City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 09/12/11 Item Number: A-2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of 1) Introduction of an Ordinance
Amending the Culver City Municipal Code to Add a New Chapter 15.13 Relating to
Mobile Home Park Resident Protection; or 2) Direction to Staff to Prepare a Draft
“No-Closure” Covenant.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Tevis Barnes/Sherry Jordan/CDD
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5782/ (310) 253-5746
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: Agendas and Meetings – City Council (09/08/11); Mailing to all
mobile home park owners and residents and persons within a 500 foot radius of each
mobile home park (08/29/11 and 09/02/11)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (09/01/11)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/07/11)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (09/07/11)
City Manager Approval:
John M. Nachbar (09/08/11)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider the following options:
1. Introduce the proposed ordinance to amend the Culver City Municipal Code by
adding a new Chapter 15.13 relating to mobile home park resident protection in the
event of a mobile home park closure or change of use (“Proposed Ordinance”)
(Attachment 1); OR
2. Direct staff to prepare a draft “no-closure” covenant for the City Council’s
consideration at a future meeting; OR
3. Determine not to adopt a City ordinance and continue to rely on state law in the
event of a closure; OR
4. Provide other direction to staff as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
In 1960 and 1961 two mobile home parks were approved by the City on Grand View
Boulevard (the “Mobile Home Parks”). The Mobile Home Park property at 4025
Grand View Boulevard is a 38,999 + square-foot parcel with 20 rental pad units. The City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Mobile Home Park property at 4071 Grand View Boulevard is a 1.25 + acre parcel
with 23 rental pad units. Both of these properties are currently zoned as RMD or
“Medium Density Multiple Family Residential.” These Mobile Home Parks are not
included in a Redevelopment Project Area and are not under any affordability or rent
restriction covenants.
In 2005 the Agency Board voted to exclude the Mobile Home Parks from the Olson
Urban Housing LLC Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, a proposed development in
the area. The proposed development did not proceed and the Mobile Home Park
owners have not sold their properties. At that time, certain Mobile Home Park
residents requested that the Agency implement tenant protections in case the Mobile
Home Park owners sold or changed the use of their properties.
In response to the concerns raised by the residents during the 2005 discussion, on
November 3, 2008 the City Council considered whether to: 1) rely on California State
law in the event of a mobile home park closure or change of use (collectively,
“closure”); 2) direct staff to develop an ordinance providing for additional mobile
home park resident protections beyond what is provided in State law; or 3) enter into
a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the individual Mobile Home Park
owners in relation to present or future property use. The City Council unanimously
directed staff to develop an ordinance to further define adequate replacement
housing, mitigation efforts and relocation costs to Mobile Home Park residents.
Since that time, staff has been working on a draft of the Proposed Ordinance to
provide for additional resident protections in the event of a mobile home park
closure. In drafting the Proposed Ordinance, staff has reviewed other cities’
regulations and has consulted with the Gibbs Law Firm, which specializes in issues
relating to the manufactured housing community. During the course of this process,
staff has also met with the Mobile Home Park owners, Roy Matsuoka, owner of 4071
Grand View Boulevard, and Frank Teng and Edward Lee, owners of 4025 Grand
View Boulevard (collectively, “Park Owners”), and their respective representatives.
During one meeting, the Park Owners indicated their desire to enter into an MOU
with the City relating to the present or future use of their properties, rather than be
subject to a City ordinance.
In response to this meeting, staff issued a memo on July 22, 2009 advising the City
Council of the Park Owners’ request to consider an MOU. In response to the memo,
a representative for Roy Matsuoka, one of the Park Owners, spoke during the public
comment period at the July 27, 2009 Council meeting, requesting the City Council
agendize a discussion of the option of creating an MOU between the park owners
and the City. One of the Mobile Home Park residents, Frank Campagna, was also in
attendance and spoke in opposition to an MOU and in support of an ordinance. The
City Council did not take action to agendize a discussion of this issue at that time.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Community Meetings:
Also during this process, staff has held three community meetings. Two of the
meetings, held on September 15, 2009 and March 24, 2011, were to inform the
interested parties of the process to develop an ordinance and receive comments
from the Mobile Home Park residents and Park Owners relating to the proposed
regulations to be included in the ordinance. A notice was sent to all interested
parties on May 26, 2011 advising them of the availability of a draft of the Proposed
Ordinance and the opportunity to submit comments during the public review period
from May 31, 2011 to August 15, 2011. During the public review period, staff
conducted a third community meeting on July 7, 2011, in order to receive additional
public comments regarding the draft of the Proposed Ordinance. At these meetings,
comments regarding a potential mobile home park closure ordinance included:
• Park Owners voiced opposition to an ordinance, which they believed can be
stringent and “one size fits all” and requested an MOU or no closure
covenant.
• Statements that these types of ordinances are too difficult to enforce and are
usually litigated.
• Concern regarding ability to change an ordinance versus an MOU.
• Ensure mobile home park residents are provided with sufficient notice prior to
closure.
• Request that mobile home park residents be offered a first right of refusal on
the purchase/rental of housing units if developed into a residential project.
• Cleary define “reasonable cost of relocation” and “equivalent replacement or
alternative housing.”
• Concern that an ordinance could not be tailored to the individual needs of
each of the mobile home parks.
• If ordinance is too onerous on the mobile home park owner, it could make a
mobile home park property economically undevelopable.
• Suggestion that where required relocation assistance benefits create an
undue hardship on the mobile home park owner, that the City cover the
difference or that Redevelopment Agency set aside funds be used to offset
some of the relocation costs.
• Concern over determining fair market value of a mobile home unit.
• City’s Proposed Ordinance does not comply with state law.
• Request for clarification of the use of the term “in place value” when
considering the adjusted fair market value of the mobile home unit.
DISCUSSION:
State law (California Government and Civil Codes) sets forth specific provisions
relating to mobile home park closures (Attachment 2). California Government Code
Section 66427.4(d) gives a local agency the authority to enact more stringent
regulations beyond the minimum requirements established by State law. Currently, City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
the City does not have any local regulations and would rely on State law in the event
of a mobile home park closure within its jurisdiction.
The State’s establishment of these minimum standards for local regulation of mobile
home park closures is due to the high cost of moving mobile homes, the potential for
damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile
homes, and the financial impact of moving to the mobile home owner who may have
a significant investment in his or her home.
Proposed Ordinance:
The City Council, at its November 3, 2008 meeting, determined that State law does
not provide mobile home owners with adequate protections in the event of a closure
and directed staff to prepare an ordinance for City Council’s consideration.
Attached is a matrix comparing the applicable components of State law with those in
the City’s Proposed Ordinance (Attachment 3). A brief summary of the key
components of the Proposed Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
• Increased notice requirements to mobile home owners and mobile home park
residents during the closure process.
• Detailed requirements for the contents of a Relocation Impact Report (RIR),
describing the impact on displaced mobile home owners and cost estimates
for relocation assistance benefits.
• Specific findings required for the approval of an RIR.
• Proposed conditions of approval to mitigate the impacts on displaced mobile
home owners.
• Additional exemptions offered to mobile home park owners from providing
relocation assistance benefits.
It is important to note that the Proposed Ordinance would not apply to a mobile
home park that is owned by its residents, including, but not limited to, a
condominium, stock cooperative or planned unit development of a mobile home
park. Thus, Culver City Terrace, located at 11250 Playa Street would not be subject
to the provisions of this Ordinance.
Public comments relating to the draft of the Proposed Ordinance have been received
and considered by staff (Attachment 4). Changes to the draft issued on May 31,
2011 in response to public comment are identified by strikeout/underlined text and
include, but are not limited to:
• The definition of “Adjusted Fair Market Value” (Section 15.13.010) has
been revised to clarify that “site value” means the appraised value of the
mobile home “while located on the present site.”
• Revised the definition of “Eligible Occupant” (Section 15.13.010) to clarify
that in order to qualify as an Eligible Occupant, the mobile home owner City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
must reside in their mobile home at the time of filing of the Relocation
Impact Report application with the City.
• Revised Sections 15.13.005.B and 15.13.050.C.1 to address GMPNA
comments relating to exemptions from relocation assistance benefits.
• Section 15.13.030.A: Revised “nature” to “details” per Grand View Mobile
Home Park Neighborhood Association’s (“GMPNA”) suggestion.
• References to “comparable” mobile home parks or other rental housing
have been revised to read “reasonably comparable.” Provisions were also
included that the Applicant’s retained Relocation Specialist shall determine
what constitutes “reasonably comparable.”
• Corrected various typos.
Staff’s responses to public comments are summarized in Attachment 5 for City
Council’s consideration.
In the event the City Council introduces the Proposed Ordinance this evening, staff
will return with a related Fee Resolution (establishing fees to cover the
administrative costs involved with the proposed process) to be considered
concurrently with the adoption of the Ordinance.
“No-Closure” Covenant:
As discussed above, the Park Owners have requested that the City negotiate a “no-
closure” covenant that would be binding on the Park Owners. It has been suggested
by the Park Owners that such covenant would prohibit them from closing or
changing the use of their respective Mobile Home Parks for a period of three years,
during which time they would be required to “work in good faith to reach written
agreement on relocation arrangements for each unit owner presently living in his
park.” The Park Owners have also requested that the covenant contain a provision
restricting the City from enacting any mobile home park closure ordinance during
that three-year period. Any covenant that would be executed would be recorded on
each of the Mobile Home Park properties and would also bind any future owners to
the terms and conditions of the covenant. (Attachment 6 includes copies of both
Park Owners’ written requests for such a covenant as well as a sample covenant
submitted by Mr. Matsuoka’s representative.)
Staff only received the sample covenant late Friday afternoon, September 2
nd
and
has not had the opportunity to fully review or comment on the document. However,
without the benefit of such review, in general, staff has evaluated the option of a “no-
closure” covenant in light of this request and provides the following information:
1. The Park Owners have requested a provision in the covenant that would
preclude the City from enacting any mobile home park closure ordinance during the
three-year period. Other than a statutorily permissible development agreement, the
City cannot enter into an agreement that prohibits the current or a future City Council
from enacting legislation that it may deem appropriate. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
2. As an alternative to a “no-closure” covenant, staff has revised Section
15.13.005.B.2 to add a new subsection “c” to exempt a mobile home park property
from the provisions of the Proposed Ordinance, including the requirement for the
preparation of an RIR, where the park owner has obtained written agreements with
100% of the Eligible Occupants to provide them with mutually agreeable relocation
assistance benefits. This is distinguishable from the exemption from relocation
assistance benefits set forth in Section 15.13.050.C, which may be applied for after
the completion of an RIR. Such request for exemption is considered at the public
hearing by the City Council together with its consideration of the RIR. Staff suggests
that inclusion of this new language as part of Section 15.13.005.B.2.c, making the
Proposed Ordinance inapplicable where a park owner has obtained agreement with
100% of the Eligible Occupants, would serve the same purpose as a “no-closure”
covenant, and provide that option to the Park Owners for a longer period of time
than three years.
3. Even if a covenant were negotiated that did not bind the Council’s actions in the
future, it would not be the most effective long-term tool, as it would only eliminate the
need for an ordinance if the Park Owners are able to reach agreement with all
Eligible Occupants within the three-year period. In the event the Park Owners are
unable to reach agreement with 100% of the Eligible Occupants, the City Council
would likely need to revisit this issue again in three years.
It should be noted that the Park Owners have each submitted a petition to the City
indicating those residents in their respective parks that support a “no-closure”
covenant (Attachment 7). With regard to the Mobile Home Park located at 4025
Grand View Boulevard, a total of 15 owners of the mobile home units signed the
petition supporting a “no-closure” covenant. However, one individual listed on that
petition owns two of the units located in the Mobile Home Park and leases one of
those units to tenants. With regard to the unit that is leased, the mobile home owner
(because she is not a resident owner) would not qualify for relocation benefits under
the proposed draft ordinance as to that particular unit.
With regard to the Mobile Home Park located at 4071 Grand View Boulevard, a total
of 12 of the resident unit owners signed a petition supporting a covenant, which was
submitted to the City by Mr. Matsuoka.
However, the City also received from Frank Campagna, in his capacity as President
of the Grand View Mobilehome Park Neighborhood Association, a letter indicating
that several of the mobile home owners were “misled and/or coerced” into signing
the petition supporting a “no-closure” covenant. Attached to Mr. Campagna’s letter
was another petition titled “Petition No. 2” signed by six of the residents of 4071
Grand View Boulevard stating: 1) their “absolute preference” for the City to adopt a
mobile home park closure ordinance; and 2) their desire to “retract and cancel” their
signatures” from the petition supporting a “no-closure” covenant. Most recently, the
City received two other petitions submitted by Mr. Campagna as follows: (1) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
“Petition No. 1,” contains the signatures of 10 resident unit owners (two of whom live
in the same unit) and states that the signatories fully support adoption of a mobile
home park conversion ordinance. The difference between Petition No. 1 and
Petition No. 2 is that the signatories for Petition No. 1 never signed Mr. Matsuoka’s
petition; and (2) “Petition No. 3” includes one additional signature of a resident unit
owner who states their preference for the adoption of a mobile home park closure
ordinance versus a 3-year covenant, even though they signed Mr. Matsuoka’s
petition. All of the petitions submitted by Mr. Campagna are included as Attachment
8.
Potential Zoning Amendment for Future Change of Use of Mobile Home Park
Properties:
There has been substantial concern expressed by the Park Owners that the
provision of the substantial relocation assistance benefits required by the Proposed
Ordinance would significantly reduce or eliminate the economic value of the Park
Owners’ property. As a result, there have been suggestions made that the City
consider providing the opportunity for additional development intensity through an
overlay zone to be applied to the property if certain conditions are met, such as
maintaining the mobile home park for a specified duration and applying the incentive
overlay zone only upon vacancy of a majority of the current mobile home park units.
If the City Council is interested in pursuing such a program, it may direct staff to
initiate the process for consideration of any necessary Zoning Code Amendment and
conduct a financial analysis of the level of the incentive zoning density necessary to
adequately compensate for the required relocation assistance
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss the Proposed Ordinance and consider
the following options: 1) introduce the Proposed Ordinance for first reading; OR 2)
direct staff to prepare a draft “no-closure” covenant for City Council’s consideration
at a future meeting; OR 3) determine not to adopt a City ordinance and continue to
rely on state law in the event of a closure; OR 4) provide other direction to staff as
deemed appropriate.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the introduction of the proposed Ordinance.
If the proposed Ordinance is adopted, a fiscal impact may be triggered if there is a
mobile home park closure. In that event, fees are proposed to be established to
recover some of the costs involved in processing an application for approval of a
Relocation Impact Report and any City consultants that are necessary for review of
the application. In addition, there may be a fiscal impact associated with the
potential loss of new development occurring on the mobile home park sites due to
increased development costs as a result of the requirement to provide relocation City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
assistance benefits; however, the specifics of any such monetary loss to the City is
difficult to determine at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Excerpts from State law
3. Comparison between Proposed City Requirements for the Mobile Home Park
Ordinance and State of California Regulations
4. Public Comments to draft of Proposed Ordinance
5. Staff Response to Public Comments
6. Requests from Park Owners for a “no-closure” covenant and sample covenant
7. 4025 and 4071 Grand View Boulevard mobile home park petitions
8. Campagna Petitions Numbers 1, 2 and 3
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1A Introduce an Ordinance to amend the Culver City Municipal Code by
adding a new Chapter 15.12 relating to mobile home park resident
protection;
OR
1B. Direct staff to prepare a draft “no-closure” covenant for City Council’s
consideration at a future meeting;
OR
1C. Determine not to adopt an ordinance and continue to rely on state law in
the event of a mobile home park closures;
OR
1D. Provide other direction to staff as deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
09/12/11
Consideration of 1) Introduction of an Ordinance
Amending the Culver City Municipal Code to Add a New
Chapter 15.13 Relating to Mobile Home Park Resident
Protection; or 2) Direction to Staff to Prepare a Draft
"No-Closure" Covenant
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Proposed Ordinance 1-17
2. Excerpts from State law 18-23
3. Comparison between Proposed City Requirements 24-27
for the Mobile Home Park Ordinance and State of
California Regulations
4. Public Comments to draft of Proposed Ordinance 28-36
5. Staff Response to Public Comments 37-41
6. Requests from Park Owners for a "no-closure"
covenant and sample covenant 42-49
7. 4025 and 4071 Grand View Boulevard mobile home
park petitions 50-55
8. Campagna Petitions Numbers 1, 2 and 3 56-64 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Sections:
15.13.005
15.13.010
15.13.015 ,
15.13.020
15.13.025
15.13.030
15.13.035
15.13.040
15.13.045
15.13.050
15.13.055
- PurOdse
- Definitions
-Mobile Home Park Change of Use or Closure
Application Filing for Relocation Impact Report
- Required Notification
- Informational Meetings:
- Relocatidh. Impact Report
Findings and Conditions of Approval
E
xemption Assistance Benefits
m
ption froM .kelocation Assistance Benefits
- Fees x e
15.13.005 - Purpose and Applicability
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING TITLE 15, LAND USAGE, OF THE CULVER CITY
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 15.13 RELATING TO
MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENT PROTECTION.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Culver City, California,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Title 15, Land Usage, of the Culver City Municipal Code is
hereby amended to add a new Chapter 15.13 relating to Mobile Home Park resident
protection as follows:
CHAPTER 15.13: - MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENCE PROTECTION
A. Purpose. It is the intent of this Chapter to carry out and supplement the
requirements of State law for the purpose of mitigating adverse impacts of
the closure or change of use of a Mobile Home Park to other uses or the
discontinuance of use of Mobile Home Parks on eligible, displaced Mobile
Home Owners and residents by requiring Mobile Home Park Owners to
provide adequate relocation assistance benefits.
27
28
-1- c. A Mobile Home Park where the Applicant has entered into a
written agreement with 100 percent of the Eligible Occupants
providing for mutually satisfactory relocation assistance
benefits. The written agreement shall comply with the
requirements of Section 15.13.050.C.1.a. The agreements
shall be recorded against the Mobile Home Park property on the
records of the County of Los Angeles in sufficient form and
detail to advise a potential purchaser of the fee interest in the
Mobile Home Park property of the existence of and content of
the agreement. Any prospective purchaser of a Mobile Home in
the Mobile Home Park shall be advised as to the existence of
any such agreements before purchasing a Mobile Home and
provided with a copy of the recorded agreements.
15.13.010 - Definitions
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. Applicability.
1. Except as otherwise provided, this Chapter shall apply to all existing
and/or future Mobile Home Parks.
2. This Chapter shall not apply to:
a. A Resident-Owned Mobile Home Paticor
b. The discontinuance of the use :of property as a Mobile Home
Park which is the result of an adjudication of bankruptcy of the
Mobile Home Park by a. i:court of competent jurisdiction. The
Applicant shall have the burden to produce -substantial evidence
that a court of competent jurisdiction haS.::.-determined in
connection with a proceeding. in bankruptcy that the
discontinuance of use of the .:affected Mobile Home Park is
necessary. The documentation shall include the title, case
number, and court in which the bankruptcy proceedings were
held, and certified copies of :a1.1 pertinent judgments, orders and
decrees of the court
. •
In addition to the definitions contained elsewhere in this Code, the following words
and phrases shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be defined as follows, unless it
is clearly apparent from the context that another meaning in intended. Should any
of the definitions be in conflict with any other provision of this Code, these definitions
shall prevail.
Adjusted Fair Market Value. The Adjusted Fair Market Value of the Mobile Home
shall be calculated as follows: The allowable National Automobile Dealers
-2- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Association (NADA) Appraisal Guide value of the Mobile Home plus 50% of the sitc
value of the Mobile Home while located on the present site in placc, as determined
by an appraiser who has the professional designation of MAI by the American
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors and is
experienced with manufactured housing.
Applicant. The person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other entity having
leasehold interest in or fee ownership of a Mobile Home Park. If the holder of the
majority interest in the fee ownership of the Mobile Home Park is not the Applicant,
then the Applicant must provide evidence of the majority interest owner's consent to
the filing of the application for consideration of a Relocation Impact Report. If the
Applicant is the holder of a leasehold interest in the Mobile Home Park, the owner(s)
of the fee interest in the Mobile Home Park shall consent to the application for
consideration of a Relocation Impact Report.
City Council. The City Council of the City of Culver City.
Change of Use of a Mobile Home Park U se of a Mobile Home Park for a purpose
other than the rental or the holding out for rent of two or more Mobile Home Spaces
to accommodate Mobile Homes used for human habitation. Change of Use shall
not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a Mobile Home Park rule or
regulation. Change of Use may affect an entire Mobile Home Park or any portion
thereof. A Change of Use shall not include a change to a Resident-Owned Mobile
Culver City•Community Development Director or his/her
Home Park.
Closure of a Mobile Home Park or Mobile Home Park Closure. The
discontinuance of the use of property as a Mobile Home Park.
Director. The City
designee.
Eligible Occupant. A Mobile Home Owner residing in the Mobile Home on a full
time basis and his or her "inirnediate family," as that term is defined in California
Civil Code Section 798.35, who resides in the Mobile Home at the time of filing of
the Relocation Impact Report application with the City. Eligible Occupant shall
include a .Mobile Home Owner who is subleasing his or her Mobile Home, pursuant
to the provisions.- Of California Civil Code Section 798.23.5, due to a medical
emergency or medical treatment that requires the Mobile Home Owner's temporary
absence from his or her home. Eligible occupant shall not include a Non-Owner
Resident.
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Housing Division. The Housing Division of the City of Culver City.
-3-
3 1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mobile Home. A structure designed for human habitation and for being moved on a
street or highway under permit pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 35790.
Mobile home does not include a recreation vehicle, as defined in California Civil
Code Section 799.29, except as modified by California Civil Code Section 798.3 (b),
or a commercial coach, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section
18218.
Mobile Home Owner. The owner(s) of a Mobile Home, or person(s) purchasing a
Mobile Home pursuant to a written contract.
Mobile Home Park. An area of land where two or more Mobile Home Spaces are
rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate l Mobile Homes used for human
habitation. Mobile Home Park shall not include a Resident-Owned Mobile Home
Park.
Non-Owner Resident. A resident of a Mobile Home who does . not have any
. :
ownership interest in the Mobile Home in which he Or she resides.
Park-Owned Mobile Home. Any Mobile Home which is owned by the Mobile Home
Park owner or any person or entity which has an ownership interest in the Mobile
Home Park.
Relocation Impact Report. A report on theiMpact of a Closure or Change of Use
of a Mobile Home. ,Park.Opon the displaced : residents of such Mobile Home Park, as
required by California Government ':Code Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4 and
containing the information Set forth in 'Section 15.13.035 of this Chapter.
Resident-Owned .Mobile Home Park •: -Jk Mobile Home Park that is owned by its
,
residents, includirig.:, -40t not limitediO,. ,a:condominium, stock cooperative or planned
unit devetopment of -a'Mobile Home Park.
- Space. Any area, toot:Of-land, site, lot, pad or portion of a Mobile Home Park
designated or used for the occupancy of one Mobile Home.
15.13.015 - Mobile Home Park Change of Use or Closure
A. Prior to the approval of an application for a General Plan amendment, zoning
designation amendment or any other land use permit that would result in a
Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park, an application for
consideration of a Relocation Impact Report must be filed with the Planning
Division.
B. No application for a General Plan amendment, zoning designation
amendment or any other land use permit that would result in a Change of
Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park shall be deemed complete unless the
-4- A. A Relocation Impact Report application shall be completed, filed with the
Housing Division and processed in compliance with this Chapter. The
applicationpackage shall include all information specified in the application,
- .
any applicable Housing Division handout, any additional information required
by the Director in order to conduct a thorough review of the proposed
application, and all applicable fees.
It is the responsibility of the Appticant to establish evidence in support of the
finding required by Section 15.13.040.A.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
77
28
Applicant has submitted a Relocation Impact Report approved by the City
Council in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
C. No Relocation Impact Report shall be accepted by the City, which was
approved by the City Council more than six months prior to the date of the
filing of an application for a General Plan amendment, zoning designation
amendment or any other land use permit that would result in a Change of
Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park.
D. No building permit shall be issued pertaining to a project that resulted in a
Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Horne Park unless and until the
Applicant files a written statement with th Director, signed under penalty of
perjury, that relocation assistance benefits required pursuant to the approved
Relocation Impact Report have been provided, that the Applicant has
complied with all Relocation Impact Report conditions of approval, and the
notice period provided by the notice of termination of tenancy, as set forth in
Section 15.13.025.C, has expired.
15.13.020 - Application Filing for Relocation Impact Report
15.13.025 - Required Notification
The following notification requirements are in addition to any State law notification
requirements relating to the Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park.
Where the requirements of State law and this Chapter conflict, the Applicant shall
comply with the more stringent requirement.
A. Upon the filing of a Relocation Impact Report application, the Applicant shall
provide written notification to each prospective new resident of the Mobile
Home Park that such application has been filed with the City. Such written
notification shall be given to the prospective resident prior to the purchase of
a Mobile Home and/or execution of a rental agreement or commencement of
the resident's occupancy, whichever occurs first. Proof of service, signed
under penalty of perjury, that each prospective resident received by mail or
-5- -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
personal delivery the notification required by this Subsection 15.13.015.A
shall be filed with the Director.
B. Not later than 45 days prior to the public hearing to consider the Relocation
Impact Report, the Applicant shall provide written notification to each Mobile
Home Owner and resident in the Mobile Home Park of the dates, times, and
locations of the public hearing and the informational meetings required to be
held pursuant to Section 15.13.030. Such written notification shall include a
copy of the proposed Relocation Impact Report and a copy of this Chapter.
The copies shall be provided free of charge. Proof of service, signed under
penalty of perjury, that each Mobile Home Owner and resident of the Mobile
Home Park has received by mail or personal delivery the notification and
copies required by this Subsection 15.13.025.B, must be filed with the
Director at least 14 days prior to the public hearing.
C. Not later than 12 months prior to the date the Mobile Home Owners and
residents of the Mobile Home Park are required to vacate the Mobile Home
Park, Applicant shall provide written notification of termination of tenancy, by
certified mail, to all Mobile Home Owners and residents of the Mobile Home
Park.
15.13.030 Information Meetings
A. Not laterzthan 21 days prior to .the public hearing to consider the Relocation
:
Impact :Report, the Applicant shall conduct at least one informational meeting
:-
for the • .Mobile Home Owners -:afid residents of the Mobile Home Park
regarding the stat*Pf:the;-Relodation Impact Report to be considered, the
Aiming of the proposed relbOatidh of Eligible Occupants, and the details
nature of the assistance benefits proposed in the Relocation
Impact 'Report.
All informational meetings shall be scheduled and held to maximize the
number of Mobile Home Owners and residents of the Mobile Home Park that
are able to attend these meetings. The informational meeting or meetings
shall be conducted on the premises of the Mobile Home Park or other
appropriate location as approved by the Director. The Applicant's retained
Relocation Specialist(s) housing specialist(s) designated in the Relocation
Impact Report shall be present at all informational meetings.
C. Not later than 14 days prior to the public hearing to consider the Relocation
Impact Report, the Applicant shall file with the Director a statement made
under penalty of perjury that the Applicant has complied with the
requirements of this Section 15.13.030. Such statement shall include the
date, time, and place where such informational meeting or meetings were
conducted and the names and addresses of all attendees. 2. N-Map and detaiied description of the condition of the Mobile Home
including the - -nature, and location of structures, landscaping,
easements, utilities and -Other onsite features and amenities.
3. The:-. -namés:and addresses of all Mobile Home Owners within the
Mobile Home Park as shown on each respective title documentation
for the Mobile Homes located in Spaces within the Mobile Home Park,
and the namesand addresses of all residents within the Mobile Home
Park as of the date of the Relocation Impact Report application.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
77
28
15.13.035 - Relocation Impact Report
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Relocation Impact Report is to address the
impact on residents of a Mobile Home Park, who qualify as Eligible •
Occupants, who will be displaced as a result of the -.Change of Use or Closure
of the Mobile Home Park.
B. Process.
1. The Applicant shall select a consultant and relocation specialist
(hereinafter, collectively, "Relocation Specialist"), subject to the
Director's approval, to prepare a Relocation Impact Report relating to
the Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park.
2. Upon the filing of a Relocation impact Report application, the City shall
notify the Mobile Home Park residents that such application has been
filed and a Relocation Impact Report will be prepared.
C. Required Content of Report The Relocation Impact Report shall contain,
but need not be limited to, the following information:
A legal description of the Mobile Home Park property.
4. Thern number of Spaces within the Mobile Home Park, length of
occupancy by the current residents of each Space, and the current
lease or rental rate for each Space, including a full description of all
utilities separately billed by the Mobile Home Park to the residents and
any utilities that may be included in the lease or rental rate for the
Space.
5. For each Mobile Home within the Mobile Home Park, the age, date of
manufacture, type, width, size, and Space number, and a copy of a
1.
-7- -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
title search conducted through the California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
6. The total number of residents in each Mobile Home, each resident's
Space number, resident status (Eligible Occupant or Non-Owner
Resident), whether any residents are the "immediate family," as that
term is defined in California Civil Code Section 798.35, of the Eligible
Occupant, residents' names and whether the Mobile Home is a
principal residence or second home. All residents shall be classified
as Eligible Occupants or Non-Owner Residents.
7. A description of the project propOsed for the property that is the
subject of the Mobile Home Park Change of Use or Closure, if
applicable.
8. The proposed schedule for the Mobile Home Park Change of Use or
Closure.
9. The location of all reasonably comparable Mobile Home Parks within a
20 mile radius of the Mobile Home Park that is the subject of the
Change of Use Or Closure, including the reasonably comparable
Mobile Home Park name, number of Spaces, number of vacancies,
lease rates and terms, policies, age or other restrictions imposed upon
the residents of a Mobile Home, restrictions on the type of Mobile
Homes and residents accepted in the Mobile Home Park, amenities
offered, and proximity to services (bus stops, grocery stores, hospitals,
etc.).
A determination of the:total number of Mobile Homes that arc eligible
to be relocated to a reasonably comparable Mobile Home Park, and
the basis On which such determination is made.
11. The estimated cost of relocating the eligible Mobile Homes identified in
Subsection 10 above to available Spaces in reasonably comparable
Mobile Home Parks within the area identified in the Relocation Impact
Report. The cost of relocating shall include the costs of physically
moving to a new site the eligible Mobile Home and movable
,
improvements, such as patios, carports and porches. Such costs may
include the dismantling, packing, moving, unpacking, reassembling,
and rebuilding of the Mobile Home and movable improvements
(including skirting and tie-downs), and the packing, moving and
unpacking of all personal property.
12. An estimate of the Adjusted Fair Market Value of each Mobile Home
and all associated fixed property that cannot be relocated to a
reasonably comparable Mobile Home Park. In determining the
Adjusted Fair Market Value, the appraiser shall consider each Mobile 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Home in its current location assuming the continuation of the Mobile
Home Park in a safe, sanitary, and well-maintained condition with
competitive lease rates.
13. The basis for a conclusion that a Mobile Home and all associated fixed
property that cannot be relocated to a reasonably comparable Mobile
Home Park cannot bc relocated and the basis for determining the
Adjusted Fair Market Value of such Mobile Home.
14. The availability and cost of rental housing of reasonably comparable
size and quality within a 15 mile radius of the Mobile Home Park.
15. A relocation plan which shall include a schedule for physically
relocating each Mobile Home, and/or payment of relocation
assistance.
16. Proposed measures to agegtiately mitigate the adverse impacts of the
Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park upon each Eligible
Occupant based on the information provided in the Relocation Impact
D.
Report.
17. A list of Mobile Horne movers and housing specialists with proven
. , .- .
expertise in the fields of housing and relocation of persons displaced
-.-
., . : . -
from housin g This - listshall include the names, addresses, and
, .
telephone numbers of persons who are qualified as Mobile Home
. . g : . . .,
,. movers, and - an explanation of the services that each housing
. specialist provides.
Any additional information required by the Director in order to conduct
a thorough review of the impacts to Eligible Occupants and the
proposed Relocation Impact Report.
19. Applicant's retained Relocation Specialist shall determine what
constitutes a "reasonably comparable" mobile home park or other
rental housing, as referenced in this Subsection 15.13.035.C.
Confidential Household and Income Data Applicant's retained consultant
Relocation Specialist shall provide the Housing Division with the income
information for each household within the Mobile Home Park, as well as the
ages and number of residents who are physically disabled in each household.
Such confidential information shall not be discloseable under the Public
Records Act, and shall not be included in the Relocation Impact Report, but
provided separately on a Housing Division-approved form.
E. Notification and Availability of Report. The Relocation Impact Report
approved by the City Council shall remain on file with the Director for review
by any interested person. Within 10 days of the City Council's approval of
-9- 2. If relocation assistance benefits have ,ribt been provided to all Eligible
-
Occupants within one y0.17.: Of approval :- of the Relocation Impact
Report, on the anniversary date i'each year after the approval of the
Relocation Report, tie relocation assistance benefits shall be
increased by an amount equivalent to the cost-of-living index for the
Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County area published by the U.S.
Department of Labor The increase shall be determined by taking the
average ppi-fbitti0quarterlyperiod closest to the anniversary date of
. .
the approval of the Relocation Impact Report.
ItrOlocatiorl'.assistance benefits have not been provided to all Eligible
Occupants let:accordance with the approved Relocation Impact Report
within three year's of the original date of approval, a new Relocation
Impact .- .-Report shall be prepared in accordance with Section
15.13.035.
15.13.040 Findings and Conditions of Approval
-10-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Relocation Impact Report, the City shall notify each of the Mobile Home
Park Owners, Mobile Home Owners and Mobile Home Park residents of the
approval and availability of the Relocation Impact Report.
F. Expiration and Extension of Report.
1. The Relocation Impact Report shall expire one year from the date of its
approval unless 55% percent or more of the Eligible Occupants
receive relocation assistance benefits in accordance with the approved
Relocation Impact Report, or the Applicant requests an extension
setting forth justification for not having proceeded within the one-year
period. No more than two extensions may be granted by the City
Council. A request for an extension must be filed with the Director not
less than 45 days prior to the expiration of the Relocation Impact
Report. A public hearing before the City Council shall be held on the
request of the Applicant. If such extension occurs, all required
deadlines set forth in the Relocation Impact Report Will also be
extended for the same time period granted by the extension of the
Relocation Impact Report.
Required Finding.
Following a public hearing, the City Council shall, by resolution, record its
decision of whether to approve, conditionally approve or reject the Relocation
Impact Report. The Relocation Impact Report may be approved, with or
without conditions, only after first adopting a written finding that the mitigation
measures set forth in the Relocation Impact Report will adequately mitigate
the impact of the Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park on
A. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eligible Occupants. The criteria considered when making such a finding shall
include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following:
1. All requirements of applicable State law and this Chapter have been
satisfied.
2. Whether there will exist, at the time of Change of Use or Closure of the
Mobile Home Park available Spaces within a reasonably comparable
Mobile Home Park located within a 20 Mile radius of the City to
accommodate the displaced eligible Mobile Homes.
3. Whether the age, type, condition, arid style of Mobile Homes within the
Mobile Home Park proposed for Change of Use Of Closure are such
that the Mobile Homes are able to be moved and accepted into
reasonably comparable parks located within a 20 mile radius of the
City.
4. Whether the Eligible Occupa.ht cannot relocate to a reasonably
comparable Mobile Home Park HIC.Cated within a 20 mile radius of the
City and the justification for that conclusion.
5. Whether there is evidence that the Applicant has attempted, at any
time, to .evict or otherwise cause the removal of Eligible Occupants for
the purpose of avoiclitigorteducing - payment of relocation assistance
benefits.
6. Whether reports and notide.s. required by applicable State law and this
Chapter ha0:-boart -properly ,prepared and properly served.
. „
If the Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park is to another
. .
residential : :use, whether the residents of the Mobile Home Park will
have an opportunity to rent or purchase, if for sale, the new units, and
whether. the construction schedule will result in unreasonable long-
term displacements.
Whether the relocation assistance benefits to be provided adequately
mitigate any adverse impacts of the Change of Use or Closure of the
Mobile Home Park on the Eligible Occupants.
9. Based upon the mitigation measures proposed, whether the proposed
Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park is consistent with
the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan, any
applicable Specific Pans, and provisions of the Zoning Code.
10. Based upon the mitigation measures proposed, whether the proposed
Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park will be detrimental
to the public health, safety and general welfare.
-1 1-
I 1 B. Conditions of Approval.
In approving a Relocation Impact Report, the City Council may impose
conditions to adequately mitigate any adverse impacts on Eligible Occupants
that are associated with the Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home
Park. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Payment of relocation assistance to each Eligible Occupant who
resided in the Mobile Home Park at the time of the filing of the
Relocation Impact Report application and who will actually be
displaced as a result the Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile
Home Park.
2. Payment of the cost of r#10cating the eligible Mobile •ot • ies identified
in the Relocation Impact Report to *affable Spaces in reasonably
comparable Mobile Home Parks . within the study area referenced in
the Relocation Impact Report. The cost of relocating the eligible
Mobile Homes halt include the costs of physically moving to a new
site the eligible Mobile.::: -Home and Movable improvements, such as
patios, carports and porches Such coSts. ::may include the dismantling,
packing,. moving, Unpacking i,..reassembling, and rebuilding of the
Mopite . .i -i.HOtne and movable improvements (including skirting and tie-
doikr1S), and the packing, moving and unpacking of all personal
. Property.
For. Eligible Occupants who are unable to reasonably relocate their
Mobile 1-tome, payrnent.of.the Adjusted Fair Market Value for their
Mobile-Home based on information contained in the approved
Relocation
: Impact Report, and reasonable expenses incurred in
relocating to .-a new residence within the study area referenced in the
Relocation lrnpact Report.
Payment- to Eligible Occupants of a lump sum to compensate for
payment of the first and last months rent at a now reasonably
comparable Mobile Home Park or other rental housing, as determined
by the Relocation Specialist.
5. Based on a showing of financial hardship, the payment to Eligible
Occupants of a security deposit at a new Mobile Home Park or other
rental housing may be considered.
6. If the Mobile Home Park is to be developed into another residential
use, a requirement to set aside a certain number of affordable units for
the low income residents of the Mobile Home Park, either on-site or
off-site within the City limits, pursuant to the provisions of the State
affordable housing law.
-12- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. If the Mobile Home Park is to be converted to another residential use,
a requirement to offer residential units for rental or purchase first to
Eligible Occupants of the existing Mobile Home Park.
C. Reasonably Comparable Determination. Applicant's retained Relocation
Specialist shall determine what constitutes a "reasonably comparable" mobile
home park or other rental housing, as referenced in this Section 15.13.040.
15.13.045 - Relocation Assistance Benefits
A. Not later than 30 days from the approval of the Relocation Impact Report, the
Applicant's retained Relocation Specialist(s)housing specialist(s), shall make
personal contact with each Eligible Occupant of the Mobile Home Park and
commence consultations to discuss the applicable relocation assistance
benefits to be provided. The ; Relocation Specialist(s)housing- specialist(s)
shall give each Eligible Occupant written notice of his or her relocation
assistance benefits.
B. Applicant shall providdWritten notice to each , Eligible Occupant who is entitled
to relocation assistance benefits that
Not
or she has 90 days to select his or
her relocation assistan bc i e -. benefits : : Not later' than 90 days from the date of
notification to the Eli tCpupant4,otitteir :respective relocation assistance
alternative - relocation
benefits, Eliibc it;O iori c g c . la us p e s ain .st§ ar! w co hi are entitled make selections between
benefits shall submit to the Applicant their
selection of relocation assis tance:benefits in writing on a form provided by the
Relocation Specialist(s) - e • e . Eligible Occupants who do not
submit their selection of relocation assistance benefits to the Applicant within
the 90-day period, shall förf0-:011:-Tights to such benefits.
Cash or monetary relocation assistance benefits shall be paid to the Eligible
Occupant- at least 45: days prior to the date the Eligible Occupant is required
to vacate the.Mobilai -Home Park.
A request for Modification of the time limits set forth in subsections A, B and
C- shall be considered by the City Council at the public hearing for the
Relocation. Impact Report.
15.13.050 - Exemption from Relocation Assistance Benefits
A. Any person who files a Relocation Impact Report application may, together
with such application, file a written request for a total or partial exemption
from the obligation to provide relocation assistance benefits, accompanied by
a completed Relocation Impact Report. A request for exemption shall be
considered by the City Council at the public hearing for the Relocation Impact
Report.
-13-
13 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
97
28
\LA
1. The Applicant has entered into a Written agreement with specified all
Eligible Occupants providing for mutually satisfactory relocation
assistance benefits. A request for exemption under this Subsection
shall apply to only those specified Eligible Occupants that have
reached an agreement with the Applicant and shall comply with the
following:
a. The written agreement Oa be in at least 12-point type and
shall include, but is not limited to the following terms and
The Eligible OccOantsis aware of the provisions of this
Chapter andr: -.a-topy of this Chapter is attached to the
I
,agreement :::
The Eligible Occupants right to seek advice of an
attorney prior to signing the agreement.
A reasonable time table for the provision of relocation
:,assistance and a clause that such agreement shall
become void if such relocation assistance has not been
provided within the agreed upon time table.
Any Eligible Occupant signing such an agreement may
rescind it in writing within 10 days of signing the
agreement.
No Eligible Occupant signing a relocation assistance
agreement may contest the adequacy of the Relocation
Impact Report.
V.
B. If a request for an exemption is filed, the Applicant shall notify the Mobile
Home Owners and residents of the Mobile Home Park of the request for
exemption, providing them with a copy of the request for exemption and a
description of the project proposed for the property that is the subject of the
Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park.
C. A request for exemption from the obligation to provide relocation assistance
benefits shall include a statement specifying at least one of the following
bases for the exemption:
b. The agreement shall be recorded against the Mobile Home
Park property on the records of the County of Los Angeles in
sufficient form and detail to advise a potential purchaser of the
fee interest in the Mobile Home Park property of the existence
of and content of the agreement.
-14- I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Any prospective purchaser of a Mobile Home in the Mobile
Home Park shall be advised as to the existence of any such
agreements before purchasing a Mobile Home and provided
with a copy of the recorded agreements.
2. The provision of relocation assistance would eliminate substantially all
reasonable use and economic value of the property, and continued
use of the property as a Mobile Horne Park would eliminate
substantially all reasonable use and economic value of the property for
reasons not caused or contributed to by the Mobile Home Park Owner.
A request for exemption under this Subsection shall be accompanied
by a qualified appraisal and shall include the following:
a. Statements of profit and loss from the operations of the Mobile
Home Park for the five-year period prior to the date of the
Relocation Impact Report application. Such statements must
be certified by a certified public accountant. All such
statements shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by
If the Applicant conten.d.:$--that continued use of the property as a
Mobile Home- Park is édonOrnically . infeasible due to the costs
of :necessary TO-pairs, improvements or both, that are not the
result of the Mobile Home Park Owner's negligent failure to
properlyi ,maintain -:the Mobile Home Park, then the following
items .Must accompany the request for exemption:
•
A staternent.::made under penalty of perjury by a State
licensed general contractor, experienced in the design,
construction and maintenance of a California Mobile
Home Park, which shall include the following:
(a) Contractor has thoroughly inspected the entire
Mobile Home Park, has determined that repairs
and improvements must be made to the Mobile
Home Park to maintain it in a decent, safe and
sanitary condition, and that those repairs are not
the result of the Mobile Home Park Owner's or
Applicant's negligent failure to properly maintain
the property.
(b) An itemized statement of improvements and
repairs and the estimated costs of those
improvements and repairs due to deferred
maintenance.
b.
-15- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii. A statement verified by a:certified public accountant as to
the necessary increase in rental
' rates of Mobile Home
Spaces within the Mobile Home -Within the next five
Y f
years necessary to pa for such improvements and
repairs that are not the result of the Mobile Home Park
Owner's or APplicant's ,-: neg ligent failure to properly
maintain the Mobile Home Park property.
iv An estimate, provideTtiy, a qualified real estate appraiser
of the of the Mobile Home Park property if the
Change of Use of the Mobile Home Park was approved
for development consistentWith the Relocation Impact
-Report application eriif :the value of the property if the
use was continued as a Mobile Home Park.
Such other information which the Applicant believes to
lzie ,pertinent or which may be required by the Director.
1.13.055 - Fees and Costs
(c) The minimum period of time in which such
improvements or repairs must be made.
If the Director requires an analysis of the information
submitted by the general contractor, the Director may
procure services of another licensed general contractor,
at the Applicant's sole cost and expense, to provide such
written analysis, before consideration of the request for
exemption of the Applicants obligation to provide
relocation assistance benefits.'
The Applicant shalt be responsible for all expenses incurred by the City in
connection with the submittal, review and processing of the Relocation Impact
Report application, including all costs relating to the retention of consultants to
review and verify the information contained in the Relocation Impact Report.
Applicant shall also be responsible for all costs in implementing, monitoring and
enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. Such fees and costs shall be set forth in a
fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council.
SECTION 2.
Pursuant to Section 619 of the City Charter, this Ordinance
shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. Pursuant to Sections 616
and 621 of the City Charter, prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the adoption,
-16- MARTIN R. COLE, City Clerk
-17-
MICHEAL O'LEARY, Mayor
City of Culver City, California
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published in the
Culver City News and shall post this Ordinance or a summary thereof in at least three
places within the City.
SECTION 3.
The City Council hereby declares that, if any provision, section,
subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of this ardinan•ls rendered or declared
court of competent jurisdiction or by
invalid or unconstitutional by any final action in a
reason of any preemptive legislation, then the City Council would have independently
adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections,. paragraphs, sentences, phrases
....
or words of this ordinance and as such they shall remain in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTEP this day bf ,2011.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CAROL A. SCHWAB, City Attorney
1 CA Codes (goy:65850-65863.13) r
00 ife,iA 11 e t (-ode- Page 1 of 2
AtTI- Ae4444 -r
65863.7. (a) Prior to the conversion of a mobilehome park to
another use, except pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2
(commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7), or prior to closure of a
mobilehome park or cessation of use of the land as a mobilehome
park, the person or entity proposing the change in use shall file a
report on the impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use
upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted
or closed. In determining the impact of the conversion, closure, or
cessation of use on displaced mobilehome park residents, the report
shall address the availability of adequate replacement housing in
mobilehome parks and relocation costs.
(b) The person proposing the change in use shall provide a copy of
the report to a resident of each mobilehome in the mobilehome park
at least 15 days prior to the hearing, if any, on the impact report
by the advisory agency, or if there is no advisory agency, by the
legislative body.
(c) When the impact report is filed prior to the closure or
cessation of use, the person or entity proposing the change shall
provide a copy of the report to a resident of each mobilehome in the
mobilehome park at the same time as the notice of the change is
provided to the residents pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(g) of Section 798.56 of the Civil Code.
(d) When the impact report is filed prior to the closure or
cessation of use, the person or entity filing the report or park
resident may request, and shall have a right to, a hearing before the
legislative body on the sufficiency of the report.
(e) The legislative body, or its delegated advisory agency, shall
review the report, prior to any change of use, and may require, as a
condition of the change, the person or entity to take steps to
mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation
of use on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find
adequate housing in a mobilehome park. The steps required to be taken
to mitigate shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation.
(f) If the closure or cessation of use of a mobilehome park
results from the entry of an order for relief in bankruptcy, the
provisions of this section shall not be applicable.
(g) The legislative body may establish reasonable fees pursuant to
Section 66016 to cover any costs incurred by the local agency in
implementing this section and Section 65863.8. Those fees shall be
paid by the person or entity proposing the change in use.
(h) This section is applicable to charter cities.
(i) This section is applicable when the closure, cessation, or
change of use is the result of a decision by a local governmental
entity or planning agency not to renew a conditional use permit or
zoning variance under which the mobilehome park has operated, or as a
result of any other zoning or planning decision, action, or
inaction. In this case, the local governmental agency is the person
proposing the change in use for the purposes of preparing the impact
report required by this section and is required to take steps to
mitigate the adverse impact of the change as may be required in
subdivision (e).
(j) This section is applicable when the closure, cessation, or
change of use is the result of a decision by an enforcement agency,
as defined in Section 18207 of the Health and Safety Code, to suspend
the permit to operate the mobilehome park. In this case, the
mobilehome park owner is the person proposing the change in use for
purposes of preparing the impact report required by this section and
is required to take steps to mitigate the adverse impact of the
change as may be required in subdivision (e).
s•
c-1.-.1.0A7nneir.9 4,0f-I cm= CIT).17)e, (11.1-111t1=nnl_AAnnfitp- 114/14/2n1 1 CA Codes (gov:65850-65863.13) Page 2 of 2
65863.8. A local agency to which application has been made for the
conversion of a mobilehome park to another use shall, at least 30
days prior to a hearing or any other action on the application,
inform the applicant in writing of the provisions of Section 798.56
of the Civil Code and all applicable local requirements which impose
upon the applicant a duty to notify residents and mobilehome owners
of the mobilehome park of the proposed change in use, and shall
specify therein the manner in which the applicant shall verify that
residents and mobilehome owners of the mobilehome park have been
notified of the proposed change in use. Neither a hearing on the
application, nor any other action thereon, shall be taken by the
local agency before the applicant has satisfactorily verified that
the residents and mobilehome owners have been so notified, in the
manner prescribed by law or local regulation.
66427.4. (a) At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a
subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobilehome park to
another use, the subdivider shall also file a report on the impact
of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park
to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on
displaced mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the
availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks.
(b)
The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to
each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the
hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory
agency, by the legislative body.
(c)
The legislative body, or an advisory agency which is
authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to
mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of
displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a
mobilehome park.
(d)
This section establishes a minimum standard for local
regulation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and
shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent
measures.
(e)
This section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is
created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident
ownership,
http://www.leginfo.ea.gov/egi-bin/displayeode?seetion
—gov&group=65001-66000&file--... 04/14/2011 CIVIL CODE
SECTION 798.55-798.61
798.55. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that, because of the
high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage resulting
therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of
mobilehomes, and the cost of landscaping or lot preparation, it is
necessary that the owners of mobilehomes occupied within mobilehome
parks be provided with the unique protection from actual or
constructive eviction afforded by the provisions of this chapter.
(b) (1) The management may not terminate or refuse to renew a
tenancy, except for a reason specified in this article and upon the
giving of written notice to the homeowner, in the manner prescribed
by Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to sell or remove, at
the homeowner's election, the mobilehome from the park within a
period of not less than 60 days, which period shall be specified in
the notice. A copy of this notice shall be sent to the legal owner,
as defined in Section 18005.8 of the Health and Safety Code, each
junior lienholder, as defined in Section 18005.3 of the Health and
Safety Code, and the registered owner of the mobilehome, if other
than the homeowner, by United States mail within 10 days after notice
to the homeowner. The copy may be sent by regular mail or by
certified or registered mail with return receipt requested, at the
option of the management.
(2) The homeowner shall pay past due rent and utilities upon the
sale of a mobilehome pursuant to paragraph (1).
(c) If the homeowner has not paid the rent due within three days
after notice to the homeowner, and if the first notice was not sent
by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested, a copy
of the notice shall again be sent to the legal owner, each junior
lienholder, and the registered owner, if other than the homeowner, by
certified or registered mail with return receipt requested within 10
days after notice to the homeowner. Copies of the notice shall be
addressed to the legal owner, each junior lienholder, and the
registered owner at their addresses, as set forth in the registration
card specified in Section 18091.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d) If management obtains a court judgment against a homeowner or
resident, the cost incurred by management in obtaining a title
search for the purpose of complying with the notice requirements of
this section shall be recoverable as a cost of suit.
(e) The resident of a mobilehome that remains in the mobilehome
park after service of the notice to sell or remove the mobilehome
shall continue to be subject to this chapter and the rules and
regulations of the park, including rules regarding maintenance of the
space.
(f) No lawful act by the management to enforce this chapter or the
rules and regulations of the park may be deemed or construed to
waive or otherwise affect the notice to remove the mobilehome.
798.56. A tenancy shall be terminated by the management only for
one or more of the following reasons:
(a) Failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a local
ordinance or state law or regulation relating to mobilehomes within a
reasonable time after the homeowner receives a notice of
http://www.leginfo.ca . gov/egi-bitildisplaycode? section=eiv&group=00001 -01000 &fi1e=7... 04/21/2011 \-A-147.‘,0 v . r r
noncompliance from the appropriate governmental agency.
(b) Conduct by the homeowner or resident, upon the park premises,
that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners or
residents.
(c) (1) Conviction of the homeowner or resident for prostitution,
for a violation of subdivision (d) of Section 243, paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a), or subdivision (b), of Section 245, Section 288, or
Section 451, of the Penal Code, or a felony controlled substance
offense, if the act resulting in the conviction was committed
anywhere on the premises of the mobilehome park, including, but not
limited to, within the homeowner's mobilehome.
(2) However the tenancy may not be terminated for the reason
specified in this subdivision if the person convicted of the offense
has permanently vacated, and does not subsequently reoccupy, the
mobilehome.
(d) Failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a
reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental
agreement or any amendment thereto.
No act or omission of the homeowner or resident shall constitute a
failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation unless and
until the management has given the homeowner written notice of the
alleged rule or regulation violation and the homeowner or resident
has failed to adhere to the rule or regulation within seven days.
However, if a homeowner has been given a written notice of an alleged
violation of the same rule or regulation on three or more occasions
within a I2-month period after the homeowner or resident has violated
that rule or regulation, no written notice shall be required for a
subsequent violation of the same rule or regulation.
Nothing in this subdivision shall relieve the management from its
obligation to demonstrate that a rule or regulation has in fact been
violated.
(e) (1) Nonpayment of rent, utility charges, or reasonable
incidental service charges; provided that the amount due has been
unpaid for a period of at least five days from its due date, and
provided that the homeowner shall be given a three-day written notice
subsequent to that five-day period to pay the amount due or to
vacate the tenancy. For purposes of this subdivision, the five-day
period does not include the date the payment is due. The three-day
written notice shall be given to the homeowner in the manner
prescribed by Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of
this notice shall be sent to the persons or entities specified in
subdivision (b) of Section 798.55 within 10 days after notice is
delivered to the homeowner. If the homeowner cures the default, the
notice need not be sent. The notice may be given at the same time as
the 60 days' notice required for termination of the tenancy. A
three-day notice given pursuant to this subdivision shall contain the
following provisions printed in at least 12-point boldface type at
the top of the notice, with the appropriate number written in the
blank:
"Warning: This notice is the (insert number) three-day notice for
nonpayment of rent, utility charges, or other reasonable incidental
services that has been served upon you in the last 12 months.
Pursuant to Civil Code Section 798.56 (e) (5), if you have been given
a three-day notice to either pay rent, utility charges, or other
reasonable incidental services or to vacate your tenancy on three or
more occasions within a I2-month period, management is not required
to give you a further three-day period to pay rent or vacate the
tenancy before your tenancy can be terminated."
(2) Payment by the homeowner prior to the expiration of the
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/egi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file-7 . 04/21/2011 CA Codes (civ:798.55-798.61) Page 3 of 8
three-day notice period shall cure a default under this subdivision.
If the homeowner does not pay prior to the expiration of the
three-day notice period, the homeowner shall remain liable for all
payments due up until the time the tenancy is vacated.
(3) Payment by the legal owner, as defined in Section 18005.8 of
the Health and Safety Code, any junior lienholder, as defined in
Section 18005.3 of the Health and Safety Code, or the registered
owner, as defined in Section 18009.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
if other than the homeowner, on behalf of the homeowner prior to the
expiration of 30 calendar days following the mailing of the notice to
the legal owner, each junior lienholder, and the registered owner
provided in subdivision (h) of Section 798.55, shall cure a default
under this subdivision with respect to that payment.
(4) Cure of a default of rent, utility charges, or reasonable
incidental service Charges by the legal owner, any junior lienholder,
or the registered owner, if other than the homeowner, as provided by
this subdivision, may not be exercised more than twice during a
12-month period.
(5) If a homeowner has been given a three-day notice to pay the
amount due or to vacate the tenancy on three or more occasions within
the preceding 12-month period and each notice includes the
provisions specified in paragraph (1), no written three-day notice
shall be required in the case of a subsequent nonpayment of rent,
utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges.
In that event, the management shall give written notice to the
homeowner in the manner prescribed by Section 1162 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to remove the mobilehome from the park within a
period of not less than 60 days, which period shall be specified in
the notice. A copy of this notice shall be sent to the legal owner,
each junior lienholder, and the registered owner of the mobilehome,
if other than the homeowner, as specified in paragraph (b) of Section
798.55, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested,
within 10 days after notice is sent to the homeowner.
(6) When a copy of the 60 days' notice described in paragraph (5)
is sent to the legal owner, each junior lienhoider, and the
registered owner of the mobilehome, if other than the homeowner, the
default may be cured by any of them on behalf of the homeowner prior
to the expiration of 30 calendar days following the mailing of the
notice, if all of the following conditions exist:
(A) A copy of a three-day notice sent pursuant to subdivision (b)
of Section 798.55 to a homeowner for the nonpayment of rent, utility
charges, or reasonable incidental service charges was not sent to the
legal owner, junior lienhoider, or registered owner, of the
mobilehome, if other than the homeowner, during the preceding
12-month period.
(8) The
mobilehome,
default of
(C) The
other than
mobilehome
legal owner, junior lienholder, or registered owner of the
if other than the homeowner, has not previously cured a
the homeowner during the preceding 12-month period.
legal owner, junior lienholder or registered owner, if
the homeowner, is not a financial institution or
dealer.
If the default is cured by the legal owner, junior lienholder, or
registered owner within the 30-day period, the notice to remove the
mobilehome from the bark described in paragraph (5) shall be
rescinded.
(f) Condemnation of the park.
(g) Change of use of the park or any portion thereof, provided:
(1) The management gives the homeowners at least 15 days' written
notice that the management will be appearing before a local
governmental board, commission, or body to request permits for a
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displayeode?section--- -eiv&group=00001-01000&file=7 . 04/21/2011 CA Codes (civ:798.55-798.61) rage 4- ui a
change of use of the mobilehome park.
(2) After all required permits requesting a change of use have
been approved by the local governmental board, commission, or body,
the management shall give the homeowners six months' or more written
notice of termination of tenancy.
If the change of use requires no local governmental permits, then
notice shall be given 12 months or more prior to the management's
determination that a change of use will occur. The management in the
notice shall disclose and describe in detail the nature of the change
of use.
(3) The management gives each proposed homeowner written notice
thereof prior to the inception of his or her tenancy -that the
management is requesting a change of use before local governmental
bodies or that a change of use request has been granted.
(4) The notice requirements for termination of tenancy set forth
in Sections 798.56 and 798.57 shall be followed if the proposed
change actually occurs.
(5) A notice of a proposed change of use given prior to January 1,
1980, that conforms to the requirements in effect at that time shall
be valid. The requirements for a notice of a proposed change of use
imposed by this subdivision shall be governed by the law in effect at
the time the notice was given.
(h) The report required pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (i) of
Section 65863.7 of the Government Code shall be given to the
homeowners or residents at the same time that notice is required
pursuant to subdivision (g) of this section.
(i) For purposes of this section, "financial institution" means a
state or national bank, state or federal savings and loan association
or credit union, or similar organization, and mobilehome dealer as
defined in Section 18002.6 of the Health and Safety Code or any other
organization that, as part of its usual course of business,
originates, owns, or provides loan servicing for loans secured by a
mobilehome. Comparison Between Proposed City Requirements for the
Mobile Home Park Ordinance and State of California Regulations
Proposed City Requiremen State Law
.... ...
• The Relocation Impact Report must be considered by the Relocation Impact Report must be submitted to the City and
City Council at a public hearing. (15.13.040.A) residents but a public hearing on the adequacy of the report is not
required, unless requested by the applicant. (Govt. Code §
65863.7(d))
2. Planning Division shall not accept any application for any Not addressed
action that would result in a change of use or closure of a
mobile home park without an approved Relocation Impact
Report, The Relocation Impact Report must have been
approved by the City Council no more than six months
prior to the filing of the application. (15.13.015.B & C)
3. The City must give notice to the mobile home park Not addressed
residents when it receives an application for consideration
of a Relocation Impact Report. (15.13.035.B.2)
4. Applicant must provide mobile home park residents with State law requires the mobile home park residents to be provided
written notice and a copy of the Relocation Impact Report with a copy of the Relocation Impact Report, but only requires a 15-
(at no cost) at least 45 days prior to the public hearing by day notice of the public hearing rather than the City's proposed 45-
the City Council to consider the Relocation Impact Report. day notice. (Government Code § 65863.7(b) and Civil Code §§
(15,13.025.B) 798.56(g)(1) and (h))
5. Applicant must hold at least one informational meeting for Not addressed
all mobile home park residents at least 21 days prior to the
City Council's public hearing to consider the Relocation
Impact Report. (15.13.030.A)
_
Page 1 of 4 Comparison Between Proposed City Requirements for the
Mobile Home Park Ordinance and State of California Regulations
6. Required content of Relocation Impact Report includes, State law does not give specific detailed information as to what
among other things, identifying information regarding unit must be included in the Relocation Impact Report. It only requires
owners and residents eligible to receive benefits; that the report address the impact of conversion, closure, or
assessment of condition of mobile homes; location of cessation of use upon displaced residents of mobile home park
comparable mobile home parks within 20 mile radius; and, in determining impact, the report shall address availability of
number of mobile homes eligible to be relocated; adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and
estimated cost of relocating eligible mobile homes and relocation costs. There are no specifics on how this should be
occupants; estimate of adjusted fair market value of mobile done. (Govt. Code § 65863.7(a))
homes and all associated fixed property that cannot be
relocated; basis for conclusion that a mobile home cannot
be relocated; basis for determining adjusted fair market
value; relocation plan and schedule, and/or payment of
relocation assistance. (15.13.035.C)
7. City Council may approve the Relocation Impact Report No specific findings are required when considering Relocation
only after making a determination that the relocation Impact Report. Legislative body shall review the report and may
benefits provided in the report will adequately mitigate the require conditions to mitigate adverse impacts, which shall not
impacts on eligible residents. Where the proposed exceed reasonable cost of relocation (this term is not defined).
benefits are inadequate to mitigate impacts, City Council There are no specific mitigation measures provided. (Govt. Code §
has the authority to impose additional conditions to 65863.7(e))
adequately mitigate such impacts prior to approval of
Relocation Impact Report. Examples include, but are not
limited to: payment of relocation assistance; payment of
relocating eligible mobile homes or payment of adjusted
fair market value; requirement for set aside of certain
number of affordable residential units in new development;
offer to rent or purchase units of residential development
to eligible mobile home park residents. (15.13.040.A & B)
Page 2 of 4 Comparison Between Proposed City Requirements for the
Mobile Home Park Ordinance and State of California Regulations
8. Within 10 days of the City Council's approval of a Not addressed
Relocation Impact Report, the City shall notify each Mobile
Home Park Owner and resident of the approval and
availability of the report. (15.13.035.E)
_
9. At least 12 months prior to date the residents are required After all required permits requesting a change of use have been
to vacate the mobile home park, applicant must provide all approved by the local governmental body, the management shall
mobile home park residents written notice of termination of give the mobile home owners six months or more written notice of
tenancy. (Prior notice of intent to close the mobile home termination of tenancy. City's proposed ordinance requires 12
park will have been given throughout the Relocation months notice instead of six-months. (Civil Code § 798.56(g)(2))
Impact Report process, i.e. upon filing of application for
closure, prior to informational meetings and public hearing
before the City Council, etc.) (15.13.025.C)
10. Establishes 12-month expiration time period on approved Not addressed
Relocation Impact Report and automatic cost of living
increases of relocation assistance benefits if not paid
within 12 months of approval of Relocation Impact Report,
in order to ensure that data in Relocation Impact Report
does not become "stale" and out of date. (15.13.035.F.1 &
2)
_
11. Establishes a process for applicant to request a total or Not addressed
partial exemption from obligation to provide relocation
assistance benefits to be considered by City Council.
Criteria for considering whether to allow such exemption
includes proof that provision of benefits will eliminate
substantially all reasonable use and economic value of
property, or applicant has entered into agreement with
eligible residents providing for mutually satisfactory
benefits. Applicant is required to give notice to all mobile
Page 3 of 4 Comparison Between Proposed City Requirements for the
Mobile Home Park Ordinance and State of California Regulations
home park residents of the filing of an application for
exemption. (15.13.050) In addition, there is a provision
that the Ordinance would not apply to a mobile home park
where the applicant has entered into a written agreement
with 100% of the Eligible Occupants for mutually
satisfactory relocation assistance benefits.
12. Establishes process for payment of relocation benefits, Not addressed
requires eligible residents to make selection of alternative
benefits within 90 days of date of notification of benefits,
and requires payment of any monetary benefits to be
made at least 45 days prior to date of vacation of mobile
home park. (15.13.045)
13. No building permit shall be issued pertaining to a project Not addressed
that resulted in a Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile
Home Park unless the applicant has complied with the
provisions of the ordinance. (15.13.015.D)
Page 4 of 4 v t
:RIEs
(
4-Du siNa
AUTfre44-1faili
Culver City Terrace
A Resident-Owned Mobilehome Community
11250 Playa Street- #51-1/2
Culver City, CA 90230
(310)398-3761
August 15, 2011
Tevis Barnes, Housing Administrator
Culver City Housing Division
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232-0507
Re: Draft Mobilehorne Park Residence Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barnes,
I am writing as President of the Board of Directors of Culver City Terrace, the "resident-owned
mobilehome park" that is exempted from the draft Mobilehome Park Residence Protection
Ordinance. At this time, it seems unlikely that any other resident-owned parks will be opened
within the Culver City boundaries. There is neither zoning nor available financing for such
projects.
We believe it would be helpful to explain in the Ordinance why resident-owned parks are
exempt. In the fullness of time, it may come to pass that the Member-shareholders of Culver
City Terrace will decide to sell the property underlying their homes. The more explicit the
Ordinance is now, the fewer problems they would face then.
We suggest language similar to the following to replace Section 15.13.005 (B)(20(a):
A Resident-Owned Mobilehome Park, because at least 66% of the Members
(shareholders) would be required to vote in favor of any sale, closure, or change
of use of the Park and, on dissolution of the corporation, each Member would
receive a pro rata distribution of the corporation's net assets_
With this language, as long as there is a 66% positive vote and pro rata payment, no basis
would exist for a suit based on the proposed ordinance.
We request that this or similar language be included in the Ordinance, and we appreciate
your attention to our request.
Yors truly, ,,,
Loene Trubkin
2Sr _ RECEIVED
ulciL %IE'P CITY HOUSIN3
iIAUO5 Loene Trubkin
- -250 Playa Street - #116
Culver City, California 90230
toenetrubkin@gmail.corn
310-617-3530
August 15, 2011
Tevis Barnes, Housing Administrator
Culver City Housing Division
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232-0507
Re: Draft Mobilehome Park Residence Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barnes,
I am writing as a mobilehome park resident in Culver City. I am not writing in any
official capacity and am speaking only for myself.
As a rnobilehome park resident, I understand at a visceral level the fears of the people
who are the intended beneficiaries of the draft Ordinance_ In the Southern California
housing market, finding low-rent alternatives is difficult to impossible. Moving
mobilehomes is an expensive endeavor. Older rnobilehomes may be neither movable
nor acceptable to other Parks. One's investment in a mobilehome may be lost.
I understand that the possibility of displacing aging, possibly disabled mobilehome
residents, even with many months' notice, tugs at the heart strings of Culver City
council members.
But I do not believe the way to solve
this problem is for the City to force mobilehome
park owners to share with residents the value of their property. The residents made no
contribution to the purchase
of the property, and they did not participate in its
governance or take responsibility for its debts. They made a decision to live in a
mobilehome park with knowledge they had, or should have had, that it wasn't like
renting an apartment. Over the years, the lower-than-apartment rents they paid
allowed room to amortize the value of their mobilehornes, and the longer they have
lived there, the more value should have been
amortized_ if the residents maintained
their spaces or improved their homes, this is what we humans do. We improve our
living space. Even renters put in carpets
and paint their apartments and expect no
reimbursement from landlords when their leases terminate.
I believe that forcing landlords to
compensate displaced renters with a portion of the
value of the underlying land is a form of taking that is not permitted under the
Constitution. If the ordinance goes forward,
the property owners likely will sue to
protect their investments. The City, which by this ordinance is attempting to force PECEIVED
ctn 'T
y40$-IqfF-t0
i AUS
Tevis Barnes, Housing Administrator
August 15, 2011
Page Two
specific property owners to pay for its view of social justice, will end up paying legal
fees and, in my estimation, losing such a Suit
As a Culver City taxpayer, I object to the Ordinance and urge Council members to vote
against it.
From comments at a recent community meeting about the proposed ordinance, I
understand that the two mobilehorne park owners targeted by this ordinance are
willing to work with their residents toward a reasonable, mutually agreeable
arrangement. In my view, that is a preferable process.
I appreciate your communicating my concerns to Council members.
Yours truly,
Loene Trubkin
3 ot It
GRAND VIEW MOBILEHOME PARK
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Comments on the Proposed Culver City
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance
The following comments represent a consensus of the Grand View Mobilehorne Park
Neighborhood Association mobile home owners in the Grandview Mobilehome Park,
located at 4071 Grand View Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90066.
Adoption of a Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance by Culver City to provide
additional defined protection for mobile home owners in the event of a park closure
would be an appropriate and long-sought "insurance" for the home owners. Certain of the
features of the draft Ordinance are welcomed as essential to implement existing State law
on this subject, which in key areas speaks only in general terms and would be subject to
widely different interpretations by various concerned parties. For example, State law uses
the term "fair market value" for the displaced mobile homes, but fails to define a method
for determining a fair market value. It is an established real estate fact that any home
value is highly sensitive to the location of the home. The Ordinance as proposed properly
includes a valuation element tied to the plot of land on which a mobile home is situated.
(Sect. 15.13.010)
One of the most critical issues of park closure from a mobile home owner's
perspective is the minimum time of notice of park closure given to the home owners prior
to eviction. State law only guarantees 6 months notice, while the Ordinance as presented
stipulates 12 months. (Sect. 15.13.025 C.) Closure of a park will be a major impact to all
home owners, and further, for some, viz., the elderly, handicapped and very low income
persons, a likely disaster in their lives. If the City is really interested in protection of the
most vulnerable, the minimum time of notice should be maximized. Our Association has
argued for a minimum time of 18 months, as a compromise between the rights of the park
owners and the mobile home owners. To the home owners, this is a crucial factor. In
recognition of the importance of this item, the Mobilehome Park Conversions statute
adopted by Huntington Beach in 2004 requires notice to the mobile home owners of the
intended park closure "...at least eighteen (18) months prior to the date the mobilehome
owner is required to vacate the premises."
The key to an "organized" impact park closure under the proposed Ordinance is the
required Relocation Impact Report (RIR), which should specify the exact terms and
conditions of all pertinent factors of the closing. Section 15.13.030 A. of the proposed
Ordinance requires that the RIR draft presented for public hearing will include "...the
nature of the relocation assistance benefits proposed..." Our Association believes the
RIR presented for public review should state the "details" rather than the "nature" of the
relocation assistance benefits proposed. Section 15.13.035 13.1. of the proposed
Ordinance requires that the Culver City Community Development Director approve the
consultant who will prepare the RIR. This is a reassuring requirement. The RIR, as proposed, will expire one year from the date of approval unless 55% or
more of the Eligible Occupants have received their relocation assistance benefits. (Sect.
15.13.035 F.I.) The requirement for 55% to be compensated should more properly be
extended to 100%.
Section 15.13.040 A.7, which deals with first right of reentry, if appropriate, for
displaced Eligible Occupants, should be a requirement to be included in the RIR, not
merely a "consideration.".
Section 15.13.050 C.1. addresses the opportunity for the Applicant and Eligible
Occupants to separately negotiate an exit benefits package, rather than adhering to the
Ordinance provisions, but is operative only with "all" Eligible Occupants participating.
The Association would prefer that the Ordinance controls unless "any" Eligible Occupant
opts for a separate agreement with the Applicant.
The Ordinance as presented is adjudged to be generally well constructed to effect the
purpose for which it is intended. However, there are a number of other factors which
should be considered for inclusion, as follows:
1. Specifics of Reasonable Costs of Relocation as stated in the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, Sea. 234.08 A.
2. Alternative housing, cf. the Hunting Beach Ordinance, Sect.234.08 F.
3. Purchase rights, cf. the Huntington Beach Ordinance, Sect. 234.08 H.
Typos noted in the Draft Ordinance:
1. p. 8: 13., "cannot be relocated" text repeat
2. p. 9: 55 "% percent" repeat
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Frank Carnpagna
Frank Campagna, President
Grand View Mobilehome Park
Neighborhood Association Page 1 of 2
Baker, Heather
From: Keith Moret [kemo0325@yahoo.com ]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 5:15 PM
To: Marsin, Scott
Cc: Baker, Heather
Subject: Meeting at The Wood
Scott
Thanks again for your giving us your time and attention yesterday to discuss the Mobile Home
Ordinance. We understand the objectives of the Ordinance and Mr Teng is fully supportive of
the idea of compensating tenants fairly if when a change of use is implemented. Your idea of
including a "density bonus" to compensate the owners for the relocation is fair and just. I'm
sure it will make the ordinance more palatable to the owners involved. I look forward to
hearing more details of how this will be calculated.
As mentioned there are a couple of items in the ordinance which I think are less than clear or
could be problematic to the Applicant/owners. I would like to address them as follows:
1.) 15.13.010 Definitions "Eli. ible Occu sant" is defined as a Mobile Home Owner residing
in the Mobile home on a full time basis unless he is subleasing due to medical condition, etc.
Can we add language to the definition that requires the Eligible Occupant to prove his
residency before the Notification of the Report? I am concerned that someone who is leasing
the mobile home to a tenant could move back in simply to collect relocation fees that he might
not be eligible for.
2.) 15.13.030 Information Meetings- Section A states that 21 days prior to the Public
Hearing on the R.I.R. the owner must schedule a meeting with residents regarding the status
of RIR. This is not a major concern, but it seems that the conversation between owner and
residents should come after the public hearing. It might be more productive in terms of
clarifying details and information, etc. Just a thought.
3.) 15.13.035 Residential Impact Report
-Section B "Process" Says that applicant shall
select a consultant to prepare report. What exactly does this mean? Can it be an employee of
the Applicant or himself? What are the qualifications that the city is looking for in this?
4.) 15.13.040 Findings and Conditions of Approval-
Section B "Conditions of Approval"
#4 & #5 are troubling. It requires the applicant to pay 1st and last months rent plus security
deposit. This seems like overcompensation to me in light of the fact that the residents are
gettinng relocation assistance. There should at least be a limitation that the rent involved be
comparable to what was being paid at the mobile home park. There will no doubt be tenants
who wish to upgrade their residence. Shouldn't that be at their own expense?
Again, Scott your consideration of these items is greatly appreciated and I think it will make
the ordinance more palatable and ultimately bring benefits to the entire community in the
33
0R/1R/7011 Page 2 of 2
form of a better use of the property, increased tax revenues, etc.
Finally, you mentioned another mobile home park operated by Culver City and Mr.Teng was
wondering if that might be a potential spot for relocation if this proceeds.
We are most appreciative of your efforts and your spirit of cooperation. We will be reaching
out to the other councilrnembers per your suggestion and will remember your consideration.
We look forward to working with you to make the ordinance a success.
Keith Moret
Investment Associate
REMAX Commercial
155 Washington Blvd
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Cell 310.6172240
Office 310.577.5300 x350
Fax 866.656.2088
DRE# 01802527
0R/1 R/201 1 IP
My name is Christopher white, my wife and I have lived at the Grandview Mobile Home
Park. For approx 20 years.
Prior to living there, we lived around the corner on Inglewood blvd for approx 2 years in
a 1-bedroom apartment, which we rented at the time for $600 per month.
Since 1992 the $600 per month rent has increased to $1200 per month.
Our dreams were one day to own a house, but at that time my wife was going to college
and I was employed by MGM/PATHE and the numbers didn't add up to purchase
property. So we paid rent ...
One day in 1992 as my wife and I was walking through the peace full residential area on
Grandview blvd. we came across the g.m.h.p. We were amazed to see a Mobile Home
Park. Amongst all of these expensive houses. Wow we walked into the park to take a
closer look.
We immediately fell in love with Grandview Mobile Home Park.
To our amazement we found an m.h. For sale and got the details
And they were...$24.000.00 for the Mobile Home. And $320 per month space rent.
We got it our dream house.
The financing that we secured for the Mobile Home. And the space rent equaled the
rented one bedroom apartment around the comer.
Approx 20 years later here we are.
I know that none of the tenants own the land that there m.h. Rests on. But they do pay
rent every month to Roy matsouka the owner and Roy pays Culver City taxes on that
rental income. Those taxes make Culver City what it is today a desirable city close to the
beach and film land. Culver city council strives to make Culver City the best it can be and
that makes land voluble.
So the Grandview Mobile Home Park. Tenants do contribute indirectly to increase
property value.
The real value of owning a Mobile Home. In Grandview Mobile Home Park. Is low rent?
We pay $380 space rent each month.
Over a period of approx 20 years I have paid approx $84,000.00 in space rent. (Not bad
for a two-car parking space that our Mobile Home rests on).
Going over the totals I have paid Roy in space rent $84,000.00 and the totals I would
have had to pay on the one bedroom apartment around the corner of $160,000MO.
I figured I've saved approx $80,000.00 in rents. That's what our Mobile Home Is worth
to me. I also have a secondary m.h. Net worth our state farm homeowner's insurance policy.
They value our m.h. At $50,000.00 replacement cost plus contents. I hope Culver City
council finds my story helpful in deciding what's fair and reasonable for both owner and
tenant in this ordinance.
Thank you council members for listening to my comments and thank your staff for the
research and studies they have completed in this ordinance.
Finally the ordinance only takes effect if the rn.h.p. Is closed or sold. And Roy the owner
always says that the m.h.p. Will never be sold. Ever.
Thank You.
Christopher and Ina Cole's-white
310 991 2451
3 (0 ATTACHMENT 5
STAFF RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Letter of August 15, 2011 from Loene Trubkin, President of Culver. City
Terrace:
1. Comment: requesting additional language with regard to definition
of "Resident-Owned Mobilehome Park."
Response: Resident-Owned Mobile Home Park is defined in the
Proposed Ordinance as: "A Mobile Home Park that is owned by its
residents, including, but not limited to, a condominium, stock
cooperative or planned unit development of a Mobile Home Park."
The language suggested by Mr. Trubkin is not necessary.
Moreover, it will not be applicable to all forms of a Resident-Owned
Mobilehome Park.
B. Email of July 11, 2011 from Frank Campagna, President of Grand View
Mobilehome Park Neighborhood Association ("GMPNA"):
1. Comment: Park owners should be required to give 18 months
notice of termination of tenancy rather than 12 months as set forth
in the Proposed Ordinance. Mr. Campagna cites to the Huntington
Beach ordinance as an example of an 18-month notice
requirement.
Response: State law provides minimum of six months notice and
the mobile home park residents had previously suggested 18
months. Staff believes that 12 months is a reasonable period of
time.
2. Comment: Section 15.13.030.A of the Proposed Ordinance
requires that the RIR draft presented for public hearing include
"...the nature of the relocation assistance benefits proposed..."
Suggests it should state the "details" rather than the "nature" of the
relocation assistance benefits proposed.
Response: As indicated in the staff report, Section 15.13.030.A of
the Proposed Ordinance has been revised to change "nature" to
"details" to address this comment.
3. Comment: The Relocation Impact Report (RIR) should expire
one year from the date of approval unless 100% of the Eligible
Occupants receive their relocation assistance benefit.
1 Response: The Proposed Ordinance only requires that 55% of
the Eligible Occupants receive their relocation assistance benefits
within a one-year period in order to keep the RIR active. However,
the Proposed Ordinance also has the added protection that if
benefits have not been provided to 100% of the Eligible Occupants
within one year of approval of the RIR, then a cost of living increase
is added to the specified relocation benefits.
4. Comment: Request for a requirement for reentry into any new
residential development be included as a condition of approval for
the RIR.
Response: Such a requirement is included as a potential condition
of approval that the City Council may require in its consideration
and approval of an RIR (See Section 15.13.040.B.7).
5. Comment: Requests that Section 15.13.050.C.1 be revised to read
"the applicant has entered into a written agreement with any
Eligible Occupants..."
Response: Staff has made revisions to the Proposed Ordinance to
further clarify the issue of partial exemptions and applicability with
regard to independent agreements reached with Eligible
Occupants. Specifically, Section 15.13.050.C.1 was revised to
read:
"The Applicant has entered into a written agreement
with specified Eligible Occupants providing for mutually
satisfactory relocation assistance benefits. A request
for exemption under this Subsection shall apply to only
those specified Eligible Occupants that have reached
an agreement with the Applicant..."
In addition, a new subdivision was added to Section
15.13.005.B.2 to include a provision that the Proposed
Ordinance shall not apply to:
"A Mobile Home Park where the Applicant has
entered into a written agreement with 100 percent of
the Eligible Occupants providing for mutually
satisfactory relocation assistance benefits. The
written agreement shall comply with the requirements
of Section 15.13.050.C.1.a. The agreements shall be
recorded against the Mobile Home Park property on
the records of the County of Los Angeles in sufficient
/63
2 form and detail to advise a potential purchaser of the
fee interest in the Mobile Home Park property of the
existence of and content of the agreement. Any
prospective purchaser of a Mobile Home in the Mobile
Home Park shall be advised as to the existence of
any such agreements before purchasing a Mobile
Home and provided with a copy of the recorded
agreements."
6. Comment: Requests specifics of reasonable costs of
relocation be included similar to those stated in the
Huntington Beach ordinance (HBMC Section 234.08.A.1).
Response: The City's Proposed Ordinance includes most of
what is included in the Huntington Beach ordinance relating
to costs of relocation except for the following:
• Reasonable living expenses for the displaced tenant
from the date of actual displacement until the date of
occupancy at a new mobile home park site. (The City's
Proposed Ordinance provides for reasonable expenses
incurred in relocating to a new residence, whether
relocation is to another mobile home park or other rental
housing.)
• Payment of any security deposit required at a new
mobile home park site. (The City's Proposed Ordinance
provides for the payment of a security deposit upon a
showing of financial hardship, whether relocation is to
another mobile home park or other rental housing— See
Section 15.13.040.B.5)
• The difference between the rent paid in the existing
mobile home park and any higher rent at a new mobile
home park site for the first 12 months of the relocated
tenancy. (The Proposed Ordinance provides for the
payment of first and last months rent at a new site,
whether relocation is to another mobile home park or
other rental housing— See Section 15.13.040.B.4)
7. Comment: GMPNA July 11th comments requests that
where a tenant cannot be relocated into another mobile
home park, the mobile home park owner may relocate a
tenant to other types of housing, including senior, affordable
and market rate, similar to the provisions in the Huntington
Beach ordinance.
Response: The Proposed Ordinance also permits the
relocation of a tenant to other types of housing. Staff did not
3 4
feel it was necessary to specify the type of alternative
housing, but the application of the Proposed Ordinance
would permit the mobile home park owner to relocate a
tenant to any other rental housing, including but not limited
to, senior, affordable or market rate housing. (See Section
15.13.040.B.3)
8. Comment: GMPNA July 11th comments requests that the
mobile home owner receive a written guarantee of first right
of refusal to purchase units if the development that replaces
the mobile home park is to be partially or entirely residential
units, similar to provisions in the Huntington Beach
ordinance.
Response: The Proposed Ordinance already includes a
provision allowing the City Council to require as a potential
condition to its approval of an RIR that the mobile home park
owner offer residential units for rental or purchase first to
Eligible Occupants when the mobile home park is converted
to another residential use. (See Section 15.13.040.B.7)
C. Email dated August 18, 2011 from Keith Moret (Frank Teng's
realtor):
1. Comment: Regarding the definition of Eligible Occupant
(Section 15.30.010)— Is concerned that someone who is
leasing the mobile home to a tenant could move back in
simply to collect relocation fees that he or she might not be
eligible for. Suggests that the definition of Eligible Occupant
include language to require proof of residency prior to the
mobile home park residents being notified of the filing of the
RIR.
Response: As stated in the staff report, the definition of
Eligible Occupant has been revised to address this
comment.
2. Comment: Relating to informational meetings (Section
15.13.030.A)— Suggests that this meeting may be more
productive, in terms of clarifying details and information, etc.,
if it occurs after the public hearing on the RIR rather than 21
days prior to the public hearing.
Response: Staff suggests that the purpose of the meeting
is to keep the residents of the mobile home park fully
informed of the RIR application and process. This is 5
I
particularly important for their understanding of the issues
prior to the public hearing before the City Council.
3. Comment: Question about the qualification and selection
process for the applicant's consultant that will prepare the
RIR. (See Section 15.13.035.B.1)
Response: Approval of the consultant by the Community
Development Director is required to ensure that they are
qualified and experienced in the area of RIR preparation.
4. Comment: Is concerned about the requirement of the
applicant to pay first and last months rent plus security
deposit and believes this to be overcompensation in light of
the fact that the residents are getting relocation assistance.
Recommends that there be a limitation that the rent paid is
comparable to the space rent being paid by the mobile home
park resident at the time of closure.
Response: The payment of a security deposit as set forth in
the Proposed Ordinance is not automatic, but upon a
showing of financial hardship. With regard to first and last
months rent, there are various options the City Council may
consider. For example, the City of Huntington Beach (as
mentioned above) requires payment of the difference in rent
paid in the existing mobile home park and any higher rent at
a new mobile home park site for the first 12 months of the
relocated tenancy. However, where alternate housing is
provided, Huntington Beach only requires a payment of
"compensation," which is not defined. Mr: 30
=am-
cr :9
0.
trt
t • -11
cap-
•411••••.,
PAJAMALAW
The Law Offices of Sabrina Burton
2015 Navy Street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Tel. 310.399.4667
Fax 310.496.0134
sburtonApajainalawnet
May 10, 2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The City of Culver City
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, California 90232-0507
Attention: Mayor O'Leary and Qty Council Members
Re: Proposed "No Closure Covenant" for Mobile Home Parks
Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council Members: •
I represent Roy Matsuoka and his family, the owners of one of two small mobile home
parks located in Culver City. By way of follow-up on Mr. Matsuoka's recent meetings with Qty
Council members (and on my recent email correspondence with City Staff), I am writing in put
forward more formally a proposed alternative to the mobile home park dosure ordinance that the
City has been considering.
As we have discussed, Mr. Maisuoka would be willing to enter into a binding covenant
pursuant to which Mr. Matsuoka and the City would agree as follows:
• Mr. Matsuoka would not initiate any closure of his park for a designated period of time (for
discussion purposes, we are proposing a three year no-closure period).
• During the no-dosure period, the City would suspend enactment of any mobile home park
closure ordinance.
• During the no-closure period, Mr. Matsuoka would work in good faith to reach written
agreement on relocation arrangements for each unit owner presently living in his park.
• The covenant would be recorded as an encumbrance on Mr. Matsuoka's property, and
would be expressly binding on any successor owner of the property. City of Culver City
May 10, 2011
Page 2
Though I only represent Mr. Matsuoka and his family, the owner of the other mobile home
park, Mr. Frank Teng, has expressed his willingness to pursue this type of covenant arrangement
with the CIty as well.
We feel certain that the residents of both parks would welcome a period of certainty, which
such a no-dosure covenant would provide them. We also feel that providing each park owner with
a reasonable period of time within which to address the particular relocation needs of their own
resident unit owners would be greatly preferable to the hasty enactment of a 'one-size-fits-all'
ordinance.
I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity to work with you and with City Staff to
further refine the foregoing proposal. Toward that end, we invite direction from you as to how we
should proceed at this juncture.
If any of you should have specific questions in this regard, I would welcome an opportunity
to speak with you. You can reach me at the number indicated above.
Sabrina Burton
c: Mr. Roy Matsuoka
Mr. Michael Goodman
Mr. David Evans
Terry Dowdall, Esq.
Ms. Tevis Barnes
Heather Baker, Esq.
Li3 From: Foek Nan Teng
Date: June 17, 2011 11:36:26 AM PDT
111111111111111111111111•M
Subject: FW: Draft Ordinance
Subject: Draft Ordinance
Dear Mr. Weissman,
I am writing to confirm that I support the proposed no closure covenant described
in Sabrina Burton's letter to the City of May 10. !would be willing to enter into
such a covenant with respect to my mobile home park situated at
4025 Grand View Blvd. Culver City. Ca 90066.
Best Regards.
Foek Nan Teng. Recording Requested by and
When Recorded Return to:
CULVER CITY
9770 Culver Boulevard
P.O. Box 507 OFFICIAL BUSINESS. FREE
Culver City, California 90232-0507 RECORDING REQUESTED PURSUANT
Attention: TO GOVERNMENT CODE 0103
AGREEMENT CONTAINING COVENANTS
AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY
THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINING COVENANTS AFFECTING REAL
PROPERTY (this "Agreement") is entered into by and among the CULVER CITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred
to as "Agency"), and ("Owner"), with reference to the
following:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain real property located within the City
of Culver City (the "City"), County of Los Angeles, State of California, at
(hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), which Property is
more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference; and
WHEREAS, Owner presently operates on the Property a mobilehome park, as
such term is defined in the California Mobilehome Residency Law (Ca. Civil Code §798
et seq) (such operation, the "Park"), in which certain persons presently reside in
mobilehomes owned by such persons (such persons, "Park Unit Owners"); and
WHEREAS, Agency has drafted and circulated a proposed ordinance (the
"Proposed Ordinance") amending Title 15, Land Useage, of the Culver City Municipal
Code for the purpose of supplementing the protection afforded to the Park Unit Owners
(and other mobilehome park residents in the City of Culver City) under the California
Mobilehorne Residency Law in the event of a closure of the Park (or other mobile home
parks located in the City of Culver City); and
WHEREAS, Agency has agreed to defer adoption of the Proposed Ordinance for
a designated period of time in order to provide Owner and the Park Unit Owners with an
opportunity to reach agreement as to specific relocation benefits to be afforded to each of
the Park Unit Owners in the event of a closure of the Parlq and
1
5 WHEREAS, in exchange for Agency's agreement to defer adoption of the
Proposed Ordinance for such period, Owner has agreed not to initiate any closure of the
Park for a period of ( ) years from the date of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, Agency and Owner HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. During the term of this Agreement, Owner hereby covenants and agrees for itself,
its successors, its assigns, and every successor owner of the Property or operator
of the Park that Owner, and such successors and such assigns and/or Park
operators, shall:
a. Not close Park or take any action to initiate closure of Park
b. Negotiate in good faith with each Park Unit Owner toward the end of
reaching written agreement as to the relocation arrangements and benefits
to be received by such Park Unit Owner upon any closure of the Park.
2. During the term of this Agreement, Agency covenants and agrees to defer
enactment of the Proposed Ordinance, or any substitute ordinance amending Title
15, Land Useage, of the Culver City Municipal Code for the purpose of
supplementing the protection afforded to the Park Unit Owners (and other
rnobilehome park residents in the City of Culver City) under the California
Mobilehome Residency Law in the event of a closure of the Park (or other mobile
home parks located in the City of Culver City).
3. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof shall remain in
full force and effect for a period of ( ) years, expiring automatically on
, 201 . The covenants of Owner set forth herein shall be
covenants running with the land.
4. In amplification and not in restriction of the provisions set forth hereinabove, it is
intended and agreed Agency and City shall each be deemed a beneficiary of the
agreements and covenants provided hereinabove, both for and in each of their
own rights and also for the purposes of protecting the interests of the community.
All covenants, without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or
otherwise, shall, in any event, be, to the fullest extent permitted by law and
equity, binding for the benefit and in favor of, and enforceable by Agency, its
successors and assigns, and City and its successors and assigns, against Owner, its
successors and assigns, and any party in possession or occupancy of the Property
and such covenants shall run in favor of Agency and City for the entire period
during which such covenants shall be in force and effect, without regard to
whether Agency or City is or remains an owner of any land or interest therein to
which such covenants relate. Agency and City shall have the right, in the event of
any breach of any such agreement or covenant, to exercise all the rights and
remedies, and to maintain any actions at law or suit in equity or other proper
proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach of agreement or covenant.
2 5. No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions or
limitations contained in this Agreement shall defeat or render invalid or in any
way impair the lien or charge of any mortgage or deed of trust or security interest
permitted by this Agreement; provided, however, that any subsequent owner of
the Property shall be bound by such remaining covenants, conditions, restrictions,
limitations and provisions, whether such owner's title was acquired by
foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Agency and Owner have caused this Agreement to be
executed on their behalf by their respective officers hereunto duly authorized, and this
Agreement shall be effective as of the date it is recorded.
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
a Public Body, Corporate and Politic
Dated: By:
Susan Evans, Assistant Executive Director
[OWNER SIGNATURE BLOCK HERE]
Dated: By:
Name Printed:
Title:
S
4 Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO THE AGREEMENT CONTAINING COVENANTS
AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY FOR GRAND VIEW BOULEVARD
[TO BE ATTACHED]
5
J-r\ 46111111.1111
5 el I i‘ ,Ild,111111111111111111
X (7-‹ '174-kl' --2 4 / -2- 1 -'14
kyll- r)-7 (5)4111111111111
- 4;0777 Stielace (e a
1111 "
04 x
Illk
111111
t
tromoom,
' 100011aozwitakki li .1124
r. ,=:.*.tr„. .
.4;498
rg
°
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
GRANDVIEW MOBILt HOME PARK
EMT COVY,1% __Mt
The, uadesigned Regideht Utit Owner8 each support tho idea•at ari agrtement between tho City of Culver City and the
,owna of the Orandview Mobilehonie Park (Roy Matsuoka) that would prohibItç Park from beiu closed for a period of
at least .3 years. in order to allow the Park Owner and the Re8ident Unit Owners to reach agreeinent on the specifie
re)ocatluk aywn merits far eçpf th Kesrdeuf tJwt Own s. that would apply l th Pad k were to close. ID the future.
1?evec :tfiiii :y Syttmektito Ci.0 of Culvor 04,
Roy Ma.tsvoka (M. 1,5
20ff
lUnit Nn. Residitnt Name; Teleplou:01-6) Si:gm:tan. Data Signed
Pap 1 of Unit No Resident Name TelePhoPe
11111
IMP
1111
Signotitte
z.
V
GRANDVIEW MOWIE EOM PARK
PETTIAT IN JPPCJRT NccLosuRE.covENANT
kiolitinued)
The nnders4ffed Resident Unit Owner eath .spppott; the idea of aft agteement betwen the City of U•crer City and. the
.owner of the Grandview Mobitehonie Park (Roy Matsudka) that would prohibit the .P. rk from hang. ?dosed for :a period of
at too 3 vow's,. In order to allow the Park Owner and the Resident Unit Owners to reach agreement on the netik
Lt_psmqLn -ont:s for each that would :4pp1.y ifthe Park were to close .in the future.
Page 2. of 2 Jordan, Sherry
From: Barnes, Tevis
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:56 AM
To: Baker, Heather; Jordan, Sherry; Kennedy, Mona
Subject: FW: Petition for the Agreement of Park nonclosure
Attachments: 1MG.pdf; IMG_0001.pdf; IMG_0002.pdf
From: Foek Nan Teng rmailto:foeknan@roadrunner.coml
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:55 AM
To: Barnes, Tevis
Subject: FW: Petition for the Agreement of Park nonclosure
From: Foek Nan Teng rmailto:foeknan(aroadrunner.coml
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:47 AM
To: tevis.barnes@culvercity.ory
Subject: Petition for theAgreernent of Park nonclosure
Dear Ms. Tevis Barnes,
I would like to attach the petition agreement for Councilman's consideration, Which shows our intention not to close the
park for 3 Years in order to convince the Culver City not to make the ordinance law for the park closure. Please advise us
if that would be a possible alternate choice. Thank you for your assistance.
Best Regards.
Frank Teng.
1
2, Unit No.
Ilb
irk
el
Resident NAME!.
/
C
ie
mare . Date Signed
1-2-0 -4-11
9
o
Telephone
x.„
r
ILTAN'h
GRANDVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK
PETITION TN SUPPORT OF NO-CLOSURE COVENANT
The undersign Resident Unit Owners each support the idt.a of an agreement between the City of
Culver City and the owner of the Grandview Mobile Home Park (frank Teng) that would prohibit the
Park from being - closed fora period of at least 3 Years in order to allow the Park. Owner and the Resident
Unit Owners to reach agreement on the specific relocation arrangements - for each of the Resident Unit
Owners that would. apply if the Park were •ci close in the Mute
Re,spectfidtv Submitted to the City of Culver City
By
Frank Teng On July- r- 2011
1 |1010|3 itiit :Na Resident NAnrie Telephone
GRANDVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF NO-CLOSURE COVENANT
The
undersign Resident Unit Owners each support the idea of an agreement between the City of
CuliTer City and the owner of the Gfaridi7i ew Mobile Home Park (Frank Terig) that would prohibit the
Park from being closed for a pt -Tiod of at least 3 years in order to allow the Park Owner and the Resident
.1;0 Owners to reach agreernert on the specific relocation arrangements for each of the Resident Unit
Owners that would apply if the Park were to close in the future.
111
1111 ,P6'h.ei '6110d
• PNV411b0 111111
tPdAA.F.
Signature Date Signed
01(2,4/2,.4
01/211/30ff
GRANDVWW MOBILE HOME PARK
PETMON IN SUPPORT OF NO-CLOSURE COVENANT
2 The undersign Resident Unit Owners each support the idea of an agreement between the City of
CII[VeT City and the owner of the Grandview Mobile Home Park (Frank Tent0 that would prohibit the
Park from being closed for a period of at least 3 years ihi order to allow the Park Owner and the Resident
Unit Owners to reach agreement on the specific relocation arrangements for each of the Resident Unit
Owners that would apply if the Park were to clOse in the future.
1ui .Nn, Resident Name Telephone Signature Date Signed
3 EC:El vr,t)
Au
C‘i7 v
1 I AVG -9 D14
f 03
Tevis--
r
9,2011
I understand that a petition regarding a 3-Year Covenant not to close the Grandview
Mobilehome Park by/for Roy Matsuoka has been filed with Housing in conjunction with
the effort proceeding on the Park Conversion Ordinance. I hereby request a copy of said
petition, along with any cover letter or other documents that may have been submitted on
this subject by or on behalf of Mr. Matsuoka.
I am currently preparing petitions signed by members of our Grand View IVIobilehome
Neighborhood Association who were misled and/or coerced to sign the referenced
petition submitted by Mr. Matsuoka and who wish to rescind their signatures to that
petition. On or about July 23, 2011, Mr. Matsuoka appeared at our park and addressed
certain mobile home owners in our Park individually with his petition, which he stated
would only serve "to separate our Park from the other Mobile Home Park" for purposes
of consideration of the proposed park conversion ordinance. Further, he told one
handicapped lady that if the proposed ordinance passed, he was going to sell the Park and
she would "be out on the street." He told others that our Park would be as is for 10 years
or more and an ordinance is not necessary. A number of those who signed the petition felt
intimidated and "required" to sign the petition.
I met Mr. Matsuoka at our Park after he had secured the signatures and discussed the
matter with him. I asked for a copy of the document, which he refused to give me. Later
he said he would give me a copy, but none has been forthcoming. One of the signors of
the petition, a day later, in my presence, asked Mr. Matsuoka for a copy of what he had
signed, and Mr. Matsuoka refused to give him a copy, then or afterwards. That individual
then requested that his name be removed from the petition; Mr. Matsuoka said he would
draw a line through that individual's name on the petition.
Those who are withdrawing their signatures from the petition are ardent supporters of
the City's adoption of a Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance, along the lines of the
Draft version. If the park owner(s) would like to supplement the ordinance with a
covenant, there would be no objection from our Association, but we are looking for an
ordinance as the only real protection re park closure.
Frank Cam
President u
GMP Neighborhood Association Name
u • ciie
7
Signature
CLo
Petition No. 2 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehome Park
On July 23, 2011, Mr. Roy Masuoka, owner of the Grandview Mobilehome Park where I own a mobile home, approached each of
the undersigned individually and asked that we sign a petition which was intended to "separate our Park from the other Mobile Home
Park" for purposes of consideration of a proposed mobile home park conversion ordinance by the Culver City City Council. He was
very demanding in his request and I signed his petition. I have since learned that his signed petition has been filed with the City in an
apparent attempt to indicate that I would prefer a 3-Year Covenant by him not to close our Park, rather than enactment of a mobile
home park conversion ordinance, which definitely is not the case. My absolute preference on this matter is for the City to adopt a park
conversion ordinance such as the one presently being considered, and I therefore retract and cancel my signature from his petition.
would never have signed his petition if I realized that it might be used to indicate that I was not fully supportive of the City's ado_atioW
of a mobile home park conversion ordinance.
-73
Unit # Date
,rn
los
so
g ( ctol-t/i d (0/
ozr: et, 13
Yo Lk UNA M N
-1-- -ELT5 RECEIVED
v
;
1 I AUG I 5 PH 3: 36
4071 Grand View Blvd., Unit 14
Los Angeles, CA 90066
August 15,2011
RECEIVED
I" AUG
30
4HØ:53
allr A
Cfly et
ciit. nktlrY
Ms. Tevis Barnes, Housing Administrator
Culver City City Hall
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
Dear Tevis:
Attached please find three (two multiple page) Petitions signed by various members
and associates of the Grand View Mobilehome Neighborhood Association, each of whom
is an owner of a mobile home located in the Grandview Mobilehoine Park.
Petition No. 1 has been signed by or with authorization of mobile home owners who
did not sign the Covenant petition circulated by Roy Matsuoka, expressing their support
and preference for the City to consider adoption of a Mobile Horne Park Conversion
Ordinance rather than an MOU or Covenant not to close, regardless of the term of any
such Covenant.
Petition No. 2 is a similar support and preference for an Ordinance as stated above, but
in addition requests that their signatures on Mr. Matsuoka's Petition be withdrawn and
canceled.
Petition No. 3 states a preference for an Ordinance as opposed to a Covenant, by
signors of the Matsuoka Covenant Petition.
I can be reached by phone at (310)918-5117 or by eMail at tofearrippyahoo.corn.
Thank you for coordination of these Petitions with the other documents in support of
the Ordinance.
rank Carlipdg — na/
President /
GMP Neighborhood Association
g Signature Unit # Name Date
04_ 71 2_
miciicte-4 ea.57/ 1406
Of2__La -- Lk_)
7wA:,e4tef
11 I I W
W
- 7 ---7/
RECEIVED
v ciTY
I AUG 1 5 PM 3:35
Petition No. 1 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehome Park
We, the below signed mobile home owners at the Grandview Mobilehome Park, hereby express our full support for adoption of a
mobile home park conversion ordinance by Culver City. The Draft of a proposed Ordinance promulgated by the City is generally
acceptable, but we ask that the comments thereto submitted to the City by the Grand View Mobilehome Park Neighborhood
Association be considered for inclusion in a final version of the Ordinance. Petition No. 1 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehome Park
We, the below signed mobile home owners at the Grandview Mobilehorrie Park, hereby express our full support for adoption of a
mobile home park conversion ordinance by Culver City. The Draft of a proposed Ordinance promulgated by the City is generally
acceptable, but we ask that the comments thereto submitted to the City by the Grand View Mobilehome Park Neighborhood
Association be considered for inclusion in a final version of the Ordinance.
KL
Name Signature
4-
_Q..A
L Jt 2t.t
t\
4\ -r-r P4,CAM - 1.
Unit # Date
OIL x-113(a
mk3(t( FROM: jen kisfijjunOC om
TO: torr.ampra h00. CO
Saturday, August 13, 2011 146 PM
Page 1 of 1
Re: Fw: Info from Jeri Kish I Hide Details
Frank,
Thanks for the information,
This is my okay to add my name to the list of mobile home owners at Grandview Mbbilehome Park who have already
signed the attached petition stating that we are in favor of Culver City adopting. a Mobile Home Park Conversion
Ordinance to. clarify what the process is to be when a mbbile home park such as ours is closed in Culver City.
If you still need me to send you a sign'ed copy please let me know and I'll try to find a scanner.
Jeri
(0
hitp://36ohk6dgmed1n.youtataiLyahoo.netiondapi/1.0/openmaiLapp.invoke/36ohk6dgmc... 8/13/2011 Name
u ;
0
kgc ( ciI
OL
ofrn: cb 13 - iz
Date
4111.1
0
- ,
Petition No. 2 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehome Park
On July 23, 2011, Mr. Roy Masuoka, owner of the Grandview Mobilehome Park where I own a mobile home, approached each of
the undersigned individually and asked that we sign a petition which was intended to "separate our Park from the other Mobile Home
Park" for purposes of consideration of a proposed mobile home park conversion ordinance by the Culver City City Council. He was
very demanding in his request and I signed his petition. I have sinee learned that his signed petition has been filed with the City in an
apparent attempt to indicate that I would prefer a 3-Year Covenant by him not to close our Park, rather than enactment of a mobile
home park conversion ordinance, which definitely is not the case. My absolute preference on this matter is for the City to adopt
a park
conversion ordinance such as the one presently being considered, and I therefore retract and cancel my signature from his petition. I
would never have signed his petition if I realized that it might be used to indicate that I was not fully supportive of the City's adoption
of a mobile home park conversion ordinance.
\70
OA
AAA r1 CR
- el-1;1 _5
Ve\-64,66 - -1/ Petition No. 2 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehome Park
On July 23, 2011, Mr. Roy Masuoka, owner, of the Grandview Mobilehome Park Where I own a mobile.home, approached each of
the undersigned individually and asked that we sign a petition which was intended to "separate our Park from the other Mobile Home
Park" for purposes of consideration of a proposed mobile home park conversion ordinance by the Culver City City Council. He was
very demanding in his request and I signed his petition. I have since learned that his signed petition has been filed with the City in an
apparent attempt to indicate that I would prefer a 3 -Year Covenant by him not to close our Park, rather than enactment of a mobile
home park conversion ordinance, which definitely is not the -case. My absolute preference on this matter is for the City to adopt
a park
conversion ordinance such as the one presently being considered, and I therefore retract and cancel my signature from his petition. I
would never have signed his petition . if I realized that it might.be used to indicate that I was not fully supportive of the City's adoption
of a mobile home park conversion ordinance.
Name Signature Unit # Date
C 41110 ( s-
Petition No. 3 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehome Park
On July 23, 2011, Mr. Roy Masuoka, owner of the Grandview Mobilehome Park where I own a mobile home, approached each of
the undersigned individually and asked that we sign a petition which indicated support for a 3-Year Covenant by him not to close our
Park, and I signed the petition. I have since learned that his petition has been filed with the City and I fear my signature may be
misinterpreted as a sign that I would prefer a 3-Year Covenant, rather than the City's adoption of an equitable park conversion
ordinance, which is not the case. I am fully supportive of and would prefer the City's adoption of a mobile home park conversion
ordinance that is fair to both the Park owner and the mobile home owners.
Name Signature Unit # Date