Loading...
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