliance does
'1e project If the
lA Sutherland,
hibnory and Per-
ntenttOn m plam
;)rd "shall," that
-forrlS v County
] . 559 P 2d 606J
29 Cal 2d 258,
for detenrunmg
'rory' effect 'In
IS manda-
onstrucUon and
;ence of express
'~~lOn provided by
of the urle chosen
,,-=~l We conclude
du1 determine that
,~ stature. or there
on thaI particular
::m for mandate IS
..rmullng whether
PAL\1ER v CITY OF OJAI
1""8 CaJ A.Dp 3d 280.223 Cal Rptr 54: [\1ar 19861
293
language. the mtent 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
particular act at the required time [Citation] When the object IS to subserve
some public purpose. the provISIon may be held directory or mandatory as
will best accomplIsh that purpose [cHattOn] "(Fn omitted) Of mter-
est m .-'v!orns, also. IS the diSCUSSIon 10 footnote 4. 18 Cal 3d 908-909,
declanng that "the directory-mandatory' dlstlUctlon IS concerned only with
whether a parncular remedy-mvaiJdauon of the ulumate governmental ac-
tIon-Is appropnate when a procedural requirement IS vIOlated. even when
mvahdatlOn IS not appropnate. other remedies-such as InJunctlve rel1ef.
mandamus or monetary damages-may be avaIlable to enforce compliance
with the statutory provIsIOn Indeed, the availabilIty or unavaIlability of
alternatIve remedIes may have an Important beanng on whether a procedure
IS to be accorded <directory' or . mandatory' effect "
(7) We are aware that Our Supreme Court has stated. In Edwards v
Steele (1979) 25 Cal 3d 406, 410 [158 Cal Rptr 662. 599 P 2d 1365], that
tIme hmItatJons 10 and of themselves are normally Viewed as "dlrectory"
rather than "mandatory .. (See also 2A Sutherland. Statutory ConstructIOn.
supra, Mandatory and Directory ConstructIOn, ~ 57 19, P 682) (5b)
Two factors may. however. persuade to the contrary (1) Where "Hme IS
of the essence '. 10 the legislation and (2) where the penalty for noncomph-
ance, i e . the consequences, has been speCIfied In the legislatIOn Itself The
legIslauve matenals all support the View that the Intent of the Legislature
was to place reasonable but firm time lImltatlOns on the deliberations of
public agencies concermng land use deCISions 8 The penalty was speCified
We conclude that the Statutory Scheme created a mandatory, rather than a
directory duty
AccordIngly. we hold that the tnal court erred In grantmg defendants
Judgment on the pleadmgs We address next the issue of the damages sought
for City'S noncomphance with the law
D-\'-1AGES
The questIOn IS presented as to whether Developer is entitled to the alter-
native remedy of damages for the loss susta10ed from City's breach of the
r-
~ ---
t- - .-
- -
t-..J "'"';-------...;:;;:
'E g . LegIslative Counsel's Digest of Assembly Resolution No 884, Statutes (1977 Reg
Sess ) Summary Dlges[. pages 338-340. Assembly Commmee on Resources. Land Use and
Energy, Staff >\nalysts of Assembly BIll ":10 884 (l977 Reg Sess), and see Cahforrlla Slate
AdmInlstrallve \.1anual. Office of Plannmg and Research, "Permn GUidelines" 0 978)
"J.t
~-
t'. Crry OF OJ AI
r 542 [\-far 1986]
I In the Statutory
hat Developer IS
:: breach of man-
ie-raHy protected
dity on the pan
~ny rejected the
J.ses, Developer
L~, mcludmg the
posmon In thIS
~ face of the 5 th
Lch peecl ude the
ilt Without Just
& EJeclnc Co
578, 101 S Ct
of finanCIal ha-
.. After aU, If a
tuch have ex-
from cIvil ha-
gins v. Cuy of
i 25}, affirmed
hich rejected a
.mation by TI-
lterests After
ty mIght mtro-
l declared that
~Ianmng func-
verse condem-
-raratory rellef
~r the cucum-
ll~.d_ WhIle 11
from a zomng
dISC relIonary
-:olley as suffi-
.;oHenge to Its
~t.\'e or adJu-
'Tfd v. County
J, appeal dis-
27], and now
PALMER v CITY OF OJAI
178 Cal App 3d 280, 223 Cal Rptr 542 [Mar 1986/
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 relIef as the exclUSive remedy for
noncompltance WIth chapter 45 of the Government Code, and thus the
alternatIve remedy for monetary damages IS foreclosed to Developer If a
new trail IS to be blazed In thIS area, It is more appropnate]y In the provmce
of the LegIslature rather than the courts
DISPOSITION
The Judgment denymg the petmon for WrIt of mandate IS reversed The
Judgment dlsmIssmg the complamt for damages IS affirmed Each party to
bear Its own costs
Lucas. J . and Aranda, J ,* concurred.
A petttlOn for a reheanng was dented Apnl 1. 1986. and the OpInIOn was
modIfied to read as printed above Respondents' petitIOn for revIew by the
Supreme Coun was dented June 20, 1986 Bird, C J. and Reynoso, J ,
were of the opInron that the petmon should be granted
· ASSigned by the Chairperson of the JudiCial Council
294
PAL\olER v CITY OF OJAI
178 Cal App 3d 280. 223 Cal Rptr 542 [~ar 1986]
f
t
t
PALMER V CITY OF C
178 Cal App 3d 280, 223
mandatory duty to comply with the tlme limitations set forth In the Statutory
Scheme of chapter 4 5 of the Government Code We hold that Developer IS
not so entitled
holds agam that mon
herem
Developer has pleaded various theones, encompassIng the breach of man~
dawry duty. mverse condemnatlOn and depnvatIon of federally protected
constltutlOnal nghts. 10 an effort to estabhsh financIal habllJty on the pan
of City CognIzant that eXIsting CalIfornIa law has generally rejected the
use of financIal lIability as a VIable remedy In land use cases, Developer
pOInts to the growmg body of eVIdence that the federal courts, mcludmg the
Umted States Supreme Court, are lookmg at CaltfornIa's posltlOn In thiS
regard WIth dIsfavor. detecting constltutlonal mfirmlty m the face of the 5th
and 14th Amendments to the Unlled States ConstItutlon, which preclude the
destructIon of pnvate property mterests by the government Without Just
compensatIOn As was pungemly stated m San DLego Gas & Eleclnc Co
v San Diego (1981) 450 U S 621. 661 [67 LEd 2d 551. 578, 101 S Ct
1287J, m footnote 26 of the dlssentmg opmlOn, ImpOSltlOn of finanCIal ha-
bllIty might spur more ratlonal land use plannmg than less .. After all, If a
polIceman must know the ConstitUtiOn, why not a planner')"
In the context of .
contemplated mandaI
noncomplIance WIth
alternauve remedy fc
new trail IS to be blaz
of the LegIslature rat
The Judgment den;
Judgment dlsmIssmg
bear ItS own costs
Lucas, J , and Ara
Defendants rely on a long Itst of Cahforma declSlons whIch have ex-
pressed a strong publIc pollCY Insulatlng land use planmng from CIVil !la-
bIlity The most recent and pertment of these deCISIons IS Agms v Ciry of
Tlburon (1979) 24 Cal 3d 266 [157 Cal Rptr 372, 598 P 2d 25]. affirmed
(1980) 4-17 C S 255 [65 LEd 2d 106, 100 S Ct 2138], whIch rejected a
claim for monetary damages stemmmg from a zoning determmauon by TI-
buron whIch was destructive to plamtIff AgIns' property mtereSIS After
diSCUSSIng the "chIlhng effect" the spectre of finanClal hablllty might mtro-
duce IOta local plannmg arenas. the CalIforma Supreme Court declared that
"the need for preservmg a degree of freedom In the land-use plannmg fune-
llon. and the mhIbmng finanCIal force which mheres m the Inverse condem-
natlOn remedy, persuade us that on balance mandamus or declaratory relief
rather than mverse condemnation IS [he appropnate rehef under the CIrcum-
stances .. Ud , at pp 276-277) Agms has not been overruled WhIle Jt
concerned mverse condemnation damages assertedly resultIng from a zonmg
determmatIon-tradltlonally Viewed as both leglslauve and discretIOnary
governmental conduct-we oercelve the statement of pubhc polIcy as suffi-
Ciently strong and clear to preclude both direct and Indirect challenge to Us
apphcauon In land use cases generally. whether In the legislative or adJU-
dicatory comext (8) ThiS dro,'lslOn followed Agms 10 vllllland v County
of Los Angeles (1981) 126 Cal App 3d 610 [179 Cal Rptr 73], appeal diS-
mIssed (1982) 4.56 1: S 967 [72 L Ed 2d 840. 102 S Ct 222'7J, and now
A,. petitIon for a rer
modIfied to read as r
Supreme Court was
were of the opmlOn t
.t>,sslgned by the Chalf
.-,
. .. '
. -
. ~. . .
'. - ~ .
. .
):>
--i
--i
:>
n
~
3:
"
:z
--i
::
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NeMBER: Tenant-participating Conversion 150,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590
LOCATION: 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
APPLICANT: Sunisa Pongputmong
CASE PLANNER: Susan White, Assistant 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 DA~E(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,
in that a letter was received by the City from the tenant
of unit l'i4 in which the tenant indicated that she was
threatened with "immediate eviction or going out of busi-
ness if (the applicant) didn It get enough signatures to
convert to condominiums. II, in that her allegation of coer-
cion by the applicant invalidated 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 required for approval. On the date of the 9/4/91
- 1 -
.'r''ll..! ;'(J',,\AL,
...;\... ~.""",., r"J
A-f11\CHtll5L ~ ''D .
Plann1ng Commission hearing, the tenant of unit #4 submit-
ted a second letter to staff at the Planning and Zoning
counter in which she stated she wished to "retract" her
ini tial letter and stated that she "wrote the previous
letter because of some misinformation received from other
tenants and a misunderstanding of my rights and respon-
sibilities" but the second letter did not specifically
retract the previous letter's allegations of threats and
coercion. [reference Article XX section 2002 (1)]
2. Tenant-Participating 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 coercion had not been retracted, and that there was
sufficient evidence in the record to deny the application.
3. The follmving procedures have been followed in the pro-
cessing of this Tenant-Participating Conversion
App11cation:
(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) The application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590
~vas deemed complete on 3/27/91, Tenant-Participating
Conversion 150 was continued at the 5/1/91 Planning
Commission hearing pending staff inquiry, but and no
subsequent hearing date "las 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 bUllding stating that a
Tenant-Participating Conversion Application had been
filed and that any obj ections thereto may be filed
",ith the City within t",enty-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-
Particlpating Conversion Application and required map
were scheduled for hearing and processed in accordance
with the procedures for the processing of subdivision
maps.
- 2 -
(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
either through misrepresentation or coercion, and
whether any tenants had been offered money for signing
the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" or "Tenant Intent
to Purchase" forns. Staff also requested that the
participating tenants reply in writing within 10 days
of receipt of the letter. Wri tten 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-
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
rescind her signature on either of the "Tenant Agree-
ment to conversion" 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 "Tenant Intent to
Purchase" forms and withdrew her signatures. Staff
spoke with the tenant of unit #5 on July II, 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 Purchase" 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-
~ng. Addi tionally, 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 -
Through an oversight, the staff report was not sent to
the applicant.
4. For information purposes, the following persons are iden-
tified in the application as participating tenants:
1:nit
Unit
unit
Unit
L"nit
l:'nit
l:'nit
Cnit
1 - Karin Hajek
2 - Soffy Shihata
3 - Dianne Bubb
4 - Edna tHlson
5 - Terisa Gomez
6 - Gary Lee Myers
7 - Christina Gerona
8 - Laura Froehlich
Prepared by:
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Susan White, Assistant Planner
PCjst150
SMW
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Gilpin, Morales, Nelson, Polhemus
Pyne, Rosenstein
Nechur
NOTICE
If thlS is a final decision not subject to further appeal under
the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dlnance, the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure Section
1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the city pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 1400.
I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action aeeurate-
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 -
constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit
approval.
App11cant's Signature
Prlnt Name and Title
PC/tempstoa
DKW:bz
- 5 -
::t:>
-I
-I
::t:>
n
.......
3:
or-
:z
-I
n
=
lG
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
Land Use and Transportation Management 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 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.
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
units with Cosigning Tenants
8
6 (75% of total units)
Units with Tenants Signing
Intent to Purchase
5 (63% of total units)
Units with Senior or
Disabled Tenants
2
- 1 -
U ~\/ L~U(IL \ L-
A1TACtt~ENI 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 building is a Qualifying
Building per Sec. 2001 (1) of Article XX of the city Charter, as
declared by the applicant and confirmed by the City Planning Di-
vision, the Building and Safety 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: Auditional 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 requirem.ents of the state Subdivision Map Act I
staff respectfully recommends that Tenant-participating Conver-
sion #150 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
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 -
(b) Sets forth, for each tenant occupied unit., t.he 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 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 inspe~tion report
of the accessible portions of the entire build-
ing, including but not llmi ted to, the roof,
walls, floors, heating, air condl~loning, 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
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
- 3 -
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(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
(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% (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 -
(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 ConverSlon Application, the City sent
notice to every tenant in the building stating that a
Tenant-Participating conversion Application had been
filed and that any objections thereto may be 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 prov~s~ons 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 subject property
received copies of this staff report and recommendation at
least three days prior to this public hearing.
3. Notification of this hearing has been in conformance with
Section 9360 of the Santa 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 -
5. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project
has been, or will be, given written notification within 10
days of approval of a final map for the proposed
conversion.
6. Each of the tenants of the proposed 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. 9l22F 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 condltion 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 -
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 wi thin 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.
(ItThe 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 parcel/
subdivision map for the Tenant-participating conversion,
each participating tenant shall be informed in writing, in
a form approved by the City, of his or her r1ghts 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 -
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 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 capi tal improvements for the uni t.
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 it 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 ot the City Charter] plus a
reasonable pro rata share of capital improvements for the
- a -
building's 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
benef~ts and protections of Art~cle XX of the City
Char~er. The c~ty Attorney shall review and approve for
compllance with Article XX the Covenants, Conditions, and
Restr lctions , or equi va lent documents, pc ior to the ap-
proval of the required final parcel/subd:vision 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. It 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 -
race, color, religion, sexual orientation, ancestry, na-
tional origin, age, pregnancy, marital status, family com-
position, or the potential or actual occupancy ot 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 wi thin 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.
13. The developer/applicant shall provide the Engineering De-
partment of the City of Santa Monica with one Oizal 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 1 Karin Hajek
Unit 2 - Soffy Shihata
Unit 3 - Dianne Bubb
unit 4 - Edna wilson
unit 5 - Terisa Gomez
Unit 6 - Gary Lee Myers
Unit 7 - Christina Gerena
unit 8 - Laura Froehlich
ATTACHMENTS: A. Summary Cover Sheet
.B. unit/Tenant Info.
C. Seller Financing Info.
D. parking Plan
- 10 -
E. Summary CC+R's
F. Tenant Notice
G. Radius Map
H. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50590
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Susan White, Assistant Planner
PC/tpcl50
SMW
- 11 -
f"'..
~.
-~
:t:>
-'
-f
>
n
::c:
:s:
rr-
:z
-I
CI
=
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
MEMORANDUM
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 Pongputrnong
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.
At the May 1, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the planning Com-
mission requested that Tenant-Participating Conversion 1.50 be
continued so that staff could contact each tenant to verify that
signatures were legally obtained on the "Tenant Intent to pur-
chasell 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 Purchasel1 or "Ten-
ant Agreement to Conversion II 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 -
Cj ~,~ ;X'J \IL \ L -
ATfAcrt ~E.NI D
threatened with "... immediate eviction or going out of business
if (the applicant) didn't get enough signatures to convert to
condos. II (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 conunission 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.
summary Information
Number of Total Units
8
Units with cosigning Tenants
(As indicated at time or filing
of original application)
Units with Cosigning Tenants
(Based on tenant correspondence)
6 (75% of total units)
5 (63% of total units)
Units with Tenants Signing
Intent to Purchase (As indicated
at time of original application)
5 (63% of total units)
Units with Tenants Signing
Intent to Purchase
(Based on tenant correspondence)
2 (25% of total units)
- 2 -
units with Senior or
Disabled Tenants
2
Estimate of Conversion Tax
$43,200
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 at this 50 day limit.
Building Qualification: The subject building is not a Qualifying
Building per Sec. 2001 (1) of Article XX of the City Charter in
that five tenants (63%) 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.
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 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 Findings
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
- 3 -
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.
(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 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 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 identified in the building in-
spection report regarding the unit and the common
- 4 -
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 seg. (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(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 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
uni ts in the building. (I f there is more than one
tenant in a unit, the signature of only one tenant is
required. )
- 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.
...
:). 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 objections thereto may be filed
with the City within twenty-five (25) days tram 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 t1Tenant 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
received from the tenants of units #2, 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 Conversionll or "Tenant Intent to Purchase II
forms.
- 6 -
(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 trom 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 "Tenant 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
Conversion" and "Tenant Intent to Purchase" 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/tpclSO
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.
t. Letters from Staff to Tenants of 2021
Cloverfield Blvd., 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
- 7 -
!rNANT-PARTlo:P~TIHG COHV!RSION APPLrCATl~. tTORcal
~~~RI ::7Ea S~!E~
CITY USE ONI,Y
-: __:. e '1'.l1t=er
:?c- \"?O
~a~e Ac=ep~ed ~:r f~:~-q
2./ "- /l") I
Appl.:I,=a~;.cl' Fee ?a.:.d
;
S '2. ! '--' I
:)r. : ~ I
..
'lecelpt by ~!.-.
-
S~~dlv~s~:n vac ~~~.r
~~! ~'.;a,l~acle;-
~ c-....,. ~ -.... ...{ ..- --1
:a :ax ::da rde~~;.f~=at:.o- ~ap Soo~. -~-
C ?ro:ec~ Address
2:Z~t~:~~~?:~:~ ~L
?age~ ~_?ar=el.
b No o~ ::.,;.ts
5tre8::"
:: .;.\f:.;, ~.:~:: ~
5t:reet
.:.;
- ...~r
-- '-,
S-;a-;e
~~k~-t~=~r~~ ~~~1~~a~~
~: ~~ 22~ :~ :~ S~ .~~
:;:_~:.:A ~:~:J:J:"'1G~G
Sa....~a
~0_:~az~~a;~d1~ .
c :eg~: ~escr~~t~or
Zcr-e
':; - f'J
2a ~N~e~~S' Na~e
(1~ c~r;~~a~~on, ~~c:~de ~a~es cf p~~~c~pa: 5~c=~o:~er5:
b Address
......~~.::
:ia"n:; ~:e #1
.s~reet.t
3a~~a ~c~~~a :a ~(~:3
c:. -;, StA':e
.5':ree~
Z'- Code
-= ?rcr"e : 2.iJ ~ ~;:"-,;,,,;""l
A~~ac~ P~el~~:na~y ~~~l. R.por~)
3a ~ge.,t. '~f arYl ~ame
....:::re
b I'~t:e
= F:.r.r.
L Prc,re
e Address
S':reett
Street
C~~y
Sellte
Zip Code
~ ?ost-CarverSion FOrM of Ovrership :Cordom~rl~~, s~cck eoop.rat.~ve,
=o~mur~~Y apartment, eQQpera~~ve as.Qciat~or, or ~im~t~d e9U~ty ~ou.~r1
cooperaelVe) :C~CC~~~l~-
5a
~~~t.s W~t~ Coslqn~r.q Tenant.: ~~.r ~;ercent of Tctal vries
"1J .,
b ~n;.ts W~t~ ~era.,ts s~q.,~nq Stae.mene of Ir.tent ~a ?u:rc~ase
'hullbu' ~ ?ercent of Total t:nitll
c ~""'acant tJn:.ts: 'f'.lllll:ler: _....- ?ercent of Total t:nits
-
,~ .
6a.. square Fooeage of !!u~ldinq ~;-:....:: b SquAre Footage of :'ot.
~,;: 5~
l~ ,i:: j
Rent Cont~ol Beard S~atu. rOr2 ~~ready S~~Z:+9~ ~1tr reques: f:r~e~~~~~
Obtai., a I'ORCA "Rent Control Beard Clearance Form" frolll Rent C:lno;;rol,
Roolll 202, City Rall, and provide with applicat.ion (se. at.t.lI.cred
salllp~.)
8a Orlqlnll.l BUlldlnq permit ~ate (or best estimate of date of constr~=t~on
~f no eu~ldlnq Pe~~t ~s on City file),
Date
Oct 2. :9~Z Buildir.g Permit N'.llIll:ler:
e:22::-8
b Date. a~d desoripticrs of subsequene 1Il0di!ioatiors to building or s:.t.e
'~1cludinq =harqe. :.n number or size of units, parkl~g spaces,
ron-p.~~tt..d st~~ctures or ar~ts, ete )
- 3 -
City of Santa Mon~c&
~e;ar~~e~~ o~ Lard ~S. ~ ~ranspor~a~~on Waraqem.~~ :~velopm.~t
CI~Y ?UL~rNG DIVIS:O~
~~:7/7E~AN~ INFC~~r!ON
AD~
'10
'J::> ::> f I't'el"a"lt
::':edroc""s ~.,Ja!ll..5
I-ame(s) of
I:essee al'd
I&ll adul~
'occ";,Ipants)
I Le'lgth
lot oe-
, C";J.par cy
.~ont~5
! Agreed. I I'lte~t
:to con- to
'versLon p~rc~ase
(P:'easeIFOr'll
check) S1gr,ed
. I (please
:chllek)
-~.
2 Z"o::-
, --.
Z~:::::"
~ 2~:.~
:! ZOr"
7 2:r
" 2:r
, I
{a~:r. ~a ,- e -0{ _2I're-a=s i
3c:["r 3;-,"-~ata 21Jr.or:.t]-,sl
D~:=.""'.r;.e 3'.l::.b ~2:n~:-.tr.sl
Edpa W:lsGr 2'3:nG:-_~;.,~1
l'Ier~s~ GOFez I :~I'iear~!
:~a.:'y -:ee f'1""..'erls --IC-::0:l:~SI
jCh,::-ut:,,:a Geoo'1a :6mor:.sJ
:.at;.ra ::;'~ce'11*:J. :;-6!'n~~.s!
- 5 -
"ex vi
xx
XX ..I:
xx ...'
:0; v
Y'l. ..I
xx "
xx ...
XX"
xx v
xx
IsenLor
(65
'years
;o~ aae
:or oi:ier
. i;:ease
. c."eckj
I::::lsabl"'d
! ~ :-QC::8~V-
, ,," gov-
'I e r-:ner t
<;llsa~l:-
--."
: 7;:'ease
Ic~eCk;
xx
...
.U
>
':;0 &.1 l..-fOVW" I Jr;.I...,
City or Santa ~on1ca
Jepar~~e"~ ot :a-d :se ~ T=a~sco~~at~on ~a-age~er~ ~ev.lopment
C:7Y ?LANN:~G D:7:S:0N
SE:~Ea ::~ANC:VG :NFO~~~:ON r:! of~ered)
:~ seller r~narc~nq l5 'at of~ered, please prov~de ~ax~mum purchase
~rlce ard ~~r~~~~ dowr pa}~ert re~~~r.d (l! a,y;
Ap1:..
::er'a....~'s 'lal1le
"axl..""\....."U
?1..1~:;.-a$E!
?r:..:;e-
'(i i"' ~..::i:lll;'~
~o'W- P!n't
~e~;.red
"ll.l'l~''':''''l
Amct:.nt
o~ :oa~
MaXl~u:n
:,t:e:-est
Ra::e _
:oan
s
I
1e= or
!.ea'" -
~cr-:.'i5
s
s
'{a=~r: P'a;9k:
:'~5.JCC
;;:,:'::08
2
S-:;:'!;:l Sh~~a::a
:'95.0.JC
;9 r :}::>J
:::..ar~e 3:J.~:'
:7;t30G
391-J'~C
J
~..::.,~ . n':.~so'1
lj?,:)CC
:;;,00-::
~
I Ter=sa >Or{
I .- ~,. ""
._c:!.._~ .........y
3~:':ez
:'91 t ,):)-::
]9,20.J
co
;:~7.Q""~
r' TlI..,.
:.~~ ,:.00
39, :::::.0
:~-=~S~1ha ~e=cna
i;5,::80
;?~ .j::8
.:a~r~ F~oerl~~h
195 I 0)::}8
;9,CO-:
"'.;:.te
,
I'
,.L
,
NG .:."'"ler f:~ar..ClLg :lS
4:O€:l"'g-
Q-ZOf'p.,....o...:
~e~~t~s a~l a~a~e t~~~ ~~~~e~~
5:% ~f 7re :~-ar~~ ~~
I
:-~~er :fc~ ~e~e~tf ~~
I
,
~O~~ ;cl~c1es 0f :'Jca~ 19-j915 ~ay ~eq~l=e
~~~~~1~Q .''le-r ~r-t~~ ~- ~~ ~~~e t-"'l~ ~-
~........._~.L~....-, _ ....t-'..........~:.a......~ ~a., _>:I_~
1~a~~fy fer CJ~do~ .lWffi loar,~ I
:~creBse _ ~~e ~-~-
,.br "t'r~~. .""
::fj:::~::: ~ ~el 1:
G~:J val:~ ::J ~~e
.2.
J~~2r ~av ~2~S~ ~~J ~r:ces 11ste1 2tovS ty a~y
:~ ~l,1~2 :r.dex as l~e~ fo=~~ .lr- _ar~~c14 Y7 J~e
3!1~ !S lssued O~ 1~e ca~e ~~e ~~~s~ ~~~~ ~~
~G a~~~oval t~ t~eI1~Lart~e~J ~= rea~ astat~
F:E..ch rnax: r.:~'l: ~...JY'c~l~e rT"~ce 11 :.3~e::::. a.~.Jve .1..::::'
tenart wrase ~ame ts 11S"ed jcr trat ~il~
~1r:1T~~ 1c~ ~ayreB~ 2')% ill: ce re4~lred
* Under ~h. Ar~icl. XX, sec~ion 2004(~) (2), atter 1 year a5 passed trom
t~. date rirs1:. un~t b.c~.s available tar sale, or the date ot tinal
approval by the Calitornl& oepartme~t ot Real Eseata, the tenant sales
price ~~y be adjusted according to any change rerlected in the price index
occurrl~g during the preced~ng year as publl.shed by the Bureau ot Lavor
Stat~st~cs.
- 6 -
('-
_ . S-: A. 7!'fE:"TS ;:)F ::E~A..":' A~RE~ENT TO C~t(".'!RS :ON
A~tac~ 5~a~emerts of !ena~t Aqree~ent to Converslon s~g~ed by A.greelng to
~o~vers~c~ :'enants oee~py~rg not :ess t~an 2/3 {67\) of t~e totai ~~mber of
res:.::ler.t:.a: ll~its In the l:l\ll::h~g Agreelller'; for:ns are :oreluded. ~n the
Ap~llcat~o~ Package and are ava:.lable ~ro~ the Planri,g and Zonlng
:lV:Sl~', Room 212, at Sa,ta ~onlca Clty Hal:
S7ATE~EN~S OF -:EN~~T :"TEN~ TO PL~C~ASE
Attac~ State'llerts of Te-ant !rtent to ?urcl-ase slgned by :~te'l:hng to
p~~=-ase Te~a-~s OCC~PY1~q ~ot :ess ~~an !l~~Y pe~ce-~ ~50%) of ~~e ~C~3:
-~-cer ct ~e51de-t~a: unl~S ~" ~r8 bu~ld1~9 Sta~e~e~~ :~~S a~. aval:a~le
:rc~ tre P:ar-lrg & ZO~l'g ~lv:'slcr, Room 2:2, Sa~ta VC'lca C~,;y ~all
'I 9~:~~:NG ~vO S:TE ?LANS
Attacr crl;~ral ard tWO coples of both 9ui:d:.r.g Plans and a leqLble qrap~lc
pr-ASQt""tat:.:.o"'l a~ 1./"8U or 1/:6tf scale (rot to exceed 1,.t x l""~ d.e1.:.rea~..:......q
Far~l-g :ayo~t, floor plans (all levels), s:.te layout, all exter:or
c~ll::ll'q elevatlo-s, ~lt~ all ~eas~rements clearly ~nd~eated
?rov~d~-g tt~s lr!ornatlon lS o~~lcra:
":1 B'::I:'::NG :"l"SPEC:-:CN REFOR"!
Attac~ a copy of t~e S~lldl~g :nspect~on Report ?repared pursuant to
O~'er's declaratlon r~~~er B (Sectlcr X of ~~lS App::.oatlo~l Report ~lllt
cover tre accessLcle portlors of the er.tlre build~~g, and m~st be p~epar.d
by a 1 ~cersed s:.;:.:dlng :-spectlon Servlce or :,dlv:.d'..Ial ?lease ~eq-.l.st
t~at you~ b~:.ldlrg lnspect~o' report incl~de a summary sectlon eval~at~ng
al: ,aJor systems ard structures of t~e building
0"::1 :o~c~ AREA, ~~:N!!~ANCE A~D 6~~E~ :~FORMATION
7~e fol:o~l'q lS Cc~mor Area, Malnte~ance and Budget l,formation commo~ to
,,:1 '~rlts 1"1 the s~~lding as required u.,der Sectlon 20C2(c) of tr.e Clty
:F"i:-:er
PARKING SPACES
7l".ere are 12 total. .parking spaces for tl-e Bu:.ldlrg corsLst~rg of
covered spaces and.<O open spaces
C~eck ary ~hich apply.
Eac~ urL~ will be assigned the excluslVe use of ___ parking-space(s)
x
Eac~ t:~it wll: be ent~t:ed to: parking space(s), the exact locatlon
of '..,;'llch lllay be reassigned upon the duly author:.:zed action of the
Governi~q Body for the Homeowner's ASSoclatior
No urit .nll be entltled to a parking space and parking spaces
>Hll bl! avallable on a baslsto' tenants.
only t,ose unlts speclfled by attachment wlll be assigned parking
spaces (a~tach ar- eKplanatlon of this and label Lt "Parklng";
Spaces ~lll be reserved for viSltor parking
spaces will be reserved :or commercial tenant parking
':'he ~nitil!ll monthly ?arking space f.. to the HOllleowner I s Auociatlon
will be S per parklng space.
Other (Specify)
In addit:.on to the above ~nclude a plan that clearly specifies the park~nq
avallable to eac~ specific u~it and how it will be allocated. Label thls
In:C!"1llat~on "parkl,g Plan" and attach it to this applicat:..on
- 7 -
~.
COkMCN AREA FACILITIES
:"t-e 3:.J.1::L:.rg- "-as t.t-:.e ::cll=~:'rq c::>~+o'cn area ~ac~:':.~~es ~, ~dd:.t...on to
res~de~~ pa:<~~q
pa:l..ays
:o:::b:es
:awns 5 "''.:'1a
?oo: ':.~':'Sl':O:
?a!'<:l-q
IX Exter:=r Gi-"'"
;;alkway
5'.:orage :..t.:.l.:.'.:y
Area Reoms
Publ.:.c ~leva.~crs
Roo",.
:::;-..La!"'~""-~t..se .-
::;a":.6
-)"Y
:a-..:."dry ~co"
::o~~e::-e.,ce
Rocrs
Qt:t'er (spec:.~y}
~=~ec~ ~:l ap?l~c~blej
T'f
5xce~~ w:'.:h respect to par<:lr; space, dascr.:.~ed a~ove, al: Ccm:ncp Areas
are '.:0 be ava.:.:ab:e to all te'1arts on an e~..:.al b"'SlS w1trc~t c~"'rqe
~sa;e c!' access fees wll: be c~arged by ~~e AsscC1at.:.on, with 1'11'.:lal
-O"lt~:y eStlTated ~ee. for users as follows
poe:'
sauna
gy-1ll
cor=ere~ce/publ+~ ~~cns
ot;,.er
CO~"lO~ Areas may be rented ~y the ASSOc.:.atlors to persors
!'esldents cf tre bU1:d.:.nq
~.~....
* -~
are .,O~
Ce~c- Areas w.:.l: be owned by tre Homeow~ers' Assoclatio"l
XX Comrcn Areas will be cwned by purChasers as te~ants in common
OCCUPANCY, MANl\G!M&N'r PUMS ANtI ?<:lLtcIES
~a~age~ent of the Building 101.:.11 be vested ln an .:.rcorporated/un1~ccrporated
~omQowne:'s ASSoclation. {circle as applicable)
T~e ter"l o! existe~ce of cove~ants, cond1tions and reStr1ctlors o~ record
.111: be y years
~~e 90ard of Directors of t~e Homeowners' Associat~on will ~av.
i!lemJ::eI'5
votlnq
~ere wi:l/wi~l ~ot b. ~umulative vot1nq ot memberships
The ~ollow.:.nq occupancy restrictions will applY ~check all wh1~h
apply)
maximum nu~er of res~dent5 per unit
pets w1ll not ba permitted.
ether (specil!y)
xx Units will be restricted to residential '.lea.
~nits will be restrieted to commercial usa.
~r~~s may be used tor either commerc~al or res~derti",l ~se
- IJ -
"c--
RESUME OF
DECLARATION ,)F COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
AND
BYLAWS FOR TRACT 50590
1.
Type of Orqanlzation:
Homeowners.
Incorporated
Association
of
2. Membership: Each owner or group of owners of a condominium
automatically receives a non-transferable membership on
conveyance to him/her of the condomin1um. There Is a
maximum of one (1) membershlp per condominium.
3. Membership termination: Membership is term1nated
automatically on sale of the underlying condominium; voting
rights may be suspended, after hearing for failure to pay
assessments.
L
VotIng Rights: Each unit owner
owner. There shall be only one
ownership.
shall designate one voting
vot1ng owner for each unit
5.
Vested 1n a three (3) person
power to appoint a President,
Treasurer. The Association
outside management company to
of the property.
Board of Directors with the
Vice-President, Secretary and
is authorized to engage an
supervise physical management
6. ProJect Life: Estimated to be sixty (60) years.
7. Effective Term of and Amendment to CC&Rs: The initial term
of the Declaration of Covenants, Co~ditions and Restrictions
15 sixty (6) years, renevable automatically for successive
ten (IO) year periods.
8.
Maintenance Provisions:
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
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
major1ty vote of all unit owners. Maintenance of Units
must be performed by Owners; the Association may
author1ze 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: Associatlon is dlrected 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 15 required to authorize repairs. If less than
eighty-five percent (85%) 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 of Condominium Units: A
Condominium Unit consists of the airspace within the outside
valls of the area permitted to be occupied by an Owner,
interior non-load bearing walls and the actual interior
surface.
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 (I) 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, 11
Santa Monica, CA, 90403
(213) 451-4041
2
City of santa Monica
Department of Community & Economic Development
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONVERT
(for eXlstlng tenants)
DATE:
opt\)
10 lqql
I
To the occupant(s) of
d-CJ.I
Street #
f,lO yt~ ~I z.L [)
Street
eL
S-A NTA
City
I-(c,<J I CA
State
!/rr
'-
qt;'f04-
Zlp Code
The owner(s) of this building, at )D.;tl
street #
~[:YU2. Fl~ L D 8 L.
Street
sAI\;l A geN1E!'), ~ Qo<t-c3
City, State Zlp Code
the CitX of Santa Monica to
ec~DCN~NlvM
(post-converslon form of tenant -
,plans to file a tentat1ve
map
with
convert this building to a
ownershlp)
You shall be given 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 right to appear and the r1ght t~~e h~~~ny s~ h~ring.
~//~
(signature of owner or orner's agent)
6,- /0, Icrrr /
(date) ,
./
NOTE: This notice must be given to all tenants at least sixty (60) days
prior to filing any application for a tentative subdivision map (as
required by the state Map Act, Section 66452.9.
,...-
~
Ii) /qq I
)
~ / / ./(..~"-\._ /-<<1,wa. vt...)
-r '
---t L-<- 1: .... - '- ~ ~ <"" ~ --v...'<:' < <:! ,..<.. ~ '-'Z
, L... ~ //
~" -L<.. '-
iJ -t I.- "f"...c ~ (- L <'11.- Le... 2. r / t-t.,
I , ./ _
~:.:- J I &h((,~{ L .If-eLl tJ)i!
-e:&',A& "7
.L- '- '
" ')l-~r:fr I
-:/' )
- "- ~ (- '0 ~~-""l h
, (/
S ----=:::> b \- ,-?:>v2>
f/ ..
/\./1 ... i ,/< ;
__.... ,,",".t,...-~ ......
/...ku k
l "( ..,;..<.
V\~ U~____
-'../ v......
,( h ''-..-/
.~ .
!7 ,
~
~)
)
- L,..
/j
/] ~
-=-/:.J/v-~ /?i _ /t}.z~
( 5r~~ k~ f) ,\-..'t"...-!. tJ
7 (i::}A- ~- 9.-- ~j.~~ __
-, I -'lr. .,
J Lt.4- \..D-- f, -r;\ ~~ "V
'~
-..)
\
u
r -, " i --'
'< ::0 ~I ,
, l
i I = .=.
~ -' ~ 1 -
U> I 4!!-_ ~
i -i 1
, ;Q =
I ~ I m -
I "- m j --
~ 'I ~
'0
! I . 't 1
" .. - "
. --
2201
i
--. j ~ l
>- i . /-
::: t - ~~
f
~~~
~ f ).- ~
~ l ~
- i ~
~ ~~ -~ *
!- '"V r .
I ....
.,... ~ ,.. -J
-. 11:'"
:a~.6
r
J
k
a
.~
~ Vi;iGiNiA
f""J.
~
t
'S ,-
~, I
I
~
..
S' KANSAS
:!Ill!! ..
I g I
'i) ~ I~ ~
...
J~~ ~~
~
:z:..
<=>
....
:. a;
l~
c.'
- ~f
.. I, ""
,-"
I-
I'.
5;;
~ .
[~ ~_\t\
~.
~ -
. tff,.t<EN$R fet1I~ri . S"XN 0'1 eA"Tt- -"9)Af Tf} ~e~JeFf;1i-fle i: .Sf 6'7~
~ eFM.o>>SE.t~ sw Iq"iSt. '""'L-
LEGAL OESCRIPTION - . ~ - ~ ~ _ - ~ 'CASE NO _
~ iOW~ Ol=- SAWTIL HOl,JICJ\ 1"!:..~,"T ZONE
~q~ I ell)'.,- iR t='J <ll... D ~ L
ST1=tEET ADORESS-
APPlICANT -
" SUNI sA
Reference
AtlUMIP
. Sheet No.
t
1
l
f
RADJUS r.lAP FOR
flLl\fHJlrJG O[P^fl rLHfjT
Clt) \If
Santa l\ton ic.J
CALli ()I~'\I \
RlCJ.lnd
Radius
)
30 1
0,
.. I
~
'1y
~\.
v
SANTA
MrONI'CA
City PlannIng DMSlon
(213) 458-8341
1685 MaiO Street. POBox 2200
Santa MonIca. CA 90407-2200
May 21, 1991
Karin Hajek
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. #1
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Tenant-Participating Conversion Case TPC-150, Vesting
Tentative Tr~ct No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. Hajek:
On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion ot eight
apartment units to ccndominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. carne
before the Santa Monica Planning Commission. Several tenants of
2021 C10verfield Blvd. were present at the hearing and alleged
that the applicant, Sunisa Pongputrnong, 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 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 IlTenant 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
writinq, within 10 days of this letter.
- 1 -
'-'
All corresponde~~e stculd be addressed to:
city of santa Monica
Plann1nq and Zoning Oivision
1685 Main street, Room #212
Santa Mon1ca, CA 90401
Attn: susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150
Please call ::le at 213 458-8341 if you have any questions or
concerns regarding t~~ Tenant-Partic1pating Conversion
app11cat1on for 2021 Clover=:eld Bl. (TPC-150) and your r1ghts as
a participat~ng tenant ~nder Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights
Amendment to the C~arter of the City of Santa Mon1ca, California.
Thank you for your a~~ent1on to this matter.
Sincerely,
~'. v .I
/.)....~("'.~t."'v
, . I
l I J .-......-
; '.. t,..r v
I v.... I
..I"
su's'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 Informat10n Sheet (TORCA)
C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. I 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 Clovertield Blvd., dated
1/22/91.
PC/clvrfld
Sw
OS/21/91
- 2 -
SANTA
M~ONICA
City Planning DIVISIon
(213) 458-8341
1685 Mam Street. POBox 2200
Santa MOnica. CA 90407-2200
May 21, 1991
Soffy Shihata
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. #2
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subj ect: Tenant-Participating 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 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 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 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 staff determine
whether yeu 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 lITenant Agreement to Conversion" or
"Tenant Intent to Purchase" forns.
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 wr~ting. We are requesting that you respond to us, in
writing, within 10 days ot this letter.
- 1 -
All correspc~dence shc~:d be
addressed
t"".
.... .
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 cal~ :'1.e at 213 458-8341 if you have any quest~ons or
concerns regard~ng t~e Tenant-Participating Conversion
application for 2021 Cloverfleld 31. (TPC-150) and your rights as
a participating tenant under Article XX - Tenant ownership Rights
Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Mon~ca, California.
Thank you for your attent~on to thls matter.
Sincerely, J . '
-, J :.L
-;r-'l.{t<4{.... Lc 1.t~4,C":::-
/
Sus~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 (TORCA)
C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 C10verfield Blvd., dated
1/10/91-
D. Tenant-Participating Conversion Application (TORCA), TPC 150,
2021 C10verfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91.
E. statements of Tenant Intent to Purchase and Tenant Agreement
to Conversion Forms, 2021 C10verfield 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
- 2 -
SANTA
M(ONI.CA
City Planning DIVISion
1213) 458-8341
~
...'
~
o~'"
1685 Mal n Street. POBox 2200
Santa Monica. CA 90407-2200
May 21, 1991
Diane Bubb
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. ~3
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Tenant-?artlclpat.:.ng Conversion Case TPC-150, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. Bubb:
On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion ot 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 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, 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 Agreem.ent to Conversion" or
"Tenant Intent to Purchase" torms.
Please read through the enclosed materials carefully and notity
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 -
All correspcnderce shou:~ be addressed to:
City of Santa Monica
Plann~ng and Zoning Division
1685 Ma~n street, Room #212
Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401
Atth: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150
Please call :"'e at 213 458-8341 If you have any questions or
concerns regarding the Tenant-Particlpating Conversion
application for 2021 Cloverfleld Bl. (TPC-150) and your rights as
a partlcipatlng tenant under Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights
Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California.
Thank you for your attentlon to thls matter.
Sincerely, . .
.~tj(,~t.v Ll{~
............
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 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 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
- 2 -
SANTA
M:ONI..CA
City Planning DIVISIon
(213) 458-8341
1685 ~aln Street. POBox 2200
Santa MOnica, CA 90407~2200
May 21, 1991
Edna Wilson
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. #4
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Tenant-Partic~pating Conversion Case TPC-150, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. wilson:
On May 1st, 1991, the rORCA application for conversion of eight
apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. came
betore 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 s~gnatures 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 IORCA 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 coerC1on: 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
writing, within 10 days of this letter.
- 1 -
A1'
-.
corresporder::e
s~o~:d =e addressed to:
City of santa Mon~ca
Planning and Zoning D1vision
1685 Main Street, Room #212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150
Please cal: ~e at 213 458-8341 if you have any questions or
concerns rega~dlng t~e Tenant-Partlcipating Conversion
application for 202: Cloverfield Bl. (TPC-150) and your rights as
a partlcipatlng tenant under Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights
Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, Callfornia.
Thank you for your attentlon to this ~atter.
Sincerely,
..---- ./ j". J t7+--,
", .1 J '" f ' , ' " . J~ ~
~'vIJ'1:..r.~"'V oJ' ",. .
//
Sudn 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 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 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 C10verfield Blvd., dated
1/22/9"1.
PC/clvrf1d
SW
OS/21/91
- 2 -
City Planning Dlvls;on
(213) 458-8341
lY
.~ \.
\..I
MiONI.CA
1685 Main Street. P 0 BOl( 2200
Santa MOnica CA 90407.2200
May 21, 1991
Terisa Gomez
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. #5
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Supject: Tenant-Partic~pating Conversion Case TPC-1SO, Vesting
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 condomlniums 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 Pongputmong, had not properly obtained
tenant signat.ures 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 staff determine
whether you had been properly notified of your rights under
TQRCA, whether any signatures were obtained either through
misrepresentation or coercion; and whether you were offered money
for signinq either the "Tenant Aqree!lJ.ent to Conversion" or
I1Tenant Intent to Purchasetl 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
writinq, within 10 days of this letter.
- 1 -
All co~~espo~de~ce s~o~ld be addressed to:
City of Santa Monica
Planning and Zoning Division
1685 Ma1n street, Room #212
Santa Mon1ca, CA 90401
Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150
Please call me at. 2:3 458-8341 if you have any questions or
concerns regarding the Tenant-Participating Conversion
appl~cation for 2021 Cloverfield Bl. (TPC-1S0) and your rights as
a participating tenant under Article XX - Tenar.t Ownership Rights
Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California.
Thank you for your attentlon to th~s matter.
Sincerely, J"
?vf1t:v Ci c~J;-;
Susan Wh~te
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 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
- 2 -
SANTA
Op
M~ONliCA
City Plarnlng DIVISion
(213) 458-8341
1685 Main Street. POBox 2200
Santa MOnica. CA 90407 -2200
May 21, 1991
Gary Lee Myer
2021 C10verfield Blvd., Apt. ~6
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Tenant-Particlpating Conversion Case TPC-150 I Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Mr. Myer:
On May" 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight
apartment units to condOmlniu1t1s 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 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 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 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 ln 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 -
All cor=espc~de~~e s~=~lj be add=essed ~c:
city of Santa Mon1ca
Plann1ng and Zon1nq Division
1685 Main street, Room #212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attn: Susan Wh1te, Assistant Planner, TPC 150
Please ca:'l. :-e at 213 458-8341 lf you have any questlons or
concerr.s regard~rg ~~e Tenant-Participating Converslon
application for 2021 Cloverf~eld Bl. (TPC-150) and your rights as
a par~iClpating tenant ~rder Artlc1e XX - Tenant Ownership Rights
A~end~ent to the Charter of the C~ty of Santa Monica, California.
Thank you for your a~tentlon to th~s matter.
Sincerely,
~ \'vr~~~ l'l ~~~
.J
Susan White
ASslstant 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, Calitornia
B. Tenant Information Sheet (TORCA)
C. Notice of Intent to Convert, 2021 Cloverfield 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/clvrtld
sw
OS/21/91
- 2 -
SANTA
o~
MONICA.
\. I' : .
\ . \ ! : - ~
City Planning DIVIS10r.
(2' 3) 458-8341
, 685 Main Street, POBox. 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
May 21, 1991
Christina Gerona
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. #.7
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Te:1ant.-Participat.~ng Conversion Case TPc-1S0, vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 C10verfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. Gerona:
On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight
apartment units to condo!'\in~ums 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 appl~cant, Sun~sa Pongputmong, had not properly obtained
tenant signatures on the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" and
"Tenant Intent to Purchase" torms and that tenants were not fully
apprised of the~r r~ghts under TORCA. As part of the TORCA
conversion process, you were required to be inforl'll.ed 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 carefully and notify
us of any missing, inaccurate or incorrect information included
in the enclosed applicat1on. Additionally, if you have any
reason to bel~eve 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.
- 1 -
All correspo~de~ce s~o~l~ ce addressed ~o:
City of Santa Monica
Plann~ng and Zon~ng Division
1685 Main street, Room #212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150
Please ca:.l :""e at 213 438-8341 .:..f you :"ave any questions or
concerns regard.:..r.g the ~erant-Part~clpatlng Conversion
applicatlon for 2021 C:overf~eld Bl. (TPC-150) and your r~ghts as
a particlpatlng te~an~ under Ar~lcle XX - Tenant ownersh.:..p Rights
Ame~dment to t~e C~arter of t~e Clty of Santa Monlca, Cal~fornia.
Thank you for your attent.:..on to th~s matter.
Sincerely, ".
~~~~~ It ~t~
s~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 Informatlon 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,
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 Inspectlon Report, 2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated
1/22/91.
PC/clvrfld
Sw
OS/21/91
- 2 -
'ly
--\.
"""
SANTA
M:ONI:CA
City Plaf"lnlng DIVISion
(213) 458-8341
1685 Mam Street. POBox 2200
Sama MonIca. CA 90407 -2200
May 21, 1991
Laura Snyder
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., Apt. ~8
~anta Mon~ca, CA 90404
Subj ect: Tenant-Pa~ticlpating Conversion Case TPC-1S0, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. Snyder:
On May 1st, 1991, the TORCA application for conversion of eight
apartment units to condominiums at 2021 Cloverfield Blvd. came
before the Santa Monlca Planning commission. Several tenants of
2021 Cloverf ield 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, 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 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 requestinq that you respond to us, in
writing, within 10 days of this letter.
- 1 -
All correspo~dence s~o~l1 ~e addressed ~o:
city of Santa Monica
Planning and Zoning Division
1685 Main street, Room #212
Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401
Attn: Susan White, Assistant Planner, TPC 150
Please cal:. :"'e 3.t 213 458-8341 if you have any q'.lestions or
concerns regarding ~r.e Tenan~-?articipatlng Conversion
application for 2021 C:over:le:d B1. (TPC-1SO) and your rights as
a participat:ng ~enar~ u~der Article XX - Tenant ownershlp Rights
Amendment to the Charter of the Clty of Santa Monica, Callfornia.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, . ,.. _ J~
~,+t""'" ~d~-{=-
Susan White
Assistant Planner
cc: Lydia Acosta,
Neighborhood Support Center
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney
Attachments:
A. Article XX - Te~ant 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 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
- 2 -
SANTA
MONICA
City Plannmg DIVISion
(213) 458-8341
'685 Mam 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. 150, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. wilson:
On May 21, 1991, a letter requestinq your written response
regarding the Tenant-Participating Conversion C~S~ for 2021
C1overfie1d 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 Cloverfield B1. (TPC-1SO). We are requesting that you
respond within 10 days of receipt of this l~tter. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~, f /1-=-1
XVW'~ vvt~1J
suUn White
Assistant Planner
cc: Lydia Acosta,
Neighborhood support Center
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney
- 1 -
,
I
CIty Plannmg O,..Jlslon
(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 21, 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 letter. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
sincerely, . ~
c::: t v; v\.vv- [1J~~
s"an White
Assistant Planner
cc: Lydia Acosta,
Neighborhood support Center
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy city Attorney
- 1 -
~
-
City Planning DIvIsion
(213) 458-8341
1685 Main Street, POBox 2200
Santa MonIca, CA 90407-2200
June 24, 1991
Terisa Gomez
2021 Cloverfield., Apt. #5
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Tenant-Participating conversion Case No. 150, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. Gomez:
On May 21, 1991, a letter requesting your written response
regarding the Tenant-participating Conversion Ca~e tor 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 C10verfield Bl. (TPC-150).
respond within 10 days of receipt
your attention to this matter.
Conversion application for
We are requesting that yeu
of this letter. Thank you for
Sincerely,
?lMfw.v {~
Susan White
Assistant Planner
cc: Lydia Acosta,
Neighborhood Support Center
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney
- 1 -
--
SANTA
MONIICA
City Planning DIvIsIon
(213) 458-8341
1685 MaIO Street, P.O. Box 2200
Santa MonIca, CA 90407-2200
June 24, 1991
Soffy Shihata
2021 Cloverfield., Apt. #2
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Subject: Tenant-Participatinq Conversion Case No. 150, Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Mr. Shihata:
On May ~1, 1991, a letter requesting your writter. 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 letter. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~ (;Jt:b
Susan white
Assistant Planner
cc: Lydia Acosta,
Neighborhood Support Center
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy city Attorney
- 1 -
,
--
.....
pi-A^, f t-o /II
1tec;.~I\I~ D
(p 13/"1 )~
~
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 questions or
concerns regarding the Tenant-Participating Conversion
application for 2021 Cloverfield Bl. (TPC-150) and your rights as
a participating tenant under Article XX - Tenant Ownership Rights
Amendment to the Charter of the City of Santa Monica, California.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, /7 _ f
0_:'vtk1v'~t. ({~[{,~
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 150,
2021 Cloverfield Blvd., dated 2/6/91. _.l
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 C1overfl.eld Blvd., dated
1/22/91.
PC/clvrfld
sw -
OS/21/91
T. V(~ l-\ oilt- ~~ 1I.pi-;l.. I 1.l;Cf'~"'- +~~ ~ C.tu~;1l<
Cf,AnJL cl...ec.e:~~~ I r o.~ W~.~~ -l-k.JL ~~)~ L\..
T' he.. ~ l.m- \. ~ JJ... ~ ~ l..: Q.M.. L.. v.. y -~ c& } "'-e... L> 1.0\. ~ l. .
- 2 -
v(~ L\~k.
~\ t ~ l G l
~
....
....
oJ, T Y C;: (. - 1
C::J :..
,;. -.. - .
~- - 2021, Cloverfield Blvd. #3
Santa Monica, Ca 90404
"91 JJJ~ -6 P4 :21une 3rd 1991
Susan wnlte
Clty Plannlng Divlslon
City of Santa Monlca
1685 Main Street
P.O. Box 2200
Santa Monica, Ca 90407 - 2200
Dear Ms. v..'hlte:
After readlng the lnformatlon sent to me by your office, I would llke to resclnd
my slgnature of Intent to Purchase. I would l1ke to afflrm my slgnature of
agreement to convert, but as I see no posslble way that I would elther want, or
be able to purchase unlt #3 I see no pOlnt to Slgnlng an lntent to do so.
My slgnature for the conversion should remain valld, but please rescind my Intent to
Purchase slgnature effectlve as of the above date.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
~
S. Dlanne Bubb
Tenant Unit #3
2021, Cloverfleld Blvd.
Santa Monica, Ca 90404
cc Suniga Pongputmong - owner
---
9~ II (71 /
'91 JUl -8 P4 '39
fd/1C( A tUdSi/r1 -Ibt::d~
OUJ;;Z I {!/ ()L/VJfJuLcfl 61 uI ff tt
~h ()~( Ca, ~OY05
., TV nr- -
~.[ ':- - !~.Jrll'''ol
__. 1....., _ _ ~ . ..
CITY J,'-' -
:lea./t) fJ7s t{)/~
d1~ /..t;f-f<y c-o /lL~ C/Lt ~
(f~~. e.:~ ~ fbv.W---e
~ t~ C/JL,j U-/JWL <J ,~.
1../ ~Jt-.dd LJ,~ c/-v (y~~ :a
{J-L (/~ dA-u-.% C/t~ tL-v;;f
U;~f~1C1$ 0tL~ U ~ /~ZJ- {)-/'-e
uJL{ff-/? I
~ (Ji':'1. ~ ~Af . ~
'fvt4'J (jJ~ vT}1~ JAJ~ rY
tJc&~ OtG{ dJ ~ bj 6tte ~~
cy.J- ...QAL(,~ ~-at-~U-O ~l 0tJA.1.Jk'd- c/-o
C,./~"-":J 1
vLtJ..e t2A-t aY.~' ~-~~ t1l-- {~
/yjt{ /hW ())6~ ~~ 11/ 'ff-gOtl.oi)
~j~ hLVu, . ~~
r~ rlA. Jt~. nl.-i' ()~ 'i1_v.vL
cf~ WWa./s CvuI ~&~d~,
Jlv.:, (r.u0 I2AvI fwu ;..-W~jL_/~
()LJ, PW'- ~ Wd{ {l/L(.ti1u:t ~...,_!'/
cI ,. 'j A-I '" /J /1 ~o(
e-t~ O-x..oI ~/J-u..L~~ I>/--
~~ vJv ~~ W/LW ~(.f
~ V (jLd/rYL(~l- 18(0.../ '/--() ~) L/;cJ-o
14.1 y./~ C;-ILWt ;u -yJLt!./ ~v\.0 r.;....A..J: tJ{..v
rrCr hu... jU ct. \/ ~ fi11~ t~ OI:.btUl,(./1..,t
rJ I. .. _" ~' Ii. I'.L ..,. /"J) {J-eIz...L.J..
~ I "* -,.......".......,.., t..^/ '- - a
~L~/M-~
~ J)/'f~ ~ C#-<- ~I
~ ~'k-
~ /j.!u~-~
,.
From the desk of
6 -a7-U.
@
--
Cl j Y CF - ~ -! ",~ -'
/Ylr- lvh;t.. J CF':' ~ Gary Lee Myers
Wh4rJ pedj}UJ. p14iJ)~"h ~ 6lll-/d/'rJ~{ /,/
S~r* /I10/'l/()j I fh~1 do~t. <(ivA,-/. vr- R.(rJ1-
<-~~t("6' - ~"..Jr c...o",Trbt I.r ~~l:)'fO(~ \J c.. o.-t~\~,~
b w" . "'1 -r.. 't\...... \"'I:)wt....-c 'f\'\ '" ~~ \..... L \. 6,)./ ·
w\.A (1\s ~b~'\ \5 ab;N'\. $.: ~?~\ ~ ~\\.4~~~~
\D \f c.. rt" ~ Uo,-^, Q \. ",\'\ f'J '\ c r-1 ~... D ~ \.... ~ S" ~ ~~\"\}\
S~~-\-=-t'^\~ \-'~~ c&~Mf+-~f'J~ h~--t
~ ~'- \... -e... \~ ru-~ L"" ~~ \ S\t...- '" " 5" -t\..,. t.~
~ \p'\~ \\o~~'\. c.,,~ -:x: k."v\\..- DJlv~tl~.
So..~-t..... \'1\'D~'"(.,~ \> S\.b\....)~ l.~-eLt::.~;r-\ v..<-~~
\_0'< -\\-.. t,u,..,. "\\.... \,!\,U'-"- ...."l.. ~\,>.., I'\~\-\.
Co. \;..H (A(" ~-......\ ,.:0("(..(.,6. c~~ \N ?C:lf'J\ -:r
\o-t.\..tt'\."" ~\jo ~~..... CJ~ ~ \-" "\.~\.I) \~ 1\..~ t\ '\te\\.~ 1..
\>\~~~"'- c...o~ -to c'v..r 1\1.~. "-
-:I: ~ Ur..t"\..C\ ~ ~Cl ~ "" "\ L,. ~ (, \
o HELPING Y~L~~
-- I~
,
PO Box 2' i] 5alila't!Oflica CA 904{j6 . 8DO-262 4]J1 . 21J 3Qj 3221 . FAX J'J~ .j-CJ R~'(-
... l:.J "" "oJUI
~
~~
12- .~
~
L~ .: ~:...
b~d1.'1\
~ w\..~~\
"1:\~~~~: :~,~;.k1~4-\- f\j ~""l~
o.s. ~IObtl~~ ~'-J. ~~........ ~'f'f'-r-""
'\.,.a ~'\~J?-l~ pj~~" -:L1f-'\
N c~ c....... rt (,.,\w-J CJ~ c..~ ~~~
c::a\ ~\~ <..\,", ~.
\kr'l... {\\~.rr 1\SS'-\nA\" 'n~.$
t'-.J;t ~t..~rl a.,..a ~\t9..f't..~ h
, \ "" t., 'f t"> -\- l).. \.. c:. '" '-.. ""\- ~
-t"-r'" r....k ~ · t S \). <.. ~ 0-...
S \. r \ ~ u.. s l). IV c,\ \. " T:\. l( i '\
As f\ tur-c..f\ CCf\<V~rSt'('N.
~'<O.
~~
/Y\A. J
v \ t \1.....1"""
-
~
~
~
L- ~,~
From the desk of
Gary Lee Myers
~ Plt'~blrf w.rk t.J4J r..(<~+t, C ''''y>ltk4; fl"~
~1 Si1fJ'1^ foJ/fiurA fdr Ior( J1. CbrJlJ(r,{J"orJ
T.. (<;l.!'" '!11"1 J"'1~" b"~II~ irJr.ri Ir Rlt....t'"v.
@ Th... tlNO fHpl> " fAPIIH(J f/,qf.. diJ,.,'HiW
ha. 0... 6'(QIr' ft. (c.-A tJ. d Iv;t{, C vi Gf;d r,iJ af'J-.t
For f\ dr ArJ lfL~,.
() LJt,. ~1'J trNo"; sfl.{ lIFI'(li,ll~ VJ4{ t{JyJ
'1~;rI.rl- It! LvJf~j blt 6, 1- Z Cd,.J{ "";1"'1
{ u 1- G+ / dr1. 7lu. c, tr/Ib r ftI f { j, 4 of 'tv I ',.vf.r, Vfri
or /1f;.fOrJj f,J6ta 101 h,,~ 4itf~J'~te~ /t
. @ (fI.l AI ~,.~ P~l1Ji j14 S 0 rJ/) I d 'j ~ Gh "l/L f -fr, .
fNt... '5(,(( hi1~ r(..t [-rutl] thd /I f>>J4/Oj
cJ f t~ fttllf rt.f lv.l/ / 6t f4r< 1: d.. fa Lc ~ v,- d,,-
b ct d V, (, t~.{,
HElPfNG YOU. HElPfNG CHILDREN
. .
(,- .J7-~{
@
--- lie
I I
-, r'6 - anO '62 ~347. 213395-3221 - FAX 213-]946011
PO 80)( 2173 Sanra l"'!Ofllca Ci1 904v "C
~
~ l~
~
~
L- _.~
From the desk of
~,^lt:1!-co '.~7-91 ' <9
.
CITY Ot Gb.~' M
0...... efT':' p af'i L.ee yers
fJL'W~t
r b...I.e,,^- thQ. + if 0.. fA.r D~t~ ~\.'Cllh' ftif~ wOoS
dove OA) wh1 flu... P .ur}.... (rr.N...,h) of ~6;}.1 clO\Jl(f.dd
S'J1Nfc( 4 t'CIlI'* fD.rtu'fd1;'N1 Q.1r-<''ffrl-tr1 fir (,"'vetS;,))
rhN1 iHu~f wil~1d b~ 6r'l..a,tr fo L;~ht.
@~.rhQF .NJ~ J T.,,,.,,-t- c...ld f.u;bl\ h.c,", 7L.
F,rJft,Jl:! ~t.r~ir<J t-tJ ~1I~,J M,ldtr,t(\ C<<Hd,,'~tr
FUf'h'of(d"~N1 I rI f LcNhl.l.-rJ1 f-I,. 'f ,', UI'1/ t.
g) (Vli!j-,Jf.tf'rJ4T;d,J tAl"d rr1ck:'1 o.r'l VtJ", diJf:Alc+
PbJS ;6: j:t .. tJ Lt.f ,J.. fa O'fdN $11",,,~rts.
(J) X'fl1 LtJ. r" b'th;!j.c fA!;lr.f h~f..u.. b-r'frJ ire.N-tcd
~ ~oJ..t ft.",+- S iflV<4 . Oh.t... C}"v ~x 4.f1p/-c ;j !oJII~
lA",.JI'j.) "'It ~J)'l..Jtl f{J (i'''} 19.1 .A19J1 A.r ]C4rJ ,~N
11 f~ rk:':1 <5r(,~. Ofi..,., ~fU~ 6"t.'fN f.J.~ttf.NcJ. w,''f~
+6 L.lI ""'1 'f eVt,.J 4 fr".~ i~,l./ iN fit/r s: i- a.~rJ iJ..
fff.~ 7"t6f&./'f) f'rk.f 0,.1"1'1- :rf,.'t~t. t' ~
HELPING YOU - HELPING CHILDREN
-- ~
,
PO Bo;x; 2113 Sanla Moruca ell 90406 · 800-2624341. 213-395-322; . FAX 213-]94-6017
~
~ :7
~
~
~"C: \ s;o
: i
__~_u____~__u___ :_______~ ~&~~__
II
, !
--~--~---------- _ _ ~~--- --- -----------~---- ....------.-- ~---- -----
I
I
I
--~~ --+--- -- --------- --------------- ~ ---
-:: 'l""1
--------- '~-::~~ : ~-~ ~- --- ------- -
Cu ; 0\
-~- . -1 : i-~
!
;~ :r ~
_ ____~,._:._ I I I
<:. -,; !
V-, ~ : . [ ~ ,..
t.L -- ; =s
- --- --au... -+-
>-"1-- _
_1-- 0\
- --- ;::;0 . -"- - -
~;1YC;=' ~_':#rl~
C!T''t' :-'~:
'91 JUN -4 ?5 :C4
Laura F. Snyder
2021 Cloverfle1d BI. #8
Santa Monlca, CA 90404
June 1, 1991
CITY OF SA~TA MOXICA
PlannIng and ZonIng Dlvls10n
1685 lla1n Street, Room 212
Santa Mon1ca, CA 90401
RE:Tenant Part1c1pat1ng
ConverS1on Case TPC-ISO
Vest1ng Tenat1ve Tract
i.'50590
2021 Cloverfl216 'Iv"';.
Attent10n Susan Wh1te,Ass1stant Planner
TPC 150
Rece1ved your booklet on ARTICLE XX-TE~~AKT OwXERSHIP RIGHTS
A~l~JDr;~T, REGARDIXG rental apartment converSIon to condomln1ums.
Afte~ readIng the lnfor~atlon and careful thought, I real1zed
that persons In #2 and #5 felt that certaIn tenants had SIgned,
wlthout full knowledge, the converSIon for~.
BeIng a hIgh school and bus1ness college graduate, I fully
understand the lnfor~atlon regardIng apartment converSIon to
condom1n1ums and the forms.
In no way have I ~een coerced. frIghtened, mISInformed, threatened,
prom1sed anythIng, or pa1d to SIgn the converSIon agreement form
aga1nst ~y C1VII r1gnts by the owner of thIS bUIldIng.
I, the underSIgned. Laura F. Snyder, SIgned the converSIOn
agreement forn of ny own free WIll and I~ full knowledge of
my rIghts as a tenant.
SIncerely,
I'a.U/ZA- ;Z _ /~<-I C-C.h_--
0(. /' .~~" /
Laura F. Snyder
,-" "
,~~.~~._A ~ '" MONICA
~\.J"" ~
F ~~'Ul> ..... Ie
rom the desk of (. I F_O~ ~ /
Y SUSAN M. WHITE
l / -r -, / II I~ J
NO I e 10 pf LA::3 ::
--
/73,(t3-5/t- 60 Me z .J ,-& tv'AtlT
o FUN I -r tJ=. c; z.o Z I
)
C (, 0 1/ elZP f JE[ L-D 8 t..-- V' D
)
f<.e:c6f\)6D ,/zl!eil f (P/,-1/<:;1
(7A-r(3l? L-6-rre::t<.5 ~((o M
,
P irAN f -z-otJ. l/I'; . 15 vr DOE: S
t-fo[' ;:<-r;:S!3C1NP H13te /tGKf=E:-
tv113N-r ro CONv'~reSION OK:.
-tf'./.,.-e. N" To P sit<! CH- A-8 E? Po"e t<1
~
1J/6 j/ ;t/rJre..~5 '
-'DKI-f<ill -
._.y~~Mt~,}~
-
I H . ,:o,;~ ,oAT'7 /; /""" . - ,y I
. 0' 0' ';j~~, ffAM 0-./; "o"j,o~ ,/,2-,,30 "':
! N , ~- -.- fi:~ g;l.? -fS/0'2 ~ i
i: i ~~ )-O~( C~.~' ~{L~iCK"" I
'E: i! {lJ."f- S ,AO.2-{J
M ; G . r IU;J 0 - ' -... u"
O:Ej _ / ~~-~ ~" .L
; P~CNE.:::;--t : CAL_ I' P-T I I S'GNE ,7.;, >'
I ~ I SACK I i ~L:PNE) ;:J " ~';~35 TO ii I oN'LL CALc '7" / ~
. JU ~ AGAI.. JL , ,'>iAS ,N C URGENT ~
L -- -.-~ - '
"~
L~.. :~-
"K
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: 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 7/1/91), 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 150, that a finding
of coercion or fraud must be made.
with the retraction of the letter claiming coercion of the tenant
of unit *4, and in that now the application meets the require-
ments of Article 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 approved with the following findings and conditions:
Tenant-Participating Conversion Findings
1. This Tenant-Participating Conversion Application IDeets 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 -
(, ! 1-'" -', I J. i' \ '
........... ~ : ~ i__ L.I_ I r~L. J___ --
A: iT A;Ctt \""'1 E NI \::..
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 wh~ch 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 minimum
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:
I} 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 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 identified in the building in-
spection report regarding the unit and the common
- 2 -
(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 2/6/91, not less than forty (40)
days prior to the filing of the application for the
tentative subdivision 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.
Tentative Map Findings
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its prov~s~ons 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 condominium project
has received, pursuant to Government Code section 66452.9,
written notification of intention to convert at least 60
days prior to the filing of the tentative map pursuant to
Section 66452. Each such tenant, and each person applying
for the rental of a unit in such residential real proper-
ty, has, or will have, received all applicable notices and
- 4 -
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, Ijwe, as
owner ( s) 0 f 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
(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 -
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. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project
has been, or will be, given written notification within 10
days of approval of a final map for the proposed
conversion.
6. Each of the tenants of the proposed 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 project
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 required final parcel/subdivision map
- 5 -
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 adj usted 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 wi thin 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.
- 6 -
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
citizens 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 relat~ve 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 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
- 7 -
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
building's 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 City Treasurer on each Tenant-
Participating Conversion unit in an amount equal to twelve
(12) times the monthly maximum allowable rent for the unit
at the time the tax is due and payable. If there is no
monthly maximum allowable rent, the tax shall be computed
on the basis of the 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 -
9. The Decla-ration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restric-
tions, or equivalent document, shall contain a non-
discrimination clause in sUbstantially the fallowing form:
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
unit
1
2
3
4
5
"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."
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.
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.
The applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth
in Government code Section 66427.1, including notification
of tenants regarding appl ication 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
- 9 -
6 Gary Lee Myers
7 Christina Gerona
8 Laura Froehlich
Prepared by: Susan White, Assistant Planner
Attachment
pc/ewh
sw
- 10 -
8D
- - v
... -
to
.. .
Sunisa Pongputmons
1025 Idaho Ave. "r.#l _, _
Santa Monlca, Ca 9e'403 ,-_"'C' - ';j
SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION
C/O Ms. Susan Whlte
Santa Monlca Clty PlannIng Dlvlslon
1685 Maln street, P.O. Box 2200
Santa Monlca, Ca., 90407-2200
August 26, 1991
SubJect: Tenant PartIcipatIng ConverSIon Case TPC-15Q,
VestIng TentatIve Tract 50590, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
Dear Ms. WhIte,
On May I, 1991, my Tenant ConverSIon ApplIcatIon as stated
above ~as before the Plannlng CommiSSIon. At that hearIng none of
the tenants ~ho sIgned the "Tenant Agreement to Conversion" form
appeared to protest the matter, however, two persons from unIts
on the 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 misrepresentatlon or coerCIon to obtain 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 while
an investIgatlon was conducted by the Planning DlVISion.
On or about August 22, 1991 I receIved notice from the
Plannlng Divlsion that a new Staff report was belng prepared and
that the matter would be heard agaIn on september 4, 1991. I am
hereby requestIng that upcomIng Staff Memorandum address the
Issue of the tImellness of any action the CommIssion mIght take
on September 4, 1991. I belIeve that my applIcatIon should be
deemed granted as a matter of law due to the fallure of the
Commlssion to take action within the tlme llmlts set by ArtIcle
XX Section 2003(d) of the CIty Charter (the "TORCA Amendment")
and Sectlon 9361 of the Santa Monica MunIcIpal Code.
According to the two Sections of law stated above, the
Commlssion had flfty (50) days from the date my tentatlve
subdiviSion map vas accepted for filing to schedule a hearing on
the matter and process my applicatIon. My tentatIve subdIVISion
map was accepted for filIng on March 27, 1991 and the matter was
fIrst heard on May 1, 1991, therefore the latest dates that the
matter could have been deCIded was either May 16 or June 21, 1991
respectlvely dependIng upon whether one calculates from the date
of fIling set forth by Ordinance and Charter or the follows the
practlces of the Planning Commission WhICh calculates tlme from
the first date of hearing rather than the date of flllng.
-1-
(~) {\I C."cLUt(JL-
.A TIACrtt-1E.Nl" F
9t>
Whether the date of deciSion as required by law was May 16
or June 21 1991, there is no conceivable way that the CommISSion
can render a tImely decision on September 4, 1991. Therefore my
Application should be approved pursuant to Section 2003 (e) of
the Charter whIch provIdes that "Any Tenant ParticIpatIng
ConverSion ApplicatIon shall ae deemed approved subJect to the
conditions set forth in Section 2004 of thIS Article If it is not
approved or denIed withIn the time perIod requIred by this
Section." (Emphasis added). Where a city plannIng commiSSion
falls to render a deCISIon wIthin the time limIts granted by the
law, and where the law specifies that the remedy for failure to
comply 15 granting of the applicatIon, that remedy must be
followed as a matter of law. See Palmer v. City of OJal, (1986)
173 Cal. App. 3d 280, 223 Cal. Rptr. 542.
I am hereby requesting that the upcoming staff Report
address thiS issue, and that the Commission take the follOWing
actions at the publIC hearIng of September 4, 1991.
First, I am requestIng that the issue of time11ness be
addressed before any eVIdence or publIC comment IS taken on the
matter. If the Commiss10n rules that the Application should be
granted as a matter of law, then no further eVidence or publiC
comment ?hould be allo~ed.
Second, I am requesting that the untimely responses of Gary
Lee Meyers (Unit 6) and Edna Wilson Hoesch (Unlt 4) not be
considered in any event. The documents on fIle in th1S case
reveal the only wrItten Opposition to my applIcation whIch claim
coerClon were filed after the deadlIne to deCide my case had
passed. On May 21,1991 the PlannIng Divls10n malled a letter to
the tenants giVing the them ten days to respond. On June 24, 1991
a 3econd letter was maIled giVing the tenants an additiopal
opportunity to respond. Finally, the Planning DiViSion telephoned
non-respondIng tenants on or about July 11, 1991 to fInd out why
they had not responded. My application should have been decided
on May 16, 1991 and therefore all of the letters were sent and
responses were received after the deadlIne for deCiSion.
In the event that the CommiSSIon elects to take eVidence on
the matter, I Will be forced to impeach -the cr ed i b i 11 ty of Edna
Wilson Hoesch if she attempts to substantIate the libelous claims
made about me 1n her letter dated July I, 1991 (stamped July 8).
I am therefore requesting that if the CommISSIon deCIdes to
conSider these writ1ngs, that I have the oppurtunity to cross
examIne Witnesses. It then be made clear that it IS my refusal to
partiCipate in a fraud and not my Willingness to do so ~hich has
caused these false claims to be made against me.
Sincerely,---;)
~J,--T
Sunlsa pongputm~g
-2-
bD
/Z): :5i1~tflJ t<j~~ :?)~--9/:
-::f>f__//lJ'l' 6/)V/f tf'//r.,;5dl0 - /fOc5(!H
!Zt: !()~tJ/l fJ1'f?N'{!./-mtf,v :ft'll-I 2c:J2/ C{'(}(/BZr/~ZO /~D/j)
$0 1~/d)/l5 U~'-'
PM/Z /J7-S j/J #716 :
J tl/~U '-'fJ ILl KC 1D ,e t?172/I-C-~ /l7;/
.?/U!l//())(f ~ /t%c7mU)/A.1f, fJ1'i 51tiIV/f1ZIU-
/lt1;zee/Nih JZ) /21}ze-fr #NO /l~tf~d6/e/ r-zJL
1;, 7<:-t?~ /)JS&6~ /JJY /!~tft/&-5/ 7tJ
f.j /7JrC/!P}ui //?1.1 5-'6N/-f3?4U ~R/)n 77-/6??.et2A..
t/f.-/Jj.j{/J770''u; f //0 /f-6/t'ee TO mG ~
(XJVttL9Jrt ~7;J ff./tf2((/J .L/U ~y 5jL-pf./l!flt;&c
'(z6:1 /1/ ~77ffUJ ,/
:r kfi~O'lb fJlG, ?.eevlc7<.] ~ /3EC/ftt'J&
tJ F ,,"7 r.f7?/C /)115;::1V~tJJuJ1A--!l~::; eec&r o?5ZJ ~
CFi1iC4../ -~~ ~,o ,a- /llr5f./!J,OGtc.silrfIlIc;>/^A
(/f //l Y' IZ-r6fr15 /'TVIJ ~5Pe,IIJ-S/ 6/ ~ /~es..,. ~
(!~l/&luj(/v~ ~71f//Vt7 /fN'O Ger?,;J-/; ,rrPPI77&U/'1L-
~ ,It rt7L/JI.fin{;N ::E ;e~~ 7C)::-c'#- /5;AI /h '-/
/7:7C-:5T ~rS MJ.t7 ~~~ ./(/{)
},jf}1l6b7U W/:5J!..r m ~t6 mY' 5(C;V-H7~
/26Jhor&O .
,J-Af /11 Y tE-~.7 tJ1G7tf77ot1/CLJ <-/-- NIf5
;Zw7P7iNlJ -I- c..-rrJd $u "r /2tx7 ~/A.A'S ol/e~/lV~r
{/f? ~ 7}l-is /5 NO Aj7/VhtY.vL /'1'-7U
:;/5"$U&, ~ ~DAu7?-O (v~y /:JC/Lt?) 1'f7U/J
-c fI:;t/'V?; ~ t:fiJ 77/-e /J? fSa,IVO~S7fi7{fOt'N-c:) ....
if 2)/ ZJ /U{)r -7--/lJt./OIL.t/b /Ce1t-IT ,bid' /lPPt' 7?C;<..//,JL
fJUldlAIDj S- () 707 /VCI r/~/N{7 IT L-/fIf/(;tttf:
/fbMiJ :r;A'M 6li7Ui ~/V ffJJi
()C1V?lt:,/1J7J my JNf1f#'L, ~ /Ilffl( p-;4VC
[-'/J11,~O I jJ LarJC ~ Ikx~ m6 ~~ G
C l ~'I I: G.) \'1L-1l- ATTAC-rlt-1t:::-NT
/ft7 /71 cf -:T/ /V'h ~/)f e:vr- o;>t/
771/3. d-~ C4th7e12-)
/ mft- Vat
-{~~/{, ~~- /ltWr-e!-~
.
SANTp~
MON.leA
City Planning DIVISion
(213) 458-8341
March 27, 1991
1585 Main Street
Santa k.onlca. CA 90401-3295
Sunisa Ponqputmonq
1025 Idaho Avenue #1
Santa Monica, Calitornia 90404
Subject: TPC 150
Dear Ms. ponqputmonq:
Your preli~inary submittal ot a tentative subdivision map, along
with accompanying data and reports, for property located at
2021 Clovertield Blvd. has been reviewed for coapletan... in
conformance to Sections 9321-9322 (SMMC) and has be.n:
~ Accepted tor filing.
~ejected tor tiling.
For applications rejectec. for :fil1nq, the tollol!inq 1tems ~~a'.;02
been found ai.sing or inadequate, and must be submitted,
completed and/or corrected, aa appropriate, before processing ot
your application may proceed.
Note: While an applica.':ion may be tound complete and accerr.ed. tor
filing, per Section 9J22 (b) SMMC, the various time li.,L~. set
forth in the Subdivision ordinance ahall not be deemed to
commence until the subdivision is found exempt or an initial
study is completed and a neqative declaration or environmental
impact report, as a~ropriate, i. prepared, processed and.
considered in accordance with the California Environ.ental
Quality Act. This project haa be.n found exempt. tro. CEQA. ".
Please contact thia attice for details or clarification.
Slnc.relY'~
~:tte
Assistant Planner
hp/d202l
03/27/91
- 1 -
('\:kl eCH rIG\L-
'-
ATTAc-tt"N&I\ rl