SR-7-A (73)LUTM:PB:DKW:DS/tp270ca.pcword2.plan
Council Mtg: April 13, 1993
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
~~~ ~
~'s~ l. ~ • .`J
Santa Monica, Cali~ornia
nv ; ~ ~-;;
M~- , _ _ .
SUBJECT: Appeal of Tenant-Participa~ing Conversion 270, 153 San
Vicente Baulevard
App~icant: Harry T. Raussos and Theodosius T. Roussos
Appellant: Theodasius T. Roussos
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that tha City Counci2 deny the appea~ and
uphold the PZanning Commission deni.al of Tenant-Participating
Conversion {TPC) 270. On March 3, 1993, the Planning Commission
denied the propased 30-unit condominium conversion with a vvte of
three in favor af deniaZ and twa in fav~r of approval. Withou~
the minimum af four votes, the Planning Commission's ac~ion was
aansidered a"technical denial." and no findings couI.d be made.
Staff recominends that the Council make the findings for danial
contained in this staff repart.
DISCUSSION
Project Descriptian
This is an appeal of the Planning Commission denia]. af TPC 270.
The subject building was constructed in Z957 and consists of a
~otal of 5ix 1--bedroom units, twelva 2-bedraam units, and twelve
3-bedroom units (total 30 units) with 46 on-site parking spaces.
The application was filed on June 1, 1992.
~ ~
- ]. -
~_ =- ~. - : .i
t : ~~:
~`'~~v a . -,
The application contains a total of 21 signed Agreement to
Conversion ("Agreement") farms and 19 signed Int~nt to Purchase
("Intent") forms. The signed Agreement forms reprasent 70~ of
the tatal, which exceeds the minimum af 66.7~ requ~.red. The
signed Intent forras represent 63~ a€ the tatal, which exceeds the
minimum af 50~ required. The application is subject to the
proviszons of Article XX prior to the effective da~e of the
Charter Amendment adopted in June of 1992 and, therefore, al].
tenants are required to have resided in their units for a minimum
of six ~nanths priar ta signing the Ag~eement or Intent forms. If
two ar more Agreement forms or five or more Intent forms are
found to be invalid by the City Council, the project will not
have the ~minim~xm nux~ber 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
nat demon~trated that they have paid rent or some other form of
consideration to the owner a.n exchange for occupancy of these
units. Two of the cosiqning tenants are from one househald which
occupies twa units that have been joined by an internal stairway.
One of the cosigning tenants requested sta~f to rescind his
signature two weeks after the application wa~ filed, but later
asked staff to "disregard" the rescission. This data, as well as
other information regarding accupancy of the subject building, is
summarized in chart form in Attachment A.
- 2 -
Planning Commission ACtian
At the Pianning Commission public hearing, public co~ment and
Commission discussion centered on two issues. The first issue is
whether tenants can sign Agreement and Intent for~s 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 af 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 priar to signing, and because two of the
cosigners resided in units which had been joi~ed and ware
occupied by one household. The Camn~ission was not able to come
to agreement on how to address these circumstances. After
questiQning staff, the applicant, and members of the public,
several motions were made which failed to obtain a minimum of
four votes. The final moti~n to approve the project failed on a
vate of two in fa~or af the motian and three ~n opposi.tion to the
mation,
Appeal Graunds
The applicant appealed the Planning Comm~ssion's actian on March
11., 1993, based on the c~ntention that staf~ has incorrectly
- 3 -
interpreted TORCA Sectivn 2001(b), which states that a cosigning
tenant is "[a)ny tenant agreeing to the conversion by his or her
siqnatUre on the Tenant-Participating Conversion Applioatian who
has personally accupied his or her unit continuously for a period
of at least six (~) manths prior to ~he date he or she signs the
Tenant-Participating Canversion Application" (emphasis added)
(Attachment F). Section 2001(e} contains similar languaqe
defining "Intending to Purchase Tenant[s]." Staff has
consistently interpreted this to mean that the cflsigning tenant
must occupy the subject unit as his or her principal p~ace o~
residency.
Xn the appeal, the appiican~/appellant states that TORCA Section
2002(f) speci~ically identifies "principal place of residency"
only for owners who wish to become cosigning tenants. The
applicantjappellant argues that, because Sections 2001(b) and (ej
require tenants to "personally occupy [their units] continuausly"
without citing "principal place of residency," the City cannot
require non-owner eosigning tenants to reside in their units as
their principal place residence. Furthermore, the
applicantfappellant argues that tha staff interpretation reduces
the r~ghts of participatfng tenants by requi,ring that they reside
i1~ their units in order ta vote ~or a TORCA conversion.
occupancy status of co~igning Tenants in the su~ject Building
After staf€ mailed the reciuired "Notice to Tenants" an June 6,
1992, notifying them that a TORCA app~ication had been fil~d,
staff received eight of these notices back from the United Sta~es
- 4 -
Post Office marked "Vacant--Return to Sender." These returned
notices were far 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 recei~ed a letter in which William Maore
states that he is the postal employee responsible for delivery af
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 mailboxes were open and the name labels of the
boxes on several units were missing. Since I was told
that those units were ~acant, I returned th~ envelopes to
the sender.
I have del,ivered other mail to individuals in the same
units far which I returned this "accupant" mail and I will
do so if the City will return the envelopes ta me [Attach-
ment R].
Par the Post Dffice's suggestion, staff re-mailed the eight
notices, sending them by certi~3ed mai~ with return receipt re-
quested. Each of the ret~rn receipts were received by the Plan-
ning and Zoning Division with the signature af tha corresponding
tenant who signed the "Agreement ta Conversion" forzn. In most
cases the signature an the return receipt appears to be signed by
the same person who signed the "Agreement" farn~, although there
is some variation. (Attachmant T.}
Further correspondence from Postal Employee Moore was submitted
by the applicant on December 21, 1992. In this letter, Mr. Moore
states that he recogniaes the names of the people who are said to
- 5 -
occupy the units in questian because he has bean delivering mail
ta them "for over a year." (Attachment R.}
shortly after the original tenant notices were sent, staff
received an objection letter ~ram 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 4Ii were vacant at the time the
application was fi~ed; these are seven of the eight units for
which mail was returned t~ Planning and Zoning by the Post Office
as "Uacant." This data is summarized in chart form in Attachmen~
A of this report.
The applicant respand~d 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 laill information,
and letters by the tenants in questian explaining the status of
theiz tenancy. On Deceraber 29, 1992, the applicant subn~itted
letters by Aile~n Handen and Daniel Anzal, two of the tenants who
had sfgned a statement ~.ndicating that Ms. Gould's observations
were correct. The letters indicate s~pport €or the conversion,
but they do nat rescind earlier statements regarding the accuracy
of Ms. Gould's observations. (Attachment Q.)
As stated on the appeal form, the applicant/appellant does not
helieve that Artic~e XX requires cosiqning 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
- & -
principal place of residence prior to signing the Agreement and
Intent forms. Rather, the applicant/appellant axgues that
cosigninq tenants simply must be on leases as the tenants af the
property awner far six manths prior to s~gninq the requisite
forms.
As d~scussed in depth in City Attarney 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
manths prior to sign~.ng the applicable forms. Staff interprets
this language to require that each cosigning tenant actually re-
side in his ar her unit not necessarily as the exclusive place of
residency, but at a minimu~n as the principal place of residency.
(Attachment E.)
The applicant/appellant fails to acknowledge that the "pxincipal
place of residency" c~ause 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 palicy permit-
ting bui.lding owners to become cosigning tenants for the purposes
of T~RCA. As noted in City Attorney Memorandum 93-4, the "prin-
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 casigners. 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
opinian af the City Attarney's oftice, staff believes that seven
o~ the casigning tenants did not me~t the minimum requirements af
TORCA at the time they signed the Aqreement and Intent forms.
Joined Units in the Sub~ect Buiiaing
In addition ta the issue of principal residency, the Planning
Commission also considered the issue of two units which have been
jained and are occupied by ane family, but which were utilized
far two Agreement and twa Intent vates on the application, The
units in question are numbers 3B and 4B, which are joined by an
interior stairway constructed withaut a building permit. The
stairway has no door at either end to achieve a separation
between the units. On the appZication, Paula Vasilas was the
cosigning tenant for unit 3B and her husband, T~d Raussos (the
building owner), was the cosigning tenant for unit 4B.
Staff believes that the jQined 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 far unit 4B),
shou~d count in total as one vote rather than two vates. This
issue is discussed further in City Attorney Memorandum 93-4 (At-
tachment E of this staff report).
Withdrawal at Signature
On June 15, 1992, the tenant in unit 3D, Jerry Taug~r, wrote a
letter to staff stating that at the time he signed the Agreement
- 8 -
and Intent forms "there was a great deal af pressure to sign im-
~ediately and I did not have the oppartunity to seek legal advice
on the matter. I have since done so and... I wish to rescind my
signature on bath the approval and intent forms. Please consider
this my formal withdrawal of both signatures." (Attachment P.)
On Septem~aer 30, the applicant submitted a letter in which Jerry
Tauger requests that staff "disregard" his letter wi~hdrawing his
agree~ent to the conversian. (Attachment Q.)
Payment of Rent by Tenants
In the appea2, the applicant has not disputed the interpretation
that, in arder to qualify as a cosigning tenant~ a r~sid~nt with-
out an ownership interest in the praperty must pay rent or some
other for~ of consideration to the owner in exchanqe for occupan-
cy af his or her unit. This issue was raised by staff in the
Planning Commission staff report. However, aside from lease
agreem~nts which state the minimum monthly rental amaunts far
several units, no proof of payment or other for~a of consideration
has been submitted by the applicant for the seven cosigning ten-
ants who da not occupy their units as their principal place of
residence.
Conclusion
Staff belie~es tha~ the applicant has failed to provide the mini-
mum number of valid signatures necessary far 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 nat reside in their units as their principal place of
residence for the six months prior to signing the Agreement and
Tntent 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 j oined by an
interior staircase and are occupied by one household. If the
vates for units 3B and 4B are counted as ane vote, and the
cosigning tenants without principal residency at the subject
building are not counted, the applicati~n cantains a tota~ of 13
valid Agreement signatures, or 43~ of the total, which is less
than minimum of 66.7~ required for approval. Bec~use the ap-
plication does nat meet the minimum requirements of TORCA, staff
recom~ends that the City Council deny tha appeal and uphold the
Planninq Cam~nission's denial o~ TPC 270 based on the findings
contained in this staff raport.
PUBLIC NOTiFICAT2dN
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, natice of the
public hearing was mailed to all owners and residentiai and com-
mercial tenants o~ 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.
BUDGETf FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recammendation present~d in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
- la -
RECOMMENDAT~ON
Yt is respectfully recammended that the Council deny the appeal
and uphold the Planning Co~n-ission's denial of TPC 270 based on
the following findings:
Tenant-Participating Conversion Findings
1. This Tenant-Participating Conversion Application does nat
meet the requirements af Artic~e XX of the City Charter of
the City of Santa Monica. [reference Sec. 20~4 (a), Arti-
cle XX]
2. The Tenant-Participating Conversion Application has been
dee~ecZ compZete and accepted for fil~ng. At the time of
filing it met the requirements of Section 2002 af Article
XX of the City Charter far a complete applicatian.
IIowever, based an data submi~ted since that time, it has
been determined that the application fails ta meat a11 of
the requirements of Section 20D2 of Article XX of the Cit~
Charter. The sub~ect application was signed by cosigning
tenants occupying 70~ (not less than twa-thirds) of all
the resxdential units in the building. However, eight o£
these signatures have been obtained from tenants who have
not been shown to qualify as Casi.gning Tenants. These
individuals are Gus Konugres (unit 2A), Pauline Pappas
(unit 2C), Paula Vasilas ~unit 3By, Nick Kalli.ns ~unit
3Fj , Perry sohnson (unit 3K) , Saphie Vasi.l.as (unit 4A) ,
John Strike (unit 4G), and Anthany Vasilas {unit 4K).
Paula Vasilas occupiea 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 vaii~. For the remaining tenants 3isted above, the
applicant has not dem~n6trated that they personally and
continuausly occupied th~ir units as their principal
residences for the six manths prior to signing the "Agree--
ment to Conversion" form, as requ~red under Section
2001(b). Without these vo~es, the app].ication does not
contain the minimum of 2/3 tenant appraval required by
Article XX.
Tentatzve Map ~indings
1. The proposed subdivision, together with its pro~isians for
its design and improvem~nts, is incansistent with Article
XX of the C~ty of Santa Monica Charter.
.. }1 ~
ATTACHMENTS:
A.
B.
Chart Summarizing Tenant Status in Subject Building.
P~anning Commission Staff Report Without Attachments
Associated Attachments Are Incorporated Herein).
Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report.
P3.anning Commission Statement of Officia~ Action.
City Attorney Memorandum 93-4.
Appeal Form.
Summary Cover Sheet.
Unit/Tenant Infarmation Sheet.
seller/Financing Information Sheet.
Parking Plan.
Summary Cavenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
Tenant Notice.
Repairs and Alteratians.
Radius Map.
Tract Map.
Correspondence in Objection to Application.
Correspondence in Support of Application.
Correspondence from Post Office Carrier.
Carrespondence from Staff.
(All
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q•
R.
S.
T.
Agreement to Conversion Forms and Return Receipts for units
2A, 2C, 3B, 3F, 3K, 4A, 4G, and 4K.
U. Lease Agreements.
V. Ci~y Council Public Notice.
Prepared by: Paul V. Berlant, Directar 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
04/0&/93
- ~2 -
A T~'A CHMEIIT~' A
OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTiCS A'F 153 SAN VICENTE (TPC 270) pa~e 1
A t. No. of Tenant Names Len~th of A~ed to Jntent to purchas Commerrts
No bedrooms (as Shown on A Ilcation) occu anc canversion farm siyned µ ~ "^'"' '
months ~ -
2A t Gus Konu~res 6 x x Gould letter states he did not reside here at time app was filed
2B
2
~dith Nichols
177
x Daes nof claim that this is his pr~mary res~dence
- ~ --. --
x
2C 3 Paul~ne Pa as 89 x x Gauld letter states that unit ~s ut~lized for storage purposes
2D
3
Katia Noune
113
~ Ms Pa ~ as skates she spends "~art oF the yea~' in unit
" '
x x
2E 2 A~leen Handen ~~ x .. -
2F T ~iedre Wood 42 x
~ 2G ~ ~ John P b~ janet Baker ~68 x x
2H 3 Sherman L. State 7G x x Gauld letter states he lived irt umt less than Zb mos stated on app
21
3
Tana & Jeanene Herstt-old
220
x Mr Sta states unit has~~been h~s onl residence smte Feb, 1991~.
x
2K 2 Daniel Anzel 771 x
3A 3 Ted Leff 2y $ --- --
36
2
Pc~u1d Vasilas
45
x
x --_..
Unit ~s ~ofned to unit 4B w~th sta~r~ase with no door at either end
-
3C
3
Me er Rub~n
187 Ms Vasilas states this u~it is her "separate apartment " ~
- - -
3D 2 ~er Tau~er ~ 240 x x Withdrew s~gndture ]une 15, 1992
3E
3
Me er S~ Erre{~delman
1gg Asked staFf to "disre ard" withdrawl on September 30, 1992
--
, 3F 1 Nick Kalims ~
T 18
,_ x _ x Gou~d letter states that umt ~s vacant "to tenants' best~knowledge~"
-•-
.. __.._- .
Kallins states he is tenant af unrt, but does not state it ~s' rimary res
--...~ ,... _. -_._~__.~_...
.
~ '
~
;
, , ~
,'
's` f,
.~
~ r ~
~
~ ~ ~
,
S
V~
~
i .~
~ {
. ;
' ~
;7
;
s
;i
~ .
.;
-: ~
,
__;
.~
a~
:'
.~
~
_~
:, .~
~
J
i
4
.~
,'~
I
~
Y
~
;
_x
~
;
T
III ~
OCCUPANCY CHARACTE~iiSTkCS AT 153 SAN VICENTE (TPC 270) page 2
A t.
~ lYo of 7'enant Nam¢s Len~th pf A reed fa Mtent to purchas Comrrients
W
Na bedrooma _(ns Shown on ApplrcatFon)
~ occu anc converslan form signed __
months
3G 2 Ral~h F~ JoYce BurEin 170 x x
~
3H 3, Manlyn So 20p ~~~~ ~
3J 3 Mar o Uorrr~er 147
3K _ 2 Per ~ohnson
~~ 28 x x Gould letter staies unit Es vacant "ta the tenanu' best knawled~e "
Johnson siates he is tenant of ur~+t, hut does not state it is nma res
4A i
~ So hie Vasdas
~~~ 9 x x Gould letler states umt is vacant "to the tenants' best knowied e"
Vasdas states that she hves "part o the year in Califorma "
48 2 Ted Roussos 103 x x tonnected by sta~rtase wiih unit 36, in wh~th Mr. Rpussos's w~fe tis
~ Eisted and has si ned as a se arate tenart
4C 3 Pauline AndBrson ~ 75
~ ~
4D 3 M~Iton &~ Leah Bassln 203 ~~
~~~
4E Z Harry itoussos SS x ^ x
4F 1 tharles & Rosemary Ames 177 x x
4G 2 John Stnke 42 x x Gauld iettar states umt is vacant "to the tenants' best Icnowiedge"
Strilie states untt ts "soie res~dence in [al~forma" lput also lrves in qh~o
4H 3 Vrvian Island 237
~
4~ 3 Herman S~ jeanette Cowen 169 x x ~
~
4K 2 Anthony Va5~~as
~ 4+1 x x Goul~etter states umt ~s va[ant "to the tenanks' best k~ow~ed e."
Vasdas does not claim this unrt as r~ma residence
~ 1~1,~111Y1~1 Y ~ L