SR-7A (6)
7;FJ3
LUTM:PB:DKW:DB/tp270cc.pcword2.p1an
Council Mtg: April 13, 1993
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
APR ~; 7 J993
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Tenant-Participating Conversion 270, 153 San
vicente Boulevard
Applicant: Harry T. Roussos and Theodosius T. Roussos
Appellant: Theodosius T. Roussos
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission denial of Tenant-Participating
Conversion (TPC) 270. On March 3, 1993, the Planning commission
denied the proposed 30-unit condominium conversion with a vote of
three in favor of denial and two in favor of approval. Without
the minimum of four votes, the Planning Commission's action was
considered a "technical denial" and no findings could be made.
staff recommends that the Council make the findings for denial
contained in this staff report.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
This is an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of TPC 270.
The subject building was constructed in 1967 and consists of a
total of six I-bedroom units, twelve 2-bedroom units, and twelve
3-bedroom units (total 30 units) with 46 on-site parking spaces.
The application was filed on June I, 1992.
- 1 -
7;/l
APR 1 3 1993
1~9}
f\ ..\
The application contains a total of 21 signed Agreement to
conversion ("AgreementU) forms and 19 signed Intent to Purchase
("Intent") forms.
The signed Agreement forms represent 7 0% of
the total, which exceeds the minimum of 66.7% required. The
signed Intent forms represent 63% of the total, which exceeds the
minimum of 50% required.
The application is subj ect to the
provisions of Article XX prior to the effective date of the
Charter Amendment adopted in June of 1992 and, therefore, all
tenants are required to have resided in their units for a minimum
of six months prior to signing the Agreement or Intent forms. If
two or more Agreement forms or five or more Intent forms are
found to be invalid by the city Council, the project will not
have the minimum number of votes required for approval by Article
xx.
Several of the cosigning tenants in the subject building did not
occupy their units as their principle place of residence and have
not demonstrated that they have paid rent or some other form of
consideration to the owner in exchange for occupancy of these
units. Two of the cosigning tenants are from one household which
occupies two units that have been joined by an internal stairway.
One of the cosigning tenants requested staff to rescind his
signature two weeks after the application was filed, but later
asked staff to "disregardU the rescission. This data, as well as
other information regarding occupancy of the subject building, is
summarized in chart form. in Attachment A.
{\. ,.~ rll
- .... '
, .
- 2 -
Planning Commission Action
At the Planning Commission public hearing,
Commission discussion centered on two issues.
pUblic comment and
The first issue is
whether tenants can sign Agreement and Intent forms if they have
simply maintained a tenant/landlord relationship for six months
but have not actually resided on the property during this time
period. The second issue is whether residents of a single
household of the property who occupy more than one unit in the
building can sign the Agreement and Intent forms for each of the
units they occupy.
The above issues were discussed by the Planning Commission
because the subject building contains seven tenants who did not
personally occupy their units as their continuous, principal
place of residence prior to signing, and because two of the
cosigners resided in units which had been joined and were
occupied by one household. The commission was not able to come
to agreement on how to address these circumstances. After
questioning staff, the applicant, and members of the public,
several motions were Inade which failed to obtain a minimum of
four votes. The final motion to approve the project failed on a
vote of two in favor of the motion and three in opposition to the
motion.
Appeal Grounds
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action on March
11, 1993, based on the contention that staff has incorrectly
- 3 -
interpreted TORCA section 2001(b), which states that a cosigning
tenant is "[a]ny tenant agreeing to the conversion by his or her
signature on the Tenant-Participating Conversion Application who
has personally occupied his or her unit continuously for a period
of at least six (6) months prior to the date he or she signs the
Tenant-Participating Conversion Application" (emphasis added)
(Attachment F). Section 200l(e) contains similar language
def ining "Intending to Purchase Tenant [s] . " Staff has
consistently interpreted this to mean that the cosigning tenant
must occupy the subject unit as his or her principal place of
residency.
In the appeal, the applicant/appellant states that TORCA Section
2002 (f) specifically identifies "principal place of residency"
only for owners who wish to become cosigninq tenants. The
applicant/appellant argues that, because Sections 200l(b) and (e)
require tenants to "personally occupy [their units] continuously"
without citing "principal place of residency," the City cannot
require non-owner cosigning tenants to reside in their units as
their principal place residence. Furthermore, the
applicant/appellant argues that the staff interpretation reduces
the rights of participating tenants by requiring that they reside
in their units in order to vote for a TORCA conversion.
occupancy Status of cosigning Tenants in the Subject Building
After staff mailed the required "Notice to Tenants" on June 6,
1992, notifying them that a TORCA application had been filed,
staff received eight of these notices back from the United states
- 4 -
Post Office marked "Vacant--Return to Sender." These returned
notices were for units 2A, 2C, 3B, 3F, 3K, 4A, 4G, and 4K, which
are all units for which staff had received signed Agreement and
Intent forms.
On June 22, 1992, staff received a letter in which William Moore
states that he is the postal employee responsible for delivery of
mail to 153 San vicente Boulevard. He further states that he did
not deliver the eight letters returned to the City because:
I was told by a person exiting the building that certain
units were vacant. There have been problems with missing
mail in this building in the past. I noticed that the
gang of lUailboxes were open and the name labels of the
boxes on several units were missing. since I was told
that those units were vacant, I returned the envelopes to
the sender.
I have delivered other mail to individuals in the same
units for which I returned this "occupant" mail and I will
do so if the City will return the envelopes to me [Attach-
ment R].
Per the Post Office's suggestion, staff re-mailed the eight
notices, sending them by certified mail with return receipt re-
quested. Each of the return receipts were received by the Plan-
ning and zoning Division with the signature of the corresponding
tenant who signed the "Agreement to Conversion" form.
In most
cases the signature on the return receipt appears to be signed by
the same person who signed the "Agreement" form, although there
is some variation.
(Attachment T.)
Further correspondence from Postal Employee Moore was submitted
by the applicant on December 211 1992. In this letter, Mr. Moore
states that he recognizes the names of the people who are said to
- 5 -
occupy the units in question because he has been delivering mail
to them IIfor over a year." (Attachment R.)
Shortly after the original tenant notices were sent, staff
received an obj ection letter from an uninvolved third party,
Claire Gould, with a petition signed by 5 tenants attesting to
the accuracy of the letter. other objection letters have also
been received. (Attachment P.) Ms. Gould's letter states that
units 2A, 2C, 3F, 3K, 4A, 4G, and 4K were vacant at the time the
application was filed1 these are seven of the eight units for
which mail was returned to Planning and Zoning by the Post Office
as "Vacant. " This data is summarized in chart form in Attachment
A of this report.
The applicant responded to the claims made in Ms. Gould's letter
with tenant letters in support of the conversion, copies of
leases with the tenants in question, utility bill information,
and letters by the tenants in question explaining the status of
their tenancy. On December 29, 1992, the applicant submitted
letters by Aileen Handen and Daniel Anzel, two of the tenants who
had signed a statement indicating that Ms. Gould's observations
were correct. The letters indicate support for the conversion,
but they do not rescind earlier statements regarding the accuracy
of Ms. Gould's observations. (Attachment Q.)
As stated on the appeal form, the applicant/appellant does not
believe that Article XX requires cosigning tenants to occupy
their units on a primary or "principal" basis, and he makes no
claims that the tenants in question occupied their units as their
- 6 -
principal place of residence prior to signing the Agreement and
Intent forms. Rather, the applicant/appellant argues that
cosigning tenants simply must be on leases as the tenants of the
property owner for six months prior to signing the requisite
forms.
As discussed in depth in City Attorney Memorandum 93-4, City
staff finds that the applicant/appellant's argument is flawed
because it fails to acknowledge the requirement that cosigning
tenants "personally occupy" their units "continuously" for six
months prior to signing the applicable forms. Staff interprets
this language to require that each cosigning tenant actually re-
side in his or her unit not necessarily as the exclusive place of
residency, but at a minimum as the principal place of residency.
(Attachment E.)
The applicant/appellant fails to acknowledge that the "principal
place of residency" clause in the TORCA law was added when cer-
tain amendments were made to Article XX in November of 1990. One
of these amendments was intended to clarify City policy permit-
ting building owners to become cosigning tenants for the purposes
of TORCA. As noted in City Attorney Memorandum 93-4, the t1prin-
cipal place of residency" clause was applied to owner cosigners
in order to clarify that these cosigners adhere to the same stan-
dards applied to non-owner cosigners. It intended to clarify the
existing charter, not to apply a more strict standard to owners
who sign as cosigning tenants as alleged by the applicant/
appellant.
- 7 -
Based on the information provided by the applicant and the
opinion of the City Attorney's office, staff believes that seven
of the cosi9nin9 tenants did not meet the minimum requirements of
TORCA at the time they signed the Agreement and Intent forms.
Joined units in the Subject Buildinq
In addition to the issue of principal residency, the Planning
commission also considered the issue of two units which have been
joined and are occupied by one family, but which were utilized
for two Agreement and two Intent votes on the application. The
units in question are numbers 3B and 4B, which are joined by an
interior stairway constructed without a building permit. The
stairway has no door at either end to achieve a separation
between the units. On the application, Paula Vasilas was the
cosigning tenant for unit 3B and her husband, Ted Roussos (the
building owner), was the cosigning tenant for unit 4B.
Staff believes that the joined units have the effect of creating
one unit for the purposes of TORCA, and therefore the vote of
Paula Vasilas (who signed as the tenant of apartment 3B) and the
vote of her husband, Paul Roussos (who signed for unit 4B),
should count in total as one vote rather than two votes. This
issue is discussed further in city Attorney Memorandum 93-4 (At-
tachment E of this staff report).
withdrawal of Siqnature
On June 15, 1992, the tenant in unit 3D, Jerry Tauger, wrote a
letter to staff stating that at the time he signed the Agreement
- 8 -
and Intent forms "there was a great deal of pressure to sign im-
mediately and I did not have the opportunity to seek legal advice
on the matter. I have since done so and... I wish to rescind my
signature on both the approval and intent forms. Please consider
this my formal withdrawal of both signatures." (Attachment P.)
On September JO, the applicant submitted a letter in which Jerry
Tauger requests that staff "disregard" his letter withdrawing his
agreement to the conversion. (Attachment Q.)
Payment of Rent by Tenants
In the appeal, the applicant has not disputed the interpretation
that, in order to qualify as a cosigning tenant, a resident with-
out an ownership interest in the property must pay rent or some
other form of consideration to the owner in exchange for occupan-
cy of his or her unit. This issue was raised by staff in the
Planning Commission staff report. However, as ide from lease
agreements which state the minimum monthly rental amounts for
several units, no proof of payment or other form of consideration
has been submitted by the applicant for the seven cosigning ten-
ants who do not occupy their units as their principal place of
residence.
Conclusion
staff believes that the applicant has failed to provide the mini-
mum number of valid signatures necessary for a tenant-
participating conversion. The applicant does not dispute that
that the cosigning tenants in units 2A, 2C, 3F, 3K, 4A, 4G and 4K
- 9 -
did not reside in their units as their principal place of
residence for the six months prior to signing the Agreement and
Intent forms, nor does he provide proof that they continuously
occupied or even paid rent during this period. Furthermore,
staff has verified that units 3B and 4B have been joined by an
interior staircase and are occupied by one household. If the
votes for units 3B and 4B are counted as one vote, and the
cosigning tenants without principal residency at the subject
building are not counted, the application contains a total of 13
valid Agreement signatures, or 43% of the total, which is less
than minimum of 66.7% required for approval. Because the ap-
plication does not meet the minimum requirements- of TORCA, staff
recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the
planning Commission f s denial of TPC 270 based on the findings
contained in this staff report.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the
public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and com-
mercial tenants of property within a 300' radius of the project
site at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing.
A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment v.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
- 10 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny_ the appeal
and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of TPC 270 based on
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. [reference Sec. 2004 (a), Arti-
cle 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.
However, based on data submitted since that time, it has
been determined that the application fails to meet all of
the requirements of Section 2002 of Article XX of the city
Charter. The subject application was signed by cosigning
tenants occupying 70% (not less than two-thirds) of all
the residential units in the building. However, eight of
these signatures have been obtained from tenants who have
not been shown to qualify as Cosigning Tenants. These
individuals are Gus Konugres (unit 2A), Pauline Pappas
(unit 2C), Paula vasilas (unit 3B), Nick Kallins (unit
3F), Perry Johnson (unit 3K), Sophie Vasilas (unit 4A),
John strike (unit 4G), and Anthony Vasilas (unit 4K).
Paula Vasilas occupies a unit which is joined to another
unit for which a vote has also been cast. As a total of
one vote is permitted per household, Ms. Vasilas' vote is
not valid. For the remaining tenants listed above, the
applicant has not demonstrated that they personally and
continuously occupied their units as their principal
residences for the six months prior to signing the "Agree-
ment to Conversion" form, as required under Section
200l(b) . Without these votes, the application does not
contain the minimum of 2/3 tenant approval required by
Article xx.
Tentative Map Findings
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its prov1s1ons for
its design and improvements, is inconsistent with Article
XX of the city of Santa Monica Charter.
- 11 -
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Chart Summarizing Tenant status in Subject Building.
B. Planning commission staff Report without Attachments (All
Associated Attachments Are Incorporated Herein).
C. Planning commission Supplemental staff Report.
D. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action.
E. City Attorney Memorandum 93-4.
F. Appeal Form.
G. Summary Cover Sheet.
H. Unit/Tenant Information Sheet.
I. Seller/Financing Information Sheet.
J. parking Plan.
K. Summary Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
L. Tenant Notice.
M. Repairs and Alterations.
N. Radius Map.
O. Tract Map.
P. Correspondence in objection to Application.
Q. Correspondence in Support of Application.
R. Correspondence from Post Office Carrier.
S. Correspondence from Staff.
T. Agreement to Conversion Forms and Return Receipts for units
2A, 2C, 3B, 3F, 3K, 4A, 4G, and 4K.
U. Lease Agreements.
V. city Council Public Notice.
Prepared by: Paul V. Berlant, Director of Land Use and
Transportation Management
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
DB
PC/tp270cc
04/06/93
- 12 -
ATTACHMENT A
I~ ~~1 .~. _ ,~
~_Il=
.. ...~
~i- -"""\o"~I'-..."-
I
;J;"
!!!O
= C
~c:
~!'
ClI..
..."
3::
~E
~~
....
g~
ClI%
a c:
o 2
.... ..
c;;;
:! <
~~
C"ClI
C :I
.. ...
a. ,.j 1
~ 0
'" ;
:I :I
o ClI
"':1
:::.C:
ClI .
;:g
- '"
... ..
~ ~
-go ~
~;;'
~g.
...:ID
",1 :I
'"
....
..,
""
m
....
IN
z
'"
~
;II:;
~
::r
'^
~
III
~
..
111:'
, '"
,<
....
-<
:I
>
Q.
"
3
~
a
v
ex
)<
I
')<
t::E
x;::;'
";r
Q,Q.
'^ j;
s~
=",
S'15'
. :I
~~
~ ;;:
D_
ClI C
a.~
~ -
::.~
;r_
~~
fII "',
!~.
,0
:I
'"
....
~
..
"
3
C'"
....
...
\101
$>
....
\C
\C
'"
IN
C
....
1"1
N
IN
III
~
1;1
'c
\Q
.....
...
s:
III
~
...
::a
C
C'"
:5
'"
ii
....
ex
...
)<
)<
~c:
III =
< ::'.
ClI '"
"'-
:'0
= :;
~B.
~ 01
III c
,;: ~
;;ii' '"
5 g;,
;; ~'
~;
;r",
III ...
.. ClI
~ =i
'" ...
" III
~ ...
01 "
i~ ~
~o
~Q,
i g
:I ...
..ClI
=-
III
;:;.
;r
III
..
III
:l
Q.
....,
=
N
~
ClI
c
i>>
<
ClI
!:!,
i7
'"
-l
....
Q.
...
....
::l::
...
v
~
VI
)<
)<
!:::l
'-1
\101
o
ClI
:I
!!:
;j
:I
ClI
11:'
j;'
ClI
:I
III
:I
III
:J:
III
..,
."
...
:l
o
Q
>
:l
N
!!.
....
...
....
N
~
I
')<
)<
)<
3:"
.. Q
c
,i: Q
I... ii
< :=
~~
- '"
~ E:
c I;
:I '"
=::::1'
:r ~!
fII =.
.. <
ga
~ 5'
~~
0:
:I "
0.<1::
... -
III ~
'" fII
i5..:1
III ....
~ 0'\
III 3
5 i
...
III
"T
III
C
...
..
ClI
..
"
c.
o
:f:l
.. to
~
~
IN
:J:
""
VI
;r
"
...
3
to
:I
...
VI
...
ClI
,.,
III
'<
....
Cl\
)<
)<
N
"
'N
o
;r
:l
"'II
lZ'
';'
:I
III
..
IlIl
01
~.
III'
..'
....
~
)<
..
'-1
."
....
o
ii"
a.
;
:E
o
o
Q.
....
N
)<
'"
w - w
~
ii'
III
:I
J:
to
:I
Q.
III
:I,
;II:;
fII.
e:
fII'
2
o
C
:l
"
:::i
....
...
IN
)<
)<
)<
~~
c
~Q
c -
g a
.. ID
.. ...
'.. ...
~s
D:~
",'"
is
flO
'" ..
"CIc
g 2.
c."
1iIl:ll '^'
"CIC
ClI e
;:l.,~
01....
~ C.
S Q
III ...
'< ...
~ ~
., ~
5 ii
c C
:I c:
;::;:.a
o
:;
'"
N
"'II
ClI
C'
_I
5
"
-.:
III
'l:I
'l:I
III
."
~i
;.
Z
'"
;r
o
;;;
~
...
....
....
)<
)<
)<
)<
0-
a:z
Cl 0
O!Q
= ....
.....
"
c
'"
;;0;:
o
:I
c
:g
...
III
'"
......
o
.....
i~
Q "'oj
~ ~
o :::.
:::. ....
:b
0\
..
1"'1 ):.
gQ
'I: ~
Sa
go
)<
S"
~
0':3
.... ....
=0
!:: l:I
::s ~
as.
:0
,...
0'"
~ g,
I'" -
:I a
I~ :i
,.. ...
_III
ClI ...
- ...
3 S
.. ...
;rill
III III
"::r
;'"
-- Q,
'" -,
~Q,
;r:l
-0
'" ..
'C! .,
." "
3 5:
III "
-<::I'
.. ....
:: fI
i5:ClI
III -
:I e
:i1 i
fit
~
...
~
ii'
c.
o
t"'l
f"l
C
"'C
:>
Z
t"'l
-<
t"'l
:J:
:>
;::I:l
:>
t"'l
~
m
~
c.n
-t
?i
c.n
:>
~
.....
VI
W
c.n
:>
z
S
f"l
ITl
Z
-t
m
q
"'C
n
~
......
o
-
II
:JCI
nl
....
"
o
3
3
.,.
:::.
c::-
-
-4- + ...r....,.._"'^-~.. __....._- ~}I-'O:"'_.......-""'..... '_;,"""-"""-; ...___~..........
"<"..~~-J..--~~__....... ~-.-_...___....... --. _ _......-o......~-... ...,...._,#"-_ .....,.-.... ..-.r............_..-...-~
I f~1 H I~l I~I H H I~I H 1~1 I~! H H I~I w ~r ~
I~ C1 o!"" ('"l
j I tr C
~
aJ~ >
.... W IN hi hi IN W N hi W IN hi a? z
0' ('"l
3 sa. -<
....
> :1:1 < Q n ~ ~ ." ~I .... = ('"l
~ /Dol ;j! ::r :;r- .. 0 !!. :::I:
~ w ;:) .. S ~ :>- ..
3, i- 5 :r
~ "" :;:I it ;lC
... .. '" = /Do
;:) ~ ... 0 II" < ~
;0- lit' > '"
it' .. c " ::I ~ to
:l /Do ;l:l '" ~
~ .. Cl. -t
0- 0 0 fl> 111 ;;;
.. :; .. ':r S '" ,."
::I ~
/Do 3 ell
I -I .. ::I
~l .. !a ~
! S ::I n
~ VI
'" ~ ~
::I
....
VI
~
VI
> "
Z
<
3 c=;
,."
Z
... "" ... ~ ... ... ... ~ -l
t Q\ w ... '-I VI '-I 0 t;: g 1'1"I
101 '-I '" '-I ... ..... .... IN 10 '=i
~
N
)C )C )C )C )C )C )C )C )C .....
Q
-
i
JQ
s- iD
..... N
Q'~
.... .....
3 .....
)C )C )C )C )C )C )C )C x .... 0
-
~ ~
". n
I:l.~
e
'"
< '" ~~ ~ n <jC1rj" :;'
III 0 Sg ~o~og.g
~ c [5::.5.::1_ 3
;;; 5: :-5:
'" .., fl>~e:Cl.:SCl. 3
0. a "'/Do =,..",~=~ !!
0 Ill... c.~iT~~=
... ...
/Do /Do /Do /Do ~ !~:=.!!: t:
.. ... .. ..
::I '" C .. "'" """ fD ""
0 .. ::I - ,... ..... '^ ...
... ~ ;;Os ~~::J"a:r~ _-~...~=--'......-"".- _ ....A---_JC...
... /Do ii ~r ~ ~
~ .., ..'"
3 c . c
~ '" :I a.....f'D:3,.:I
; 2.;;. e:;-;;.~r;
;::; /Do _ DI!.~=~;
.. .. '"
< III < ...,..CI'I<M-<
c .. ... .. ftI ~ ..~ a~
~ ... a...
.. III .. ~ ;:I 8.1 ~ c !
a. ::l ::I
.. " ... QI;:t.~"";:lI-
.. ~ /Do ,.I ;\,t.Is.,.l~":
...
.. 0 5";:' ... ~~ 0 g- 0
;- .. ,. :r... ~
:r n:r ~~.i"';
.. /Do !!,/Do
... o'g ;a ~,~ :; ~ ;;;
III
~ :I ... ::I n"'~"'~
... .. ::I .. :r5~::l~
a % -:I
.. ... ~nt:2~
III "'- ....
:I go g-i "fIiI-~-
" :l:l~go;go
III ... ...... go...."""VIo
... .. - ""...ID"
11<" "S- .....::J)t"_~
:I !o "";-='''''''~
~ < ::e !it .~..~
ii" III - ... - -
..,/Do ! f'D- :! tI
0. _0. o.3Q.
:I
III 0"'. to III .. /Do
..
::r ...
0- /Do
'"
I
.: I_ e)
ATTACHMENT B
,i I --
-..' '__ ... .......1