SR-7-A (54)
\ <-
-, \-;_1.......
~,\ \ '
, '~,,,- "
",'
\
"
~f5 1 ~ A
\)iJ-f..e~ {CJ If - 17' ~
t . fl~~f .
San a Mon~ca, Ca11 orn~a
"'
X\
,\\
, \
\... ;
,>"
LUTM:PB:DKW:SMW:al50.pcword.plan
council Mtg: October 8, 1991
TO:
Mayor and city council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT:
Appeal of a Planning commission denial
Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 to allow
conversion of an eight-unit apartment building
condominiums at 202l Cloverfield Boulevard.
of
the
to
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the Council deny the appeal and
uphold
the
Planning
Commission's
decision
to
deny
Tenant-Participating Conversion 150, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard,
on September 4, 1991. The Planning Commission denied a request
to allow the conversion of an eight-unit apartment building to
condominiums at 202l Cloverfield Boulevard with a finding that
tenant
signatures
were
obtained
through
coercion
and
misrepresentation. The applicant is appealing the decision and
contending that the time limit for approval of the subdivision
map expired prior to the Planning Commissions' decision.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission denied Tenant-Participating Conversion
(TPC) 150, 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard on September 4, 1991 with a
finding that there had been coercion and misrepresentation of
participating tenants (Attachment B).
The application was first heard on May l~_~: At the May
hearing, in response to several participating tenant objections,
- 1 -
~
r.
the Commission requested that staff verify that signatures were
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 D).
The letter requested a
written response within lO days. Responses were received by the
tenants of units #1, 3, 7 and 8. The tenants of units #1, 3 and
7 rescinded their signatures on the tenant intent to
chase
forms.
staff spoke with the tenant of unit #5 0
7/1/ /19 wh;j
---~
signature on
indicated that she did not wish to rescind her
either of the forms. The tenant of unit #8 also did not rescind
her signature on either of the forms.
None of these tenants
claimed
coercion
or
misrepresentation
by
the
applicant
(Attachment D).
In view of the incomplete response and the seriousness of the
matter, a second letter was sent by staff to tenants on June 24,
1991 by regular mail, again requesting a written response within
10 days (Attachment D). Responses were received by the tenants
of units #4 and #6 on 6/27/91 and 7/8/91, respectively
(Attachment D).
These letters were received after phone
- 2 -
conversations wfth 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
covert 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 #l, 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 9/4/9l hearing, the tenant of unit #4
submitted a second letter to staff at the Planning and Zoning
counter in which she stated she wised 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 d~d not specifically retract the previous letter1s
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 l50 be
upheld.
Applicant's Appeal
The applicant is appealing the Planning Commissions' decision to
deny TpC 150 (Attachment A). She contends that the Planning
Commission was required to approve or disapprove the subdivision
map within 50 days of the date the application was deemed
complete (Attachment A). The sUbdivision application was deemed
- 4 -
complete on 3/27/91 (Attachment H}. The application was
continued at the May 1, 1991 hearing pending staff inquiry and no
subsequent hearing date was set. The Commission did not request
an extension of the subdivision deadline from the applicant at
that time.
The applicant contends that responses received by staff from
participating tenants were untimely in relation to the
subdivision action deadline for the tentative map (Attachment A) .
Staff was instructed by the Commission on 5/l/9l to contact each
of the participating tenants to inquire about possible coercion
or misrepresentation by the applicant. As stated previously, two
letters and several phone calls yielded tenant responses from all
of the tenants except that of unit #2.
At the 9/4/91 hearing, the City Attorney's office rendered an
opinion that under the Subdivision Map Act, the application would
only be deemed approved to the extent it complied with the local
law. Therefore, if the Commission found the application did not
comply due to fraud or coercion in obtaining signatures, the
deemed approved provision would not apply.
The applicant also contends that her letter dated 8/26/91 was not
included in the staff memorandum to 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 8, 1991 City Council meeting
for Tenant-Participating Conversion 150 as required per the
Municipal Code. Tenants and property owners within a 300 foot
site radius were notified of these hearings and the city Council
meeting. Additionally, each tenant of 2021 Cloverfield Boulevard
was sent copies of the application and of the staff reports for
the Planning commission hearing as required by Article XX. The
applicant did request that a copy of the staff report for the
September 4, 1991 Planning commission hearing be sent to her.
Unfortunately, through an oversight, the staff report was not
sent to the applicant.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the
applicant's appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision
to deny Tenant-Participating Conversion l50 with the findings
contained in the statement of Official Action dated 9/4/9l.
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/l/91.
D. Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 9/4/91.
- 6 -
t
A
E. Supplemental Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission dated
9/4/9l.
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
09/23/91
- 7 -