Warning to Investors: CONAM / Epstein / Barry / Lein Facing Tenant & Safety Complaint

[Elena Sánchez]

PUBLIC STATEMENT: Civil Rights Violations, Chemical Exposure & Legal Misconduct at St. Regis Park Apartments (Chula Vista, CA)

As of August 2, 2025, I am issuing this formal public statement to expose a documented pattern of tenant endangerment, housing retaliation, unlicensed real estate practices, and legal negligenceinvolving St. Regis Park Apartments, CONAM Management Corporation, and its leadership — including owner Daniel J. Epstein, broker Shay Barry, Community Manager Deanna Valdez, and legal counsel Susie Lein of Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP.

This statement is made to inform the public, real estate investors, housing authorities, and oversight agencies of events and formal complaints that raise serious concerns regarding tenant safety, licensing compliance, and federal program integrity.

⸻

SUMMARY OF EVENTS (May 22 – Present):

On May 22, 2025, my 69-year-old mother, myself (a cancer survivor with a compromised immune system), and my three adult children were exposed to tear gas and chemical agents deployed inside our home during a mental health crisis response by the Chula Vista Police Department.

Despite the contamination, St. Regis Park Apartments, under the management of Deanna Valdez, failed to conduct cleanup, remediation, or provide safe reentry guidance. Valdez was fully informed of our medical histories and symptoms, yet no action was taken. A total of 25 individuals — including residents, guests, and neighbors — experienced symptoms such as respiratory distress, vomiting, dizziness, and eye damage. Written declarations and emergency medical records are on file.

My son required medical care in San Francisco. I continue to suffer from new eye complications. My mother, who has serious cardiac issues and other chronic conditions, has also experienced deterioration in her health due to the exposure.

⸻

MANAGEMENT FAILURES AND LICENSING VIOLATIONS:

Our concerns were raised directly with Deanna Valdez, the on-site Community Manager, who does not possess a valid California real estate license, yet continues to act in a licensed capacity under the authority of Broker Shay Barry, licensed by the California Department of Real Estate. This constitutes a potential violation of DRE policy and has been reported.

Instead of providing remediation or care, retaliatory housing actions were taken, including attempts to erase tenancy history and misrepresent lease status.

⸻

DOCUMENTED COMPLAINTS & AGENCY FILINGS:

• California Department of Real Estate

📁 File No. PC #3-25-0626-003 — Investigating Shay Barry and Deanna Valdez for unlicensed activity under CONAM’s operations

• California State Bar

– Complaint filed against Susie Lein of Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP for unethical legal conduct, failure to investigate, and dismissal of protected complaints

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD OIG)

• U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

• San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC)

• Legal Aid San Diego

• City of Chula Vista — Government Tort Claim submitted for public safety negligence and failure to provide safe reentry after chemical exposure

All filings include:

✔️ 25 signed witness declarations

✔️ Emergency medical documentation

✔️ Photographic and email evidence contradicting management’s public narrative

⸻

NOTICE TO HUD, INVESTORS, AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS:

Given the severity of these violations, I am publicly urging:

• HUD and SDHC to immediately suspend contracts and investigate CONAM Management Corporation and its leadership

• Section 8 program administrators, housing nonprofits, and federal partners to reevaluate relationships and subsidies tied to CONAM-managed properties

• Real estate investors to request full audits and compliance reviews of all CONAM-affiliated sites, especially those involving public or affordable housing funds

When misconduct is tolerated at one property, it raises questions about what is occurring across all CONAM properties — particularly those receiving federal subsidies or managing vulnerable populations.

⸻

CLOSING STATEMENT:

I do not share this lightly. I am not seeking revenge — I am seeking accountability and protection for families like mine. This happened to us. It can happen to anyone.

The public deserves to know which companies place tenants at risk and which agencies continue to fund them despite multiple documented complaints.

– CP

Housing Justice Advocate | Cancer Survivor

[Dan H.]

Quote from @Joe S.:

Quote from @Dan H.:

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- You rented an apartment with no tear gas issues.   The police see tear gas in the unit.   For some reason you believe it is the LL responsibility instead or trying to collect from the city of CV.  My lease is pretty clear that tenant is responsible for all 3rd party damages.   This includes all 3rd parties including guests and law enforcement.   How is this the LL responsibility.   Collect from the city, it is not the LL’s fault that the police tear gassed your unit.  The police did this.  Good luck collecting from the city.  Have you tried to collect from the city?  I feel more sorry for the other tenants that in effect are collaterally effected, but it is still caused by a 3rd party.  How is the LL responsible for the actions of the police?

- do you have renters insurance?  My lease requires renters insurance.  I do not know if this would be covered by renters insurance as I expect police actions may be excluded.

- it is my belief in CA that a broker can hire w2 workers for virtually any role as long as they are not called a property manager.  I know of no large property management company that only hires agent employees for the various roles.

This will likely cost you much more than negotiating with the LL an early lease termination because the unit is not in a livable state. 

I still ponder why you believe the LL should be responsible for addressing damage caused by the police while you occupied the unit?   Would you have the same belief if the police busted down the door because they had an arrest warrant?  In both cases, my lease has the tenant responsible.   

Best wishes

I don’t know this person Dan, but for a person to open a brand new account just for slander purposes makes a person question the poster more than anything else.

By the way, my childhood friend is perhaps the largest private residential owner in Chula Vista (entire South Bay).   I initially questioned if it was one of their units (it is not).   It caused me to have increased interest and read the OP’s complaints (normally I would have quickly moved on),

 I suspect the OP believes the LL is in the wrong, but I question why she believes this.  The LL did not tear gas the unit.   I suspect the OP believes what she posted, but question why she believes addressing tear gas by the police in a rented unit is the LL’s responsibility?   If the unit is unrented, it is the LL’s responsibility to address anything that happens to the unit.  If the unit is rented, the tenant is responsible for damage caused by a 3rd party (at least per my lease).

If OP leased a vehicle and a 3rd party damaged it (even if it is the police), does the OP believe this is the responsibility of the company that leased the car to the OP?

I also question why the OP believes the broker has to only hire agents as employees.  This would be akin to a licensed contractor being restricted to only hiring licensed trade workers.

I see a lot of avoidance of responsibility in this world.   Usually it is those that are struggling in life.  When I go to various conferences and meet ups, I meet many young people who are hustlers.  They take responsibility.   They are on the path to crushing it.

OP mentioned being a cancer survivor multiple times, the age of her mom, and 3 children.   This is to get sympathy but has no bearing on the events.   The police damaged the unit while the OP had it rented.

The OP is responsible for the unit that she rented.   If the problem came from the unit such as a slab leak or needing new roof due to age, those are LL responsibilities.   If a 3rd party damages the unit, that is the tenant’s responsibility.

I still believe the right approach is to negotiate a reduced lease termination with the LL.  If the tenant had not threatened a lawsuit, I would likely to terminate their lease at month end and not charge for the damage caused by the police or resulting vacancy.  This would not be because I feel responsible for the actions of the police but because I recognize the challenges faced by many tenants.  Ideally tenant exits realizing the compassion in my offer.

If a tenant threatens a law suit, I would charge them full cost of restoring the unit to a state for occupancy and for the associated vacancy period.   I would be surprised if the total vacancy was not at least 2 months.   I would replace any carpet.   I would consider priming and painting the entire interior.   It would not be a low cost tenant flip.   It would be costly to the tenant.

As indicated, tenant is best served by negotiating the best terms LL is willing to give them for an early lease termination.  Legal challenges are expensive and if the lease states the tenant is responsible for all damages to the unit, the OP likely has a weak case (too weak for me to expect the OP will find someone to take this on contingency).  I also suspect this may surpass CA small claims limit of $10k.   A unit that can hold 5 adults that are not couples in San Diego area is not cheap.   I would hope it is at least a 3 br, 2 ba unit.   Likely at least $3k/month rent and probably more (my 3BR units are over $4k).   Then cost for an extensive unit flip with full extensive cleaning to remove all tear gas residue, Painting of all of the interior and full carpet replacement will be a few thousand.  Without negotiated LL concessions, the tenant is likely responsible for a total cost in excess of $10k.

as indicated, the tenant may have already lost any compassion from the LL if they already have threatened a lawsuit.   By the way, I regularly get threats of suit, they never happen for RE because the person who makes the threat of the lawsuit is in the wrong.  In this case, my lease would be clear that this is the responsibility of the tenant.