SR-8-A (211)~~
P&Z:DK~d:DB:PC2.TP270PC Santa Monica, Ca~ifornia
Planning Commission Mtg: January 20~ 1993
T0: The Honorable Planning Cammission
FROl~7: Planning Staff
SUBSECT: TPC 274,
Conversio
Address:
Zoning:
Owner ( s ) :
VTTM 51424, 30-Unit Tenant-Participating
n
1~3 San Vicante Boulevard
R2
Harry T. RQU~sos and Theodosius T.
Roussos
Background: This is an application for approval of a Tenant-
Participating Conversion (TPC) subm~tted under the provisions af
the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA) approved by
the voters of the City of Santa Manica in June 1984 and amended
in 1990. As required by the provisions of TORCA, the public
hearing held by the Planning Commission an the TPC applicatian is
neld simultaneously with the hearing an the tentative map far the
conversio~.
The subject building was constructed in ~967 and CO~1S1S~5 of a
total of six 1-bedroom units, twelve 2-bedraom units, and twelve
3-bedroom units ~aith 46 on-site parking spaces, which exceeds the
minimum number of spaces required at the time af construction.
The applica~ion was submitted with forms indicating that precise-
ly 70~ af the tenants agx~eed ta the conversian. Questions have
been raisad regarding several of these signatures. If more than
one of these forms is considered invalid by the Planning Cammis-
sion, then the applicatian must be dani~d b~cause the minimum 2/3
signing the "Agreement to Conversion" farm would not be met.
After staff mailed the required "Notice to Tenants" on June 6,
1992~ notifying them that ~ TORCA application had been fi~ed,
staff received eight of th~se notices back from th~ United States
Post ~ffice marked "Vacant--Return to SEnder." These returned
notices wara for units 2A, 2C, 3B, 3F, 3K, 4A, 4G, and 4K, which
are a11 units for which staff had received signed "Agre~ment to
Conversion" forms.
an June 22, 1992, staff received a letter in which ridilliam rloore
stat~s that he is the postal employee responsible far delivery af
mail to 153 San tiricente Boulevard. He further states tha'~ he did
not dela.ver the eight letters returned to the City because
I was told by a per~on exiting the buiZding that certain
unit5 t,rere vacant. There have been problems with missing
mail in this building in the past. I noticed that the
gang o~ mailboxes were open and the name labels of of' the
boxe~ on several units were missing. Since I was told
- 1 -
that thase units were vacant, I returned the envelopes ta
the sender.
Y have delivered other mail to individuals in ~he same
units far which I returned this "accupant" mail and I will
do so if the City will return the Envelopes to me. [At-
tachment K]
Per the Post Offic~'s request, staff re-mailed the eight notices,
send.ing them by certified mail with return receipt r~q~ested.
Each of the raturn receipts were received by Planning and Zoning
Division with the signature of the corresponding tenant who
signed the "Agreement to Conversion" form. In most cases the
signatures an the return receipt appears ta be signed by the same
person who signed the "Agreement'~ ~orm, although there is some
variation. (Attachment P)
Further correspondence fram Mr. Monre was submitted by the appli-
cant on December 21, 1992. In this letter, M~. Moare states that
he recagnizes the names of the people who are said to occupy the
units in question because he has been delivering mail ta them
"for over a year." (Attachment K)
Shortly after the original tanant notices were sent, staff
received objections from several tenants and from a third party.
This correspondance casts further doubts on the actual tenancy of
the eight persans for whom mail was returned by the Post Office.
(Attachment J)
The letter from the third party, Ciaire Gould, was sent on ,Tune 5
and made severai claims. Five tenants later signed a petition
stating that Ms. Gould's statements were correct. Other letters
af objection werg alsfl raceived, and the tenant in unit 3D, Jerry
Tauger, withdrew his signature. The applicant was asked to
respond to each of ~he claims made. Anather letter of abjection
was received on December 30, 1992. (Attachment 0}
On September 30, the applican~ submitted a letter in ~ti=hich Jerry
Tauqer req~ests that staff "disregard" his orig~nal letter
withdrawing his agreement to the conversion. (Attachment L)
On December 29, the applicant submi~ted letters by Aileen Handen
and Danie~ Anzel, two of the tenants wha had sign~d a statement
indicating that 1~Is. Gould's observations wer~ correct. The let-
ters indicate support for the conversion, but they do nat rescind
earlier statements regarding the accuracy of Ms. Gould's observa-
tions. (Attachment L)
Claims which may have a bearing on the appraval of the case, and
their rebuttals by the applicant, are summarized as follaws:
1) r7s. Gauld's letter states that, "to the tenants' best
knowledge,'~ unit 2A was vacant at ~he tim~ the application was
filed~ that the last tenant in this unit had died ~ess than 6
months prior to the conversion application, and that the tenant
listed on the applica~ion, Gus Konugres, actually lived in Can~ga
- 2 -
Park. Pursuant to Artic~e XX, Mr. Konugres must have resided in
unit 2A as his primary residence for a minimum of 6 months priar
to signing the "Agreement to Conversion" forxn.
The applicant submitted a statement signed June 27, 1992, in
which Mr. Konugres states under penalty af perjury that he "has
been the tenant in [unit 2A] for mare than six months." He do~s
not state tha~ this unit was his primary residence for at least
six months priar to day he signed the Agreement to Conversion
form on May 31, 1992. (Attachment L)
As further evidence, the applicant submitted a copy af a lease
agreement with Mr. Kanugres dated December 1, ].991 and a a copy
of a"Silling History" (not actual bills) from Southern Califor-
nia Edison which indicates that electricity was billed in Mr.
Konugres' name starting in late October, 199~, one month prior to
the date on the submitted lease agreement. (Attachment R) Staff
phaned S~utharn California Edison regarding this billing history
and was informed by a bill~ng representative that the information
"can not be veri.f ied . "
2) Ms. Gould's lettar states that, "to the tenants' best
knowledge," the tenant listed for unit 2C, Pauline Pappas, does
not actualZy reside there, that she lives mast of the time in New
York, and that when she does visit 153 San Vicente she stays in a
different unit. It further states that unit 2C is utilized for
storag~ purposes rather than living purposes.
The app~icant responded to this claim with a letter signed by Ms.
Fappas declaring, under penalty of perjury, that she "has been
the tenant in this unit since January 1985F~ and that she spands
"part of each year in Santa Monica and part of ~ach year in New
York.'" However, she doas not state that unit 2C is her primary
residence, and in fact leaves this apen to question.
In order to qualify as a cosigning tenant, Ms. Pappas must have
resided in unit 2C as her primary residence for the six months
prior ta signing the "Agreemen~" farm on June 1, 1992. The ap-
plican~ has submi.tted bi.lls from Sa~.thern Califarnia Edisan show-
ing that Ms. Pappas was billed for each of the 5 months leading
up to June I, 1992, wzth an average dai].y demand of approximately
~ kilowatts for the 3-bedroom apartment. Staff believes this is
a low amount of electrical usage for an apartment of this size.
3) TJfs. Gauld's letter states that "it is the tenant's belief'"
that the tenant in unit 2H, Sherman Stacey, has lived ~h~re a
much shor~.er period than the 16 manths stated in the application,
although thay ara not sure if it is more or less than 6 months.
~ir. Stacey submitted a lett~r to staff stating that he has re-
sided as his "sole residence in Unit 2H since February of 1991,"
He did not make the statement "under penalty af perjury,"
however. The applicant submitted a capy af an "Accaun~s Silling
History" indicating that Mr. ~tacey has be~n billed ~ar eJ.ec-
trici~y at unit 2H since at least late October of 3991. He also
- 3 -
submitted a lease agreement dated ~ebruary l, 1991, and a decla-
ration by Ernie Powell, a representative of the applicant, that
he saw Mr. Stacey on the sidewalk in April af 1992 and that Mr.
Stacey at that time indicated that he had lived at 135 San
Vicente "over a year." (Attachment M)
~) Ms. Gould's letter states that, "to the tenants' best
knawledge," unit 3B is either vacant or has been c~mbined with
unit 4B (the unit directly above 3B) through a staircase con-
structad without a permit. Paula Vasilas, the wife of the prop-
erty's Qwner, signed as the tenant agreeing to the conversion for
uni~ 3B. Her husband Paul Roussos signed as the "Agreem~nt" form
for unit 4B.
Although the applicant was asked to respond ta all claims mad~ in
the objection letters, no response has been made to the claim
that a staircase has been constructed between the units 3B and
4B. No building permit has been issued for such a staircase. A
building inspector attempted ta make an inspection of the units
on January 4, 1993, but was refused ent~y.
If the units have been joined, this may have a bearing on the
validity of the signature obtained ~rom Ms. Vasilas or Mr. Rous-
sos, sinc~ they would in that case effectively live together,
alth~ugh their vote has been counted twice. The City Attorney's
office is c~rrently evaluating this issue.
Ms. Vasilas has written a letter stating that she is the occupant
of unit 3B and that she has "always oonsidered Apartment 3B to be
my saparate apartment." She does not state that it is her
primary place of residence, hawever,
5) Ms. Gould's lattar statea that, "to the tenants' best
knowledge," unit 3F is vacant. Nick Kallins signed as the tenant
for this unit.
The applicant submitted a letter in which Mr. Kallins states
under penalty of perjury that he is the tenant of unit 3F. He
does not state that this is his p~imary residence. A lease and
some ~.tility bills caere submitted as further d~cumentation.
6) r~s. Gould's letter states that, "ta the tenants' best
kno~~rledge," unit 3K is vacant. Perry Jahnson signed as the ten-
ant for this unit.
The applicant submitted a l~tter in which Mr. Johnson states
under panalty of p~rjury that ha is the tenant of unit 3F. He
does not state that this is his primary residence. A lease and
same utility bills were submitted as further dacumentation.
7) Ms. Gould's letter states that, "to the t~nants' best
knowledge," unit 4A is vacant. Sophie Vasilas signed as the ten-
ant for this unit.
The applicant responded ta this claim with a letter signed by Ms.
Vasilas declaring, under penalty af perjury, that she "has been
- 4 -
the tenant in this unit since last year" and that she re-
sides"part of the year in California and part of the year in New
York." However, she does not state that unit 4A is her primary
residence, and in fact leaves this apen to question.
Electric bills submitted by the applicant indicate continuous
electricity usag~ in Ms. Vasilas's name for the six months lead-
ing up ta the day she signed the "Agreement" farm. A copy of the
lease indicat~s hEr tenancy began on the first of September,
19g1.
8) Ms. Gould's letter states that, "to the tenants' best
knoGrledge," John Strike, who signed as the tenant for unit 4G,
did not reside in that unit a~ the time the application was
filed, as that unit was vacant.
Mr. Strike's letter states that unit 4G is his "sole ~esidence in
Califarnia" and that he has another residence in Ohio. He does
not state which residence is his primary residence. A copy of a
"Billing/Payment Ynformatian" sheet indicates that electricity
was continuously used in Mr. Strike's name for the six manth
period ~eading up to the signature date. A copy of Mr. Strike's
lease has aZso been submitted.
9) Ms. Gould's letter states that, "ta the tenants' best
knowledge," ~nit 4K was vacant at the time th~ TORCA application
was filed. Anthony Vasilas signed as the tenant for this unit.
Mr. Vasilas's letter states that he is the tenant of unit 4x, and
that hi~ wife is the tenant of the adjoining unit. He does nat
state that unit 4K is his primary residence. A lease agreement
has been submitted as further evidence of his tenancy. Billing
data was also submitted. Many of the bills indicate a daily
average of less than 5 kilowatts af electrical usage. Staff con-
siders this ta be law far a 2-bedroom unit.
It should be noted that the applicant has submitted no copies of
canceled rent checks as a rebuttal to the claa.ms by Ms. Gauld.
Although it is true that the blo~d relationship a~ many of the
tenants in question is nat a material issue, it is also true that
in order to qual.ify as a co-signing tenant, an individual must
reside in a unit in exchange for rent or some ~ther form of
consideration.
Staff laeliEVes that the applicant has failed to prove that at
least two of the cosigning tenants ac~ually reside in their units
as their place of pri~nary residence: Pauline Pappas, wha is
listed as the tenant af unit 2C, and Anthony Vasilas, who is
listed as the tenant af unit 4K. Like many of the other tenants
in question, these individuals have not made a dec~aratian ~hat
the subject units are their place of primary residence, or at
least that the subject units were their place of primary
residenc~ during the six months priar to signing the Agreement to
Conversian farm. In addition, lo4r electricity usage appea~s to
- 5 -
suppnrt the contention that these units are not occupi~d on a
full-~ime basis.
I~ the PZanning Commissi~n determines that the signatures for
units 2C and 4K are not valid, than the application must be de-
nied b~cause the requisite minimum ot 2/3 cosigning tenants wi11
not be met.
The Planning Co~amission may deny this applica~ian QNLY upon a
specific finding that the praposed conversion fails to meEt the
requirements of Article Xx of the City Charter (TORCA) or the
State Subdivision Map Act ar is the result of fraud, misrepresen-
tation, or threat or similar coercion.
City staff has found basis far denia~ of this application and
tharefore recommends denial with the findings set forth below.
Summary Information
Number of Total Units
Unkts with Cosigning T~nants
Units with Tenants Signing
Intent ~o Purchase
Units with Senior or
Disabled Tenants
Estimate of Conversian Tax
owner(s)
Last Hearing Date
per Sub. Map Act
30
21 (70~ of total
units}
19 (63~ of total units)
2
$162,OD0 on sale of all
units
Harry T. Raussos and
Theodosius T.
Roussos
January 20, 1993, by
extensian letter
Building Qualifica~ion: The subject build~ng is a Qualifying
Building per Sec. 2001 (1) af Article XX of the City Charter, as
declared by the applicant and confirmed by the City Planning Di-
vision, the Building and Safety Division and the Rent Control
Administratian office.
Objectians: Numerous abjections to this Tenant-Participating
Conver-sion were filed with the Ci~y within the 25 day objection
period following notification ta all building tenants of the
Tenant-Participating Conversion Applicati~n, as nated above.
Additiona~ Infox-mation: Additional infarmation may be found in
the attached portions of the Tenant-Participating Canversion Ap-
plicatian and Tentative Map Application.
- 6 -
Analysis~Recommendation: A Tenant-Participating Conversion,
along with any raquired tantative map, ~ay only be denied if it
fails ta meet the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter,
is the result af fraud, misrepresentation, or threat or simiiar
coercion, or fails ~o meet any mandatary ~equirement of the Sub-
division Map Act.
In that this application does not ~eet the requirements o~ Arti-
cle XX, staff respectfully xecommends that Tenant-Participating
Conv~rsion 270 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51424 be denied
based on the follawing findings:
Tenant-Participating Conversion Findings
l. This Tenant-Participating Conversion Application does not
meet ~h~ r~qu.irements Qf Article xx of the Ci~y Charter of
the City af Santa Monica. [reference Sec. 2004 (a), Arti--
cle XX~
2. The Tenant-Participating Canversian App~ication has been
deemed complete and acceptad for filing. At the time of
filing it met the requirements of Section 2002 of Article
XX of the City Charter far a complete application.
Hawever, based on data submit~ed since that time, it has
been determined that the application fails ta meet all af
the requirements of Saction 2002 af Article XX of the City
Charter. The subject application was siqned by cosigning
tenants accupying 70~ (not lass than two-thirds} of all
the residential units in th~ lauilding. However, two of
these signatures have been obta~ned frorn tenants who have
nat been shown to qualify as Cosigning Tenants, These
individuals are Pau~ine Pappas (unit 2C) and Anthany Vasi-
Ias (unit 4K). The applicant has not demonstrated that
these tanants made their units their place of primary
residence for the six manths prior to signing, as required
under Section 2001{b).
(c) Within five (5) days af the filing of the Tenant-
Participating Conversion Application, the City sent
notic~ to eve~y tenant in the building stating that a
Tenant-Participating Conversion Application had been
filed and that any objections thereto may lae filed
with the City within twenty-five (25) days from tha
date af the notice.
(d) Upon the filing of the applicatian for the required
tentative subdivision/parc~l map, the Tenant-
Participating Conversion Application and required map
were scheduled for hearing and processed in accordance
with the proceduras for th~ processing of subdivision
maps.
- 7 -
Tentative Map Findinqs
1. The proposed subdivisian, together with its pro~isions for
its design and improvemen~s, is inconsistent with Articl~
XX of th~ City of Santa Monica Char~er.
ATTACHMENTS: A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
x.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q-
R.
Prepared by: D.
Dr
PC2jtp270pc
tpc#
summary Cover sheet
Unit/Tenant Info.
Seller Financing Info.
Parking Plan
Summary CC+R's
Tenant Notica
Repairs and Alteratidns
Radius Map
Tract/Parcel Map
Correspondence f~om Objecting Tenants and
Claire Gauld
Correspondence fram Past Office Carrier
Correspondence from Supporting Tenants and
from Applicant
Declaration of Ernie Powell
Cor~espondenca to Tenants from Staf~
Correspondence to Applicant ~rom Staff
"Agreement to Conversion" Forms and Return
Receipts for Units 2A, 2C, 3B, 3F, 3K, 4A,
and 4K
Lease Agreements
Utility Bii~s (available for public review
public hearing or upon request)
Kenyon Wabster, Planning Manager
ummond Buckley, Assistant Planner
- 8 -
from
4G,
at
+ ~ S
A~'T~CHIV~ENT C