SR-041492-7A
LUTM:PB:DKW:DB/tp190cc.pcword2.plan
council Mtg: April 14, 1992
7 ,-A
-;R 1 4 1992
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and city council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tenant
Participating Conversion 190, 1133 15th Street
Applicant: Valery Vekshtein
Appellant: Valery Vekshtein
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City council review the facts and
hear the applicant's testimony regarding the appeal to overturn
the Planning Commission's denial of TPC 190 and TTM 50953 for a
six-unit Tenant-participating Conversion at 1133 15th street.
BACKGROUND
On March 11, 1992, the Planning Commission denied Tenant
Participating Conversion No. 190 and Tentative Tract Map No.
50953 for a six-unit apartment building at 1133 15th Street.
On March 23, 1992, an appeal was filed by the applicant, Valery
Vekshtein.
The applicant/appellant bases the appeal on three
primary arguments.
First, the applicant/appellant argues that
the Commission did not take action on the proposal within 50 days
of the deem complete date of the application, and therefore the
application must be deemed approved pursuant to Government Code
Section 66452.4 (the Subdivision Map Act) and certain sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and Article xx. This argument is based on
- 1 -
7 - --~
APR 1 4 1992
the claim that the Commission's tie 2-2 vote, which resulted in a
technical denial, was equivalent to no action being taken. The
March 11, 1992 date of the Commission I s vote was prior to the
Subdivision Map Act deadline of March 21, 1992.
The City Attorney's office states that the Commission's vote does
in fact constitute an "action" under Subdivision Map Act
guidelines. The Planning Commission voted on a motion for denial
of the application, and the motion received a 2-2 vote. Rule 2
of the planning Commission's Rules of Order states: ". . .Action
granting approval of any substantive matter must be taken by a
majority of four Commissioners voting in favor, and a failure to
so approve results in automatic denial of the pending matter."
There has been no failure to act on the part of the Planning
Commission, and the application is not to be deemed approved
automatically under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
Secondly, the applicant/appellant claims that a mistake made by
the applicant regarding the number of months of tenancy is not a
material mistake and therefore does not justifY denial of the
application. The original application listed the following
participating tenants and lengths of occupancy:
UNIT
1
2
:;
4
PARTICIPATING TENANT
Vekshtein
Movsesian/Sadoiana
Savarovsky
Kogan & Kogan
- 2 -
MONTHS OF OCCUPANCY
48
24
48
48
5
6
Finaman & Finaman
Aliman
48
48
The applicant/appellant now states that the lengths of tenancy
are as follows:
UNIT PARTICIPATING TENANT MONTHS OF OCCUPANCY
1. Vekshtein 35
2 Movsesian/Sadoiana 26-27
3 Savarovsky 34
4 Rogan & Kogan 41
5 Finaman & Finaman 36
6 Aliman 41
By providing utility bills for the subject property, the
applicant/appellant has demonstrated that all of the subj ect
building's occupants resided there for at least 6 months prior to
the filing of the TORCA application, and therefore qualify as
cosigning tenants under Article XX, even if an error was made
regarding their length of tenancy on the "tenant information
sheet II of the TORCA application. Therefore, the
applicant/appellant argues, the error is not material.
The City Attorney states that the misrepresentation as to length
of tenancy is material if the Council finds that it was made
intentionally.
Thirdly, the applicant/appellant argues that the Commission
denied the application, without factual evidence, based on the
finding that Ellis Act evictions had occured at the property
- 3 -
within five years prior to the application. However, based on
statements prior to and after the motion for denial, those
commissioners voting in favor of the motion to deny did not do so
based on a conclusion that an Ellis Act eviction had occurred.
The Commissioners could not make the finding of eviction pursuant
to the Ellis Act because the Rent Control Administration could
not verify that such an eviction took place, as shown in
Attachment B of this report.
The record reveals that Commissioners Gilpin and Nelson voted to
deny the application because of intentional misrepresentations in
the application as to the length of residence at several of the
units. Based upon the evidence before the Commission (the
application, the letter from the applicant's attorney, and the
testimony at the public hearing), Commissioners Gilpin and Nelson
found that the misrepresentations were intentional. They did not
find, nor has staff found, that the length of residency of any of
the cosigning tenants was below the minimum of 6 months required
under the provisions of Article xx.
Commissioners Pyne and Rosenstein indicated that they did not
feel that there was a material or intentional misrepresentation
shown in connection with the application, nor was there factual
evidence presented that there had been Ellis Act evictions.
Based on these conclusions, Commissioners Pyne and Rosenstein
voted against denial.
Additional claims by the applicant/appellant are contained in
Attachment C of this report.
- 4 -
In conclusion, the length of residency in a unit is a material
element of the TORCA process. The apPlication may have contained
an intentional misrepresentation as to that element and therefore
may be fraudulent. Further, it is within the inherent power of a
public agency reviewing an application before it to deny an
application which is fraudulent or contains an intentional
misrepresentation. The denial of the application by the Planning
Commission may be upheld by the Council.
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 review the facts
and hear 'the applicant's testimony. If the Council elects to
deny the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of
TPC 190 and TTM 50953 for a six-unit Tenant-Participating
Conversion at 1133 15th street, it is reconnnended that the
appeal's denial be based on the findings contained herein. If
the Council elects to approve the appeal, the standard findings
and conditions required by Article XX may be made.
FINDINGS
1. Article XX, Section 2004(a) of the City Charter o~-the city
of Santa Monica provides that a Tenant-Participating Conversion
Application, along with any required tentative subdivision map or
tentative parcel map, shall be denied if the Tenant-Participating
- 5 -
Conversion Application fails to meet any of the requirements of
this Article; was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, threat
or similar coercion; or fails to meet any mandatory requirement
of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California.
2. This Tenant-Participating Conversion does not meet the
requirements of Article XX of the City Charter along wi th all
mandatory requirements of the state of California, in that the
application contains an intentional misrepresentation that
applicants Vekshtein, Savarovsky, and Finaman were residents of
units 1, 3, and 5 for 48 months at the time the application was
prepared. A letter from the applicant's attorney indicates that
those units were in fact occupied by Max Difray, Avi Dadoun and
Phil Zukof 48 months prior to the preparation of the application.
3. A witness for the applicants stated during the public hearing
that she jlad lllisread the applicant's writing and that the
applicants were residents of the units for 40 months. Despite
the witness's statements, the letter from the applicant's
attorney reveals that the applicants were not residents for
either the 48 month period reflected in the application or the 40
months which allegedly should have been stated in the
application.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
D~)~mond BUCkley, Assistant Planner
Planninq Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action
- 6 -
B. March 9, 1992 Memo from Rent control Regarding Ellis
Eviction at 1133 15th street
c. Appeal Form and Attachments
DB: db
PC2/tp190cc
,..
...;
- 7 -
~
A r-\^d~/v'f (VI
fr
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: TPC 190, TTM 50953
LOCATION: 1133 15th street
APPLICANT: Valery Vekshtein
CASE PLANNER: Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner
REQUEST:
To convert a 6-unit apartment building to
condominiums.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
3/11/92
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
x
Denial.
other.
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF ACTION(S) IF NOT APPEALED:
3/21/92
3/21/92
TPC 190
TTM 50953
FINDINGS
1. The application was denied automatically for it did not
receive four votes in its favor, pursuant to Rule 2 of the Rules
of Order. (See, Resolution Number 88-001, Planning commission
Series. )
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Gilpin, Nelson
Pyne, Rosenstein
Mechur, Morales, Polhemus
- I -
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under
the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or-
dinance, the 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 accurate-
ly reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of
the City of Santa Monica.
signature
date
Ralph Mechur, Chairperson
Please Print Name and Title
PC2jtpl90sta
DB:bz
- 2 -
f1Tr fr{ /f/hCNT S
MEMO
TO
FROM.
Drummond Buckley, Planmng & Zonmg
CITY O~ !'" ,HI'" AVO""!'''
~ ..)-.~ il ~. l:irV.w
ern' Pl f_t;~. h C'~r~I"S
DATE
RE'
Tony Trendacosta, General Counsel, Rent Control ~rd
March 9, 1992
TORCA Application for property at 1133 15th Street (RCB #62)
In a memo dated February 3, 1992, our office mformed you that the Board
had revoked Its Clearance To Submit a TORCA Application for the above-
referenced property. The basIs of that revocation was fully explained In that
memo, a copy of which is attached for your reference. Also attached are copies
of the Notice of Intent to Withdraw the property under the Ellis Act (with
confidential information deleted), the recorded Notice of Application of
Restrictions, Inspection Reports dated 12/20/88 and 12/13/90, and a letter from
the owners' attorney, Rosano, Perry, dated February 26, 1992.
When the owners filed the Notice of Intent In April 1988, four umts were
occupied by tenants. According to the owners' attorney, all of the tenants left
within nine months thereafter. ThiS corresponds With the Board's Inspection
reports.
The owners' attorney also alleges that none of the tenants left the
property because of the ElliS filing. The Board's staff has attempted to contact
the former tenants. However, It has only been able to locate one of the four.
That tenant did not leave because of the Ellis filing.
Our staff has employed DMV, Voter Registration, and telephone company
records In Its search for the other three tenants, to no avail Therefore, we are
unable either to confirm or to deny Mr. Perry's contention that the tenants left for
reasons unconnected to the Ellis filing.
cc: Paul Berlant, Cesar Bertaud
Ci9' of
Santa Monica
Communrty and EconomIC DevelOpment Department
PIannIIY4 and ZOning D1v111on
(213) 458-8341
APPEAl FORM
Ar-TAct+Me NJ
C---
FEE: $100 00
Dale Filed 3 I L- 3 J Oi. 7-
ReceMKI by D ~
Receipt No
Name V A- Le R. Y \J e \<. s ~"\ C I N
Address I { l?' I .)t L., r {rt.. ~t' r !' It (4
Contact Person R 0 5 4- ~ (0 ye [:t.l' '1' Phone
Please deSOlbe the project and deClSlOf1 t) be appealed T ~ ~ \ 9 0
1133 /S-+~ J ~ {t'C:;;j "b~CA- p..r D Ll (A- natJ.
3 (0 - '5 94- - 92 sl
TTM ~6qr)
~ ~ E"'Ll~_~--v-..C,
I
Case Number
Address 1/33 f~~1., JM"~r S.h,c.......... c,i)cfO.3.
ApplIcant VA ~ R.'1 Vr::; ~>h 7~(tJ
Onglnal heanng date . t1.A;.. Crt II) I CJ q 'Z.-
Onglnal actIOn ,., A fS::. rt II I q q , ( III - tl c "t- III IV ,
J . .
Please state the speetfIc raasoncl) for the appeal
pi!' Ie e .A:tf- Q~ , iPfV'
--------
SptLn
[l~(~~
If aibcxlll ~ . needed. toM t.::Itof IlIrm.
Datt r1~.u.tt ~31 /992-
APPEAL RE: TPC 190 TTM 50953
Appl~eants owners, herelnafter referred to as BTH
appeals from the Plannlng COmr..~ss1on actlon and/or ~nactlon
on the~r TORCA appliea tion to convert a 6 unl t, apartment
bu~ld~ng lnto condor.uniums under the Santa Monlea Charter
k~endment commonly referred to as TORCA,
on the followlng
grou:1ds:
1. ?he Plannln9 Commlss1on
BTH's appl~catlon; therefore} the
passed, and the parcel Map 15 deemed
See Go~. Code S66452.4.
has not yet acted on
50 day deadline has
approved as sub~itted.
App11cant recelved thelr deemed complete letter
on October 29, 1991, and the deemed complete of ltS Tenat~ve
Tract Map 50953 on January 31, 1992.
The subdlvlS10n
deadllne for actlon was March 21, 1992, as lt 15 showr. on
the staff report.
Appl1eant was on the March 11, 1992
meet1ng. At that meet1ng, only 4 members of the Cornm1ss1on
were present. The vote to approve the proJect was two (2)
votes for and two (2) votes to deny.
App11cant's position that the Planning CommlSS1on
took no aetlon is based on the following. A ~otion was made
at the March II, 1992 Plannlng CO~lssion meetlng, to
approve the pro] ect.
The Commlss1on voted 2 to 2 on that
motion. Planning Staff stated that a tie vote amounts to a
denlal of the appl~cat~on. That adv1se was contrary to C~ty
Attorney opinlon to the City Council MemorandUIT. F90-~6
(attached hereto
for
vour
..
reference
as Exhlbl t
" 1 ") .
In
that op1nlon, the C1ty Attorney stated that "we conclude
that on a t1e vote, no C1ty Council action 1S taken. II
Refe~~~ng and cit1ng to Roberts Rules of Order, the op1nlon
::urther stated "1n case of a tie vote ::or or aga1nst a
notion, 'the mot1on 1S not adopted and the sltuatlon remalns
\lr.changed. I II
~ell, what was the s1tuat10n before the Plannlng
Co~mlss1onls vote?
The s1tuat1on was that there was a
penc~ng appllcatlon. No actlon was taken on 1t before, and
no actlon was taken on 1t after the tie vote.
What woulo have happened If the motlon had been
phrased to deny the three story appll.catJ..on? Would a tl.e
vote then have resulted In the approval of the proJect,
Sl.:1ce the motl.on to deny had falled?
Clearly not.
But,
-:.hat 15 the same reason1ng staff used to adv1se the
COmrrL1SSl.O~ at the March 11, 1992 hearing.
In addl.tlon, the S9361 of the City's Zoning Code
requlres the Plannlng Cornmiss1on to either
"approve",
"COndl.t1onally approve", or "deny" the tentat1ve tract map
~il thlr. 50 days.
It does not allow the Plannlng Commisslon
to take no actl.on and hold that at tie vote lS deemed
denled.
(The Planning Cornrnlssion apparently has no Rules of
Order for lts body to follow to state what a tie vote should
be. )
Its-ad hoc decls10n that a tie vote on a motlon to
approve, acts as a denlal lS unsupported by any wrl tten lR\:,
rule or regulatlon; and lS ln dlrect contradlctory to the
above-referenced Cl. ty Attorney opl.nl.on. The Plann1ng
Comnllsslon should have made a motion to deny the proJect
WhlCh, to be effectlve, should have recelved 4 votes.
Agaln, a tle vote would be no action.
The four vote requ1rement 15 dlctated by S9363 Santa
Monl.ca zoning Code entl.tled Denlal. That section requires
the Comm1SSlon to make speclf1c f1ndings, l.f it 1S to deny a
te~t~~~Ve tract map.
In otherwords the COMm1SS10n cannot deny a tentative
tract map unless It oakes one of the specific flndl.ngs set
out the~eln (see also Gov. Code S65589.5). A tl.e vote or a
rnot1on to approve the proJect with 'conditlons, cannot
possl.bly be 1nterpreted to be the COMmission's adopt1on of
one of the SpeCl.f1C f1nd1ngs of S9363 C1 ty Zon1ng code.
Unless the Comrn1sslon adopted one of these specifl.c factors
by a 4 vote margl.n wlthl.n the 50 days, then no denlal would
be approprl.ate and the Map would be deemed adopted as
subrnltted. Zonlng Code S9362(b) states that 1f no actl.on 15
taken by the Plannl.ng CoronllsSlon wi th1n the 50 days, then
III t shall be the duty of the Cl ty Clerk to certlfy the
approval 11 .
In addit10n the TORCA charter amendment states:
Sectl.on 2003 (e): "Any Applicat~on shall be
dee~ed approved sUbJect to the cond~tlons set forth 1n
Sectlon 2004 1f ~t 1S not approved or denled wlthin
the time perlod required by thJ.s SectJ.on.1I
Sectlor. 2004 (A): ffA .
. Appl~cation. . . shall be
denied ~ f the
. Appllcatlon falls to meet any of the
reauirements of thlS Artlcle. .
n
(b): IIA .
. Appl~catlon . . shall be
approved if It meets the requl.rements of the Article. .
TORCA clearly calls for lIact10nll by the COmmlsslon, not
~nact~on. Without "actlon" then the appllcation 15 deemed
approved.
~HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ASSUMES THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S VOTE WAS A DENIAL.
THESE ARGUMENTS ARE BEING
MrtDC TO EXHAUST APPLICANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND ARE
KOT I:t\TmmED TO BE A WAIVER OF THE APPLICANT' S POSITION THAT
THERE HAS BEEN NO PLANNING CO~rnISSION ACTION.
2. The Plannlng Commlsslonls denlal was a violatlon
0= owners/appl1cants Cl.Vll rights as well as a vl.olat~on of
Gov. Code S66474.2.
All owners have the r1ght to equal treatment under
the law and the rlght to develop their property within the
appllcable land use of zonlng laws which apply to thelr
property. In addltion, Gov. Code S66474.2 requires the Clty
to apply to reVl.ew of the proJe~t only those laws in effect
when the map appl1cat~on was flied wlth the Clty.
The laws are thus frozen ln place whlle the proJect
goes through the government process. Thls proJect complles
Wl.th all ex~st~ng laws affectlng ~t. To deny the proJect as
proposed l.S a vlolatlon of BTN I S constltutional rlghts to
equal treatment. The Planning Commisslon's proposed denial,
1 f BTN's r~ght to TORCh the
1n effect, amounted to a denla 0
property under ~he Charter Amendment.
OI- the Plannlng Comm~5S~O~ voted to deny
'!',....o member s
tte ApDllcat~on because they
fe~t that the owcers had
Ell Act However, such f~nd~ng
eVlcted the tenants under ~s .
15 unsupported by any eVldence,
contrar\? to the Rent
lS . .I
Board' 5 f~nd1.ngs and to the Cl.ty staff' s flndlngs,
II d submltted at the hear~ng.
contrary to a eV1 eDce
d no factual eV1.dence 15
Sald den1al base upon -
and
a
vloiatlon of the Charter and the const1.tutlons.
3. Planning Commission's AUeged Denial of The Application Was Without Justification.
Under the Torca Charter Amendment Section 2004 "Approval of Denial" an application if it
finds that the applIcation must be demed "fails to meet any of the requirements of thIS Article. . .." In
the same manner It must be approved "if It meets the reqUirements of this Article ., II Implied in all
this IS that the deCISIon as to whether or not It meets the reqUIrements. has to be based upon evidence.
Indeed the requirements are written somewhat generally. i.e. all that is technically required from the
applIcant is that m its application there is a declaration that "the building is a qualifying building. n See
Section 2oo2(a). H someone were to challenge this declaration. m an attempt to show that the building
IS not a qualifying buildmg -- in that there was an Ellis eviction wIthin 5 years. for instance -- then the
burden would be on that challenger to proved with evidence that the declaranon IS mcoITeCt
As was stated there IS no evidence presented or known which shows that there were any
eVlct.1OnS under Ellis.
Enclosed is a copy of the transcript from the City Council meeting of March . 1992 WhICh
mdlcates the Council's intent on how the law is to be interpreted re: Elhs evicnons. It IS not enough
that a Notice Of Intent To Ellis has been ftled. and there is later an eviction. Rather the evidence must
show that the tenant was evicted under Ellis. It is clear from the Rent Board Staff and the City
Planning Staff that there was no eVIdence of an Ellis Eviction from the project Therefore there was no
other possible reason to deny the application. and it should have been approved.
LAW Ol.nCES OF
ROSARIO PERRY
ROSARIO PERRY
LESLIE JAMES SHERMAN
1333 OCEAN AVENUE
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401
tel: (310) 394.9831
fax: (310) 3944294
Mon Mar 231992
16:51 :49 PST
-
CITY OF ~ ~ J-,-,{ V:;LI~'
w-~. !I' . :a-_il...... ~
erry PlAN~.;;\;? JFFICE
'92 ftAR 24 AID 37
Plannmg Commission Dept
CIty Santa Monica.. Ca.
RE: Appeal TPC 190 TIM 50953
Dear Staff:
Today at 4:25pm I med an appeal on behalf of my client, Me. Vekshtein. In my rush to get to the City
on tune I left out the last two pages of the appeal. Please accept them now, and add them to the appeal.
Thank you, sorry for the miSta1cp..
4. The Definition of ElUs Eviction Is Found In the State Law.
There is no definition of E11i~ Eviction in the Charter Amendment. The definition must
therefore be found m the State's Ellis law itself. The State laws specifically sets out procedures which
must be followed before a landlord may evict under Ellis. There are filing requirements, which the
Rent Control Board adopted, which if not complied with would make any attempted eviction illegal.
See Gov Code Section 7060.6, and Board regulations Chapter 16. The next question is what is an
eviction? An eviction is defmed by Webster's as "force a person to move from a property."
Black's law dIctionary defmes it as "Dispossession by process of law" or pursuant to a "judgment of
the court." At the very least the definition would require a notice to vacate, if not written at lease oral.
Clearly no evidence exists that the landlord even talked to the tenants about the Ellis filing, although it
seems certam that the Rent Control Board sent the tenants notice that the Landlord had f1led a Notice
of Intent The Rent Board's contact with the tenant cannot be imputed to the landlords.
5. The Charter's Anti-Ellis Restrictions Are Violative of Applicants Constitutional Rights.
Even assummg that somehow, someone could find that there was an evicllon pursuant to EIlis
wlthm the last 5 years, such investigation IS a deprivation of applicants' substantive due process rights.
In effect, the Cny IS saying that if an owner takes advantage of a right granted by State law, then it can
be dlscnminated agamst for purposes of converting its property. The City's other attempts to punish a
developer because slhe took advantage of Ellis has been struck down as illegal and the City'S laws
have been found to have been pre-empted by State Law (Ellis). This is the exact same situation.
6. The 1990 Anti-Ellis TORCA Amendment is Ex Post Facto, and thus Unconstitutional as
Applied to this Project.
Black defmes Ex post facto as .. A law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of
any act, wluch retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relallons of such fact or deed. " Such
a law is against Article 1, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, and the State's constitution. When the
alleged Ellis evicllon took place on this property, there was no restnction effecting TORC~ and the 5
year wait period imposed in November 1990 retroactively penalized the alleged 1988 Ellis eVlction
with a 5 year wait. While such a restriction on post November 1990 Ellis evictions might be legal, as
applied to pre-November 1990 evictions, it amounts to an ex post facto law.
7. The Mistake or The Number or Months Of Residency Of The Applicants Is Not A Material
Mistatke And Does Not Justify Denial Of The Application.
Applicants have submitted with tins appeal coples of theIr utility bills which show how long
they have hved at the property. No applicant has hved there less than 26-27 months. The Torca law
requIres that voters lived there at least 6 months. The Applications request that the voters fill in how
many months they have lived in their unit. There is nothing in the law which allows the Planning
CommIssion to require any occupant voter to fill in that information. Indeed it is violative of the
sUlngent requirements of the Torca law, which state that the application must be approved if it meets
the requirements of the Torca law. The Torca law only requires residency of 6 months. Thus to deny
an application because there was a mistake in the information listed which was not allowed to be
required to be gIven, is violative of the Torca law.
However to meet the concerns of the Council, we have enclosed the utility bills to show that
the applicants have lived in their respective UOlts as follows:
Umt#l: 35 months; Umt#2: 26-027 months; Unit#3: 34 months; Unit #4: 41 months; Unit#S: 36
months; Unit #6:41 months.
For all the reasons set forth herein we request that the appeal be granted and the Torca conversIOn be
approved.
Smcerely.
p~
Rosario Perry
Deraci; ker€
Nama snd ServIce Address
VALERY VEKSHTEIN
1
. -.;1-133- =~-:".Jo- -
- 15JH ST':~-~
SN MONICA CA 90403
For Senllee BlUm;) Inform""'lTI InQuone,
Call
(213) 390-7983
.Vour Accoun' Number
Rate
CI'mlle
Zone
17-2580-412-3418-3
GR
1
Bllhl'lg From
Period
To
Mete-
R ead I ngs
PreVIOUS
P o"@sent
o ,fference
fl";Irg Facto'
T....
NOV 14 88 DEC 22 8S
Next Meter
Aeadmg Date J AN 25
405
405
o Xl. 034 =
Date
MaIled
DEC 28 88
BASELINE CODE = 4
OPEtaHG BILL
AMOUNT
CUSTOMER CHARGE
38 DAYS @ $.10192 = $
3.87
PAY AMT
15.00
o THERMS @ .00076 =
) SANTA MONICA TAX 8r.
) TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES
)
)
.00
.31
4.18
STATE
(
(LEVEL
(
(
REGULATORY FEE
)ATE AND AMOUNT
IF LAST PAYMENT
TOTAL AMOUNT DLJE S
4.18
. ~~~Q ~
- RATE VERIFICATIOH -
OUR RECORDS SHOU THE GAS METER AT nas
- ADDRESS SERVES OHE FAMILY UHZT. IF niE
TYPE OF SERVICE AHD/OR ACTUAL HUnBER
OF UHITS SERVED IS DIFFEREHT, CALL US
AT niE PHONE I-U'IBER SHOI.lH ABOVE.
TO SLlITtH TO TliE LEVEL PAY PLAH $IMPL Y
PAY YOUR LEVEL PAY AMOUHT OF $ 15.00
INSTEAD OF me TOTAL AMOlIHT DUE. THE
CHANGEOVER %S AUTOMATIC IF ~E RECEIVE
$ 15 .00 BEFORE 0 U~S.fa<J
Energy ThIs Tl,erms Oa,iy
ComparISons Year A..erage
DEe 38 DAYS 0 0.0
HOV HOT APPUCABLE
OCT tm APPLXCABLE
Lasr Therms
Year
Dally
Average
HOT APPLJ'CA9LE
HOT APPL%CABLE
HOT APPL%CABLE
SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA GAS COMPANY P.O. BOX C. I"IOHTEREY PARK. CA 91756
See other side for expianation of terms and addresses of company offices
Name and service address
VEKSHTEIN, VALERY
1133 15TH S1 1
STAMNICA CA 90403
Rate schedule
DOMESTIC CD)
Pre,'ious Charges
and Credits
New Charges
and Credits
Electricity Usage
""'v
Usage Comparison
Message
~CI Southern California Ec
POBox 600 ROSEIvIEAD CA 9
Account number QuestIons about bill or sernee
63-42-132-2351-09 000-3 ~ CALL C 213) 204-"
i\1eter number ;\,ext scheduled meter reading
85-370886 JAN 19, 1989
Billing Penod
11/16/88 - 12/17/88
Wmter Season DEe
Charges from pre\ious bllhng JO{19j88
Charges from pre\'ious billing 11/16/88
Pre, IOUS Balance
Date 11I1I prepared
21, 1988
$
+
$
Encr~ charge. baselIne (351 k\\ll X 7.869c)
Santa :vlomca Clh tax (S27.62 x S"/O)
State energy tax - (351 k" 11 \. O.O:!c)
Current charges
Past due If not paid by 01/09/89
$
+
+
$
Please pay total amount due
... .... .... ...
$
S.89 IS your average daaly cost exdudmg city tax.
CUrrent meter readmg ]2/17/88
Pre\lous metcr reading ll/16188
Electrlclt)' used III k\Vh Ill-
Your baseline 3ollocat1On for this blllmg penod IS 505 kWh.
kWh used
BIlling daJs
Dall~ a\erage
Current
351
31
11.3
Com
L
B)' replacmg your eXlstmg heating and cooling system \\ Ith a
hlgh-efficlcncy heat ~,!m~. you can enJoy year-round cncrg)'
sa\'lngs Call 1-800-9~2-S062 toll-free for more information
[~ 1.:3 California
BU51l\1ESS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 1114, S M, CA 9040b
SERIAL CODE OiVI5'O'" CODE
2l1~b836 71678
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR GENERA.L EXPLANATIONS
ACCOUNT NUMBEFl ~~C
(213) 319-0483
DATE
JUN 10. 1989
MOVSESIAN, VIGUEN
- ~ AT&T
LONG DISTANCE -AT&T
916A 6/ 4 WAYNE
941A 6/ 4 LA MESA
FROM
MIN TYPE
1 DN
2 DN
MI 313 729-5650
CA 619 589-7821
CARRIER TOTAL
I BILLING QUESTIONS CALL
TO ORDER AT&T CARDS. INTERSTATE WATS SERVICES. REACH OUT
(SM) AMERICA, OR OTHER AT&T LONG DISTANCE SERVICES:
1 800 222-0300
BUSINess HCCuUHTS CALi..
RESIDENCE ACCOUNTS CALL
i oOJ 22Z-uo+uu
1 800 222-0300
--~..'"
71678 31900483 890603 542090 2 00000000 3 00 00
r:=1~ CalitornLa
BUSINESS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 1114, S M, CA 9040b
SERIAL CODE DIVISION CODE
2L126835 71678
SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR GENERAL EXPLANATIONS
ACCOUII;T N~MBEF' PL,
(213) 319-0483
:;)A T€
JUN 10, 1989
MOVSESIAN, VIGUEN 778
1133 15TH ST, APT 2
SANTA MONICA CA 90403-5519
AMOUNT OF PREVIOUS BILL
MONTHLY SERVICE 6/7 7/6 5..
6/ .3 ORDER 103016
3 DAYS BILLING ~ 3.50 PER MO
6/ 3 ORDER 103016
3 DAYS BILLING ~ 5 25 PER MO
6/ .3 ORDER 103016 SERVICE CONNECT CHG 40
6/ 3 ORDER 103016
3 DAYS BILLING ~ 60 PER MO
ZCl!~ 1J~!r T ,..,... .,. .f!t v.tiT ~i:;:n -;-", f i;
_......L...J
lO18A 6/ 3 LOSANGELES CA 213 462-3462 4 2 DN
lO23A 6/ 3 tuSANGELES CA 213 462-3462 9 9 DN
lO45A 6/ .3 LDSANGElES CA 213 462-3462 4 2 DN
aloP 6/ 3 LCSANGELES CA 213 655-5292 12 13 DN
lOD8P 6/ 3 VAN NUYS CA 818 782-2231 11 11 DN
IDgp 6/ 4 VAN NUYS CA 818 782-2231 11 11 DN
120P 6/ 4 LOSANGELES CA 213 461-5723 3 1 DN
912P 6/ 4 GLENDALE CA 8 8 240-9787 4 1 DN
TOTAL ZONE UNIT CHARGES
USAGE AllOWANCE
_ ~v
71678 31900483 890603 5~2090 2 00000000 3 00 00
( C'll ~ California
BUSINESS OFFICE
P.o. BOX 1114~ S M, CA 90406
SERIAL CODE OIVIS10l\; coo~
2L12b837 71678
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR GE:NEHA~ EXPLANATIONS
ACCOUNT NUMBER
(213) 319-0403
DA-e
JUN 10. 1989
PAGE
3
MOVSESIAN, VIGUEN
BILLING SUMMARY
BALANCE AND/OR ADJUSTMENTS TO PREVIOUS BILLING
MONTHLY SERVICE
SERVICE ORDER ACTIVITY
ZONE UNIT CHARGES
USAGE ALLOWANCE
LONG DISTANCE - AT&T
MANDATED CHARGES
INTERSTATE SUBSCRIBER lINE CHARGE~
CT E ::J~~:';:::::C:''''': ~~~J :~'v' :::::::; ruN:; f~ii iirAf"" Hli Z ~:i::;~UL ED
FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
AT&T STATE SURCHARGE
TEMPORARY SURCHARGE AS ALLOWED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
TAXES
FEDERAL EXCISE TAX
911 STATE TAX
CITY TAX
.00
5 85
40 91
58
.5se
43
3.~0
.~J
.05
.01
.06
TOTAL CURRENT MONTH
.33
.03
.87
52. 27
~~*~~~**~***~**~~~~~~~~*****~***~*****~
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 52.27
*~***~********************************~
......~~-.)~
SEE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ENCLOSED WITH THIS BILL
1.5 PERCENT LATE PAYMENT CHARGE APPLIES
JUL S~ 1989.
FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR GTE TELEPHONE BILL CALL.......1 800 223-6177
TO CHANGE ADD OR DISCONNECT YOUR
GTE TELEPHONE SERVICE CALL...........................l 800 482-77 09
FOR REPAIR SERVICE.. .................. .. ........ ........ CALL 611
*SET BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
All CHARGES DUE ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PAGE. PLEASE DO NOT REMIT
CARRIER TOTALS SEPARATELY.
YOUR 1+ lONG DISTANCE SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY: AT&T
>
D - z
~ I ~ ~
..... >-
"" z <( ~
~ =' I a- 0
0'-1
() :5' - 0
" 0 :) I ~H
'"' <: .~.
.... ''l(. ~ -c-o
,; ........0 ::: 0)
~ <' ~ ~
:< " z LU <(
- ~ w 5 - z
.... ~ ~ It
I ~ w ... UJ 0
;v- ~~ u ...
""""'1 <(. Z :::::;
..... 01 ::
I (/) <( - <(
......... ! ....J ~ 0
0 <( (/) ~.
'< OJ <( <: Z
Cl '"\-' a:
~' ....... '-' - w
'" ~ ~ 0 I
\..... ...
~
y \."', 0
'I (/)
" ~ ---,
I~ ~ I
.;) : ~~ 0;
:~ ......
.. <l: N- ~i
.."....
:Li ----.. , , ...... .~ ~I
<I' \..-.; I ,
"(-, <. I':J
'- ~
~ "'" "J : UJ
l"--..' , ",: S:?
'-
I ...
5 -........: ~I i '<) 0
~ I
!<( r
: ,. I. i
DI '<:::!
v-,! <!
)0- I l..<J; ~ J
\....-\'h-........_" a: ~ -;
:J ; 1..') ~
I--~
0 (ij ::::..! "
z .....
o. '1
a:Cl c.. '": ~
uJ ~~ *d-
=>z 0 I
0_ 0 'I'.......
>-0 >-
a: a: a:
0< ~.
~Cl "t
:JW I ' 0
oa: ....J "! ~ _I
....J ~i ~
>- m J. 'i '-
- ~
:.:: CI)' . \-.' ~ ~
Z <(; \J.
< o. ~ UJ ~
I I- "
z ft '::::...: ' . <( ..
.... '; 0 il!
{JIID~
(
FebruaT; 29, 1985
~lr. Valery Vekshteln
:2021 Wilshire Blvd., *10
Los ~pgeles, CA 90025
Dear ~r. Vekshteln'
ThlS 15 our wr1tten notice to you of our Intention to term1nate our
~fontP-to-~lOn1:p Lease for Apartmen't #4 on 1133-l5th Street. hIe are
g~vlng a thlrty day notice and plan to vacate the Dremlses bv ~arct
31,1988.
Per our lease agreement. we understand that our securlty denoslt of
S82l 4C and key deposlt of 530 00 will be returned to us wltPlTI
t~o weeks after termlnatlon of thiS agreeement and tenancy and
Inspection of premises.
\-E have enclosed a check for S954.22 WhlCh represents our last
rr-onths re~t for March, 1988
Our forwarding address wlIl be:
ChriS and Jan Hopkins
5406-135t~ Place S W.
Edmonds, ~ashlngton 980)lO
Thank you and good luck to vou as new landlords of the premlses.
Sincerely,
::;j:' ~.~
Ii<- ~ /
,. ')'
f y~ - - __ ~
.'
Jan Itaml-Hopklns
/' (~ L \ '"' (,
Ll--i... "{r:b.f~,,
Chns Hopk1n~
UIRI~1'Jl'lIlK I\UI'l1.I'\~ ILLl~IIl\1I0\ 1'\(
2t)~! \\ n"tl1Rt RPl J EHRfI )ll1l 21'~
'i~\T~ \10\1( ~ L-\LlFOR\l-\ 'lINn,
TELl~iiil\l i 21~ I "l2/i-u-l'i'i i2H I h2li i"'J~
.... :::_~ ":..1 ;"^...~l L..:-....'- ~...J::I..,':~II
(!iD Callfamla
'0IfN ICIIIoQ {4<f1l
No........ rwq~
It.- z..,.rr Nt 1IIltIIp" NIQle IIH
~ $sE I
~/* -7-16:o_~ I
Dtlttl . _ .;1 - / C. -'i.;J..
In Aeply Anr III ..3 I (J
AotIo,,"1 No ..3 9 :; ~ 'I if 71 '
FIe JIof.2(1 1St ~ Gl ~
~~7~ k;~::: ~~/~~~
.~ ~-.RO -f.E ~ ~~~J ,d.;C //~_-:J /~-r"'l s~
I 11- - "'
ItF'7" J.f- SAAl71P /htJ /jY1t!f'/ C!.~ 7~~.o d.
"J I
~
YOUACUSTOMfA ,.EPAEaENTATIVE
~-
'--'
::...
".
::.."
"
~::t
> '
c
=-
:::.
"7""
3.
~
->-
<:
:>
3::
-
....
..,.
r-..
.....
.
--
c
~
-.
z
-
-
-'-
-
z
=-
z
~
;:
3:.
~'
~.
.......
o...c
-::::000,-
::.~ ..:.~ ........~ 0-.. -...
" '~- ..... --....."........ ~
t.J
o -...:. v..
....... ........ ........ .., ..........
....... ......-:J..;; ...::-
-'
~; --
.... --:::
~:-
::.,.,
- >
.
.... ,...
-.
:;-
~-:,
...,
-
-
?"
-.-- ....."L
3-
:;:.
-<
~.:: "'
2:..
-" -"..
..r 0:: -
-'.
;-
.... ..>~
-....
-
.....
.;:...~-z:=-f..,...
~... :-.j.
.]
-
---
-
-...... ..;:..
..-..
.....
-:r
~
~
-<::
_L _...... ......... ..-..
'-"" ---- '-" ........
- ..!:. -~
~
~ -
~ "
~-
r-..
~
-~
'"..... _.....,.
"-
.... ......... ................. ..::=
:~
::
" '-.
........ ..;:-..::
3'
~-
, -,.>,
-
-' '-
.-
~ ...> ::>
c..... :)'..
:;:.-
-'.
-~
'-.;1''' ...:..
J... ::.,...
:r.. ..~
~.
"=" ..~
_k ...::o~
:::- ~
.~,
:;;
=>
:=.
"
..::..
'-...-
1::: ~
;<
"
:=-
~
c....
>
-= ::.-..
-:-
:z:.
~
'-'
~:>
-<
:::--
r"J
:T
-.
~'-
'=
...
~ >
;:;....: r_
".
:a-
:=
'-
~_~ SOUTHERN CAUFORNlA EOISON COMPANY KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECD
- ~ _ ~ ~ .0. BOX 600, ROSEMEAD. CA. 91771
OPENING BIll
SERVICE ADDRESS
~E~~AN~.ROBERT
, ~5
..5]"A/'tNICA CA 90403
FOR BUSINESS
OFFICE CALL
VOUR ACCOUNT
NU71BER IS
213-204-4030
63-42-B2-2358-C
000-1
TYPE OF RATE BASELINE AVERAGE DAllV DATE BILL
SE~VICE SCHEDULE ALLOCATION COST PREPARED
ELECTRIC DCHESTIC 265 KHH $31 09-20-88
METER SERVICE PERIOD METER R: ADING
NlI1BER FRCI1 I TO FROM TO ENERGY USAGE AMOUNT
85-370890 08-19-88 109-1.5-88 36929 37041 112 KI-lH 8:25
SANTA MONICA CITY TAX 8.00 Y :66
:
.
.
DATE ADDITIONAL ACCOUNT ACTIVITY :
.
.
08-19-88 SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT CHARGE 5:80
.
.
.
.
.
.
:>
V
.
$13:91
,
PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT NOW DUE
RECENT PAYMENTS HAY NOT HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THIS BILL
ENERGY USAGE COMPARISON
BASELINE AND BILLING DETAIL
CURRENT
KHH USAGE
DAYS
DULY AVB
SUt1HER
SEASON
KWH ALLOCATION
DAILY X NO. DAYS :: TOTAL
KHH CENTS
USAGE PER KH'
112
27
4.1
NO
COl1PARABlE
USAGE
aASELINE '3.81 X 21 :: US
MEDICAL BASELINE - NONE REQUESTED
STATE ENERGY TAX
llZ X 7.3-44
LAST YEAR
112 X .02e
OUR SUPPLIER OF NATURAL GAS HAS CUT BACK OUR
DELIVERIES OF THIS FUEL WHICH HE USE TO GENERATE
ELECTRICITY PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND AS YOU USE
ENERGY WISELY SO WE WON'T NEED TO BURN OIL AND HE
WILL ALL HAVE CLEANER AIR.
CONSERVE ENERGY - SAVE MONEY
.....1'..&
I:'] l~ '-'allTornla
BUSINESS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 1114, S M, CA 90406
SERIAL CODE DIVISION CODE
2L171611 71678
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR GENERAL EXPLANATIONS
ACCOUNT NuMBEP
(213) 394-3356
DATE
SEP 19, 1988
FINEMAN, ROST.
BILLING SUMMARY
BALANCE FROM PREVIOUS MONTH
SERVICE
INSIDE WIRE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
SERVICE ORDER ACTIVITY
ZONE UNIT CHARGES
lONG DISTANCE - GTE
H
4.3
U~~'~^Trft ~~~n^~~
11_4"~M' _... _.4_.~_"''''
2
INTERSTATE SUBSCRIBER LINE CHARGE*
COMMUNICATION DEVICES FOR THE DEAF AND DISABLED
FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
UNIVERSAL SERVICE SURCHARGE
TEMPORARY SURCHARGE AS ALLOWED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
TAXES
FEDERAL EXCISE TAX
911 STATE TAX
CITY TAX
1
TOTAL CURRENT MONTH
1
59
**********************************
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 59
**********************************
SEE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ENCLOSED WITH THIS BILL
1.5 PERCENT LATE PAYMENT CHARGE APPLIES
OCT 14, 19
FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR GTE TELEPHONE BILL CAll.. ....1 800 223-6177
TO CHANGE, ADD OR DISCONNECT YOUR
GTE TELEPHONE SERVICE CAll. ...... ...... ...........1 SOD 482-7711
FOR REPAIR SERVICE...... .... .. .. .., .... . . ...CAll 611
.
*SET BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
".":..:r: ::.. r : :!~G DI5TAi~CE ~ERVICE :IS r~~'lI'IIiEn ~y r-1C1
DUE TO RECENT GTE CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC BELL RATE DECISIONS BY
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE TEMPORARY
SURCHARGE WAS REDUCED AND IS REFLECTED AS A CREDIT ON THIS BILL
THE PORTION OF THE SURCHARGE APPLIED TO YOUR MONTHLY SERVICE
RATE. ZONE UNIT CAllS AND INSTAllATION CHARGES DECREASED TO
-3.14 PERCENT. AND THE PORTION APPLIED TO YOUR LONG-DISTANCE
CALLS WITHIN YOUR SERVICE AREA DECREASED TO -5.90 PERCENT
71678 39~03356 ee090~ 362090 2 00000000 6 00 00
t r "
1;:"') l::::a Ca~nornla
BUSINESS OFFICE
P.O. BOX 111~, S M, CA 9040b
SERIAL CODE DIVISION CODE
~L17161D 71678
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR GENERAL EXPLANATIONS
ACCOUNT NUMBER
(213) 394-3356
DATE
SEP 19, 1988
FINEMAN, ROBT.
1133 15TH ST, APT 5
SANTA MONICA CA
778
90403-5519
AMOUNT OF PREVIOUS BILL
SERVICE
9/16 - 10/15
H
INSIDE WIRE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 9/16 - 10/15
9/ 8 ORDER 108144
7 DAYS BILLING Oil' 2 60 PER MO
9/ 8 ORDER #08144
7 DAYS BILLING ~ 1. 00 PER MO
9/ 8 ORDER #08144
7 1'\I\V~ !!L!..!~:~ Z t} 75 DE~ ...n
9/ 8 ORDER 108144
7 DAYS BILLING ~ 95 PER MO
9/ 8 ORDER 108144 SERVICE CONNECT CHG
40
9/ 8 ORDER 108144
7 DAYS BILLING ~ .10 PER MO
ZONE UN"IT CAllS UNIT MIN TYPE
1053A 9/10 VAN NUYS CA 818 905-6145 3 1 DN
336P 9/10 VAN NUYS CA 818 905-6145 14 15 DN
546P 9/10 LOSANGELES CA 213 851-9241 8 7 DN
1257P 9/11 l OSANGEL ES CA 213 851-9241 3 1 DN
835A 9/12 lOSANGELES CA 213 969-280D 10 2 DD
938A 9/12 LOSANGElES CA 213 969-2800 8 1 DD
1138A 9/12 LOSANGELES CA 213 969-2800 18 6 DO
654P 9/12 L OSANGEL ES CA 213 851-9241 5 1 DE
113P 9/13 L OSANGEL ES CA 213 969-2800 8 1 DD
TOTAL ZONE UNIT CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE -GTE FROM
MIN TYPE
833A
939A
1211P
1021A
9/12 LOSANGELES CA 213 254-7630
9/12 LOSANGELES CA 213 254-7630
9/12 SANFRNANDO CA 818 894-2011
9/13 NEWHALL CA 805 253-0196
1
1
1
1
DD
DD
DD
DD
~~ ~~:;OR)' ~33IST" :.':E U3~3E
o BILLABLE CALLS
- Ct.t.i..3
SUBTOTAL
71b78 39403356 880~08 362090 2 00000000 6 00 00
.
~ __ ___ _"'. -<0'--_ --~
I
, ~
~ California
BUSINESS OFfiCE ACCOUNT ,\l!.;"~BEIl p..
P.o. BOX 1114, S M, CA 9040b (213) 394-3356
SERIA~ CODE DIVISION CODE DA ~E
2L171b12 71678 SEP 19, 1988
SEt: REVERSE SIDE FOR GENERAl.. EXPLA"JATIONS
FINEMAN. ROBT.
-
-' ~
v.: ,- ...... 2-
~
....... z =- Co ':;::' :-
" '- :D- '~- ~
--.: =-
v.. rr ~ = ['1 -
,
....... ^ ^ -< ,..... ---
-.c -......
. ~ ...... :> ..... -.;:
...... '-
A < :> z > , -"-
-
C ];. - :;- -, .-,- -::.:
..;: ..<.... ~- .::
,- > -
....., -- ~
. -
-~ -,
~, -- ~
~ - -'
, ~ :=
~ ::..
...~ ::::
-"
~ -'
...... '=
-l '-
l\ ., !'""
f' '-.-
.- '-'<
::-~ .,
p ~ :~-. ,-"
~
F- ~
~~ ~-
-'1 ...~" --
a t .<:. -" ,-
::u ::-- ~ ~
-~ ~ ~~
.,; ^ ....., - ,
);.-
r:1 ~
a -, -
:- ::;. ..:. ~ :::- -,
('"I ~
-i -^ -' - , - "
0 - . -
r- -i c:: -, -, '"-- ,-.
:::. '. -
1'--:;
0 ~ -' - - -.c
c -, . :;. -
..;;. , .. '-: :> c -
L < -
-
:> =- ':::' '::.. --"
.z, ::> ..c "-.
~, < ,.- -. ..::=- .
< -~ . . =-
-
z ~ ~ --. ~ '-'
:> ':r;i > .- -
- ....... - .-
~ :> ..... v..
;:.... ~, -
...... :>
......
0 ," ~ <
.-.. ...>. -.: 2- :.- :-
~
'y " L -
4::.
. .
~J' 0-
,;: -
> -
-
::> =.
..:. "'-
I :;.,.::
..... ~~
...... -.
...... ....
, "-
, ; -~ --.....
..... .....,
:-- ~.o"'J: c:-
.
~ -~ -. -! -
..- -.
c - - - ;.'""1
'-
::r; -. -:) ~- .,
. , - ,
,~ '- .-
..
_.....-_ -..t--"-_"';' -
o
~ L
:r
m
XI
Z
g
~
a
XI
z
jj:
[~o.-l
o
o
~
j
z
<
r
"
J
-1
"l
en
~ ..t
?i
~ V
'"
-....;
0,
ctl
"0
m .
...,
....
3
~
-'
....
(')fT'I
c -
~m
C ("l
=1 ~
15 ~
...,
'b
(1\
V\
~
"
"'-
c
~
'"
..2i
1::
p
......
o
....
:.c:
IlJ
'"
'"
Cl)
..,
<:
n
([)
Q;
....
-
-
'~
y.J r=-
""-
;,r
i.:t'
!I
-l
-
-'
;;;
o
<:
r.:
...,
......
-<
s;
....
:7
Cl>
....
c
~
~
......
2
r
-+
(:
j
'-
;:;:
-<
:D
r:---
1"-"
IV-,
II("
Co'
I
...
-.I'
':!'
)
i
I
i
I..z::- 4
i~
It-" z
I
I I ~
1\.1.1 ~
"
It.
1'-
'w
L
l>
n
r
ID~
I
r ......
I "'-J ~
I
r')
C;
-
i,~- ;~~~ ;{..f-', _
flid ~ ?-11
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
TORCA APPLICATION FOR 113315TH STREET
I/)Ne, Mr. Mt'S': VA Lc. R.. Y VE /<..5 t+7C; Ai
hereby state that I / We moved into Unit # I , at 1133 15th Streret, Santa
Monica, Ca. on JJOi/E-U~ . 198~. II We have lived in this apartment
continuously since then, up to the time J / We signed the Torca application for
the property. Therefore, I / We have lived in the above referenced apartment
in excess of 6 months prior to signing the torca appliation for 1133 15th
Street. I / We did not know that the application as submitted contained the
wrong number of months for our residency. II We never intended to mislead
anyone with any information given on the application.
I We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
that the above is true and correct.
~'r
Executed this / - day of April, 1992, in the City of Santa Monica.
Mr(ah/ ~::5
Mrs.
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
TORCA APPLICATION FOR 1133 15TH STREET
1/ w€. Mr.~
, /
\ I I Cf.,tJ L-vl
- if -
/2-1 ~() t/ ~ P ~!. q V1
/I
hereby state that I / w.e moved into Unit # ~, at 1133 15th Streret, Santa
Monica, Ca. on J ~ , 19-1.1.. I / We have lived in this apartment
continuously since then, up to the time 1/ We signed the Torca application for
the property. Therefore, I / We have lived in the above referenced apartment
in excess of 6 months prior to signing the torca appliation for 1133 15th
Street. II We did not know that the application as submitted contained the
wrong number of months for our residency. I / We never intended to mislead
anyone with any information given on the application.
I We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
that the above is true and correct.
Executed this c2.. day of April, 1992, in the City of Santa Monica.
\/ (L.~~
Mr.
Mrs.
f~f~,,"~4~~: - :~.. 5-'>~ f"
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
TORCA APPLICATION FOR 113315TH STREET
II ~~)KF. Mrs. t ~;/-.f) to / J(t/ F L~ eel
hereby state that II We moved into Unit # 2 ,at 1133 15th Streret, Santa
Monica, Ca. on d LI /L €- .19 gjl. II We have lived in this apartment
continuously since then, up to the time II We signed the Torca application for
the property. Therefore, 1/ We have lived in the above referenced apartment
in excess of 6 months prior to signing the torca appliation for 1133 15th
Street. II We did not know that the application as submitted contained the
wrong number of months for our residency. II We never intended to mislead
anyone with any information given on the application.
I We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
that the above is true and correct.
Executed this ~ day of April, 1992, in the City of Santa Monica.
Mr.
Mrs.
rY ~2/;!~
.-/
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
TORCA APPLICATION FOR 1133 15TH STREET
1/ We, Mr. Mrs. SEL\\! ES-rtl. SAv,4€o vs.t::y
hereby state that II We moved into Unit # 3. ,at 1133 15th Streret, Santa
Monica, Ca. on ..l a t\ . I 19 89. I / We have lived in this apartment
continuously since then, up to the time J I We signed the Torca application for
the property. Therefore, I / We have lived in the above referenced apartment
in excess of 6 months prior to signing the torca appliation for 1133 15th
Street. II We did not know that the application as submitted contained the
wrong number of months for our residency. II We never intended to mislead
anyone with any information given on the application.
I We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
that the above is true and correct.
Executed this 2. day of April, 92, in the City of Santa Monica.
Mr.
3Av1A(2oV~~i
Mrs.
~..;.::~_,~ ~ . _ ~--:~~~:.~_.; i;:
. ~a,.<,~ ~-~~~ ,;.
-=-.- ~"".:J;-~ J. -~~--~ ~
~ ... ~ .. .
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
TORCA APPLICATION FOR 113315TH STREET
~ We, Mr. Mrs. S; ~ i Lyd!;<t. t:.o/.-eu-,
hereby state that II We moved into Unit # 4, at 1133 15th Streret, Santa
Monica, Ca. on II f r / e.- I 1914'. II We have lived in this apartment
continuously since then, up to the time 1/ We signed the Torca application for
the property. Therefore, I / We have lived in the above referenced apartment
in excess of 6 months prior to signing the torca appliation for 1133 15th
Street. I / We did not know that the application as submitted contained the
wrong number of months for our residency. I / We never intended to mislead
anyone with any information given on the application.
I We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California)
that the above is true and correct.
Executed this 4 day of April, 1992, in the City of Santa Monica.
S-t~
}:~
Mr.
\J It t..J
Mrs.~'
~
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
TORCA APPLICATION FOR 113315TH STREET
"J/ We, Mr. Mrs. ROEjISRr AND NArALYA hNEMAN
hereby state that II We moved into Unit # S ,at 1133 15th Streret, Santa
Monica, Ca. on 5EPreM.<'M}? ,1996. II We have lived in this apartment
continuously since then, up to the time II We signed the Torca application for
the property. Therefore, 1/ We have lived in the above referenced apartment
In excess of 6 months prior to signing the torca appliation for 1133 15th
Street. II We did not know that the application as submitted contained the
wrong number of months for our residency. I / We never intended to mislead
anyone with any information given on the application.
I We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
that the above is true and correct.
Executed this 2. day of April, 1992, in the City of Santa Monica.
~~
Mr.
Mrt.taItxfJq G?N'/J1~
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
TORCA APPLICATION FOR 1133 15TH STREET
1/ 'JM: Mr. ~ (//; L -fo It 4U iv Iflvl
hereby state that I / Wy moved into Unit # h ,at 1133 15th Streret, Santa
Monica, Ca. on OL/ /,~ . 19YJ'. 1/ We have lived in this apartment
continuously since 't~en, up to the time 1/ We signed the Torca application for
the property. Therefore, I / We have lived in the above referenced apartment
in excess of 6 months prior to signing the torca appliation for 1133 15th
Street. I / We did not know that the application as submitted contained the
wrong number of months for our residency. I / We never intended to mislead
anyone with any information given on the application.
I We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
that the above is true and correct.
Executed this J day of April, 1992, in the City of Santa Monica.
/'
/~
~
1 f. !
Mr.
yrs.