City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 12/12/11 Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: (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; and (2) Direction to Staff Regarding Potential Zoning
Code Amendment for Future Change of Use of Mobile Home Park Properties.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Tevis Barnes/Sherry Jordan/CDD
Heather Baker/City Attorney
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5782/ (310) 253-5746
(310) 253-5660
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 (12/08/11); Mailing to all
mobile home park owners and residents and persons within a 500 foot radius of each
mobile home park (11/28/11 and 12/05/11)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (12/08/11)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (12/08/11)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (12/08/11)
City Manager Approval:
John Nachbar (12/08/11)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider the following options:
1A. Introduce the proposed ordinance to amend the Culver City Municipal Code by
adding a new Chapter 15.13relating to mobile home park resident protection in the
event of a Mobile Home Park Closure or Change of Use (“Proposed Ordinance”)
(Attachment 1); AND
1B.If the Ordinance is introduced, direct staff to return to City Council with a related
resolution establishing the fees for processing a Relocation Impact Report
application, concurrently with the adoption of the Ordinance; AND,
1C. Provide direction to staff regarding potential Zoning Code Amendment for future
change of use of Mobile Home Park properties;
OR
2.Determine not to adopt an ordinance and continue to rely on state law in the event
of a mobile home park closures;
OR
3. Provide other direction to staff as deemed appropriate. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
BACKGROUND:
On September 12, 2011, the City Council considered a draft of the Proposed
Ordinance. Attached for the City Council’s reference is a copy of the September 12
th
staff report and an excerpt from the meeting minutes for additional background
(Attachments 2 and 3, respectively).
DISCUSSION:
During the City Council’s consideration of this matter on September 12
th
, several
questions and comments were raised by the City Council and members of the
public. Such questions and detailed responses are included with this staff report as
Attachment 4.In response to these questions/comments, as explained in further
detail in Attachment 4, staff has recommended a number of changes to the initial
draft of the Proposed Ordinance presented on September 12
th
, which are identified
by strikeout/underlined text and include, but are not limited to:
• Deleted definition of Adjusted Fair Market Value and expansion of the
definition of Relocation Assistance Benefits.
• Clarified that a Mobile Home Park Change of Use or Closure shall not be
permitted until all requirements of the Relocation Impact Report (RIR) have
been met and all Relocation Assistance Benefits have been paid.
• Clarified that any new resident entering the Mobile Home Park after the
filing of an RIR application shall not be eligible to receive Relocation
Assistance Benefits.
• Clarified that the 12-month notice of termination of tenancy may not be
given to Mobile Home Park residents until after the approval of an RIR.
• Defined the reasonable cost of relocation to include (as one example), the
in-place value of the Mobile Home that cannot be relocated.
• Eliminated the provision that an Eligible Occupant forfeits all rights to
benefits where they have not made a selection of alternative benefits within a
90-day period and, instead, allow for the Applicant to make the selection of
benefits on the Eligible Occupant’s behalf.
Staff has also made the following additional recommended revisions:
• Section 15.13.005 has been revised to make it clear that the Mobile Home
Park Owner must still comply with State law requirements that are not
addressed in the City’s Ordinance.
• Section 15.13.040.B now includes a condition of approval requiring the
Mobile Home Park Owner to execute and record a covenant and agreement
to comply with the conditions of approval of the Resolution approving the RIR.
• Various other formatting and typographical edits.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Additional public comments were received after the September 12
th
meeting
(Attachment 5).Responses to specific questions contained in those comments are
included in Attachment 6.
With the exception of one letter, the public comments received after the last City
Council meeting were from Mobile Home Park Owners, their representatives, and
prospective buyers of one of the Mobile Home Park properties. The main concerns
expressed in these comments involve the following issues: 1) the definition of
“reasonable costs of relocation” where a mobile home cannot be relocated (formula
for valuation of the Mobile Home); and 2) minimum period and timing required for
giving Mobile Home Park residents a notice of termination of tenancy (vacancy). In
order to assist City Council in considering these issues, staff prepared a table
comparing how other cities’ ordinances address these issues (Attachment 7).
Fee Resolution:
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.
Potential Zoning Code Amendment Relating to Zoning Incentive for Future Change
of Use of Mobile Home Park Properties:
TheMobile Home Park Owners have expressed concerns that the provision of
Relocation Assistance Benefits required by the Proposed Ordinance is substantial
and would significantly reduce or eliminate the economic value of the Park Owners’
property. As a result, there have been suggestions made that the City Council
consider providing the opportunity for additional development intensity through an
overlay zone to be applied to the property for future development. At the September
12th meeting, City Council directed staff to come back with additional information,
including the level of the incentive zoning density necessary to adequately
compensate for the required Relocation Assistance Benefits.
Working with the Redevelopment Agency’s financial consultant, Keyser Marston
Associates (KMA), staff has prepared incentive zoning based upon projected
relocation cost. The incentive zoning must achieve an overall benefit in density that
provides parity with the land value after deducting the cost for relocation benefits.
The Mobile Home Parks at 4025 and 4071 Grandview Avenue are zoned RMD
(Medium Density Multiple Family). Pursuant to Chapter 17.210 (Table 2-4) of the
Zoning Code, the RMD zone generally allows multifamily development at one unit
per 1,500 square feet of net lot area (29 units per acre) up to a maximum of nine
units, except for the area on Grandview Avenue between Washington Place and
Herbert Street where the Mobile Home Parks are located, which is exempt from the
nine unit cap. Immediately to the south of the Mobile Home Parks the property is
zoned Single Family and to the west it is zoned Community Shopping Center. The City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Mobile Home Park at 4025 Grandview Avenue is 39,000 square feet and the Mobile
Home Park at 4071 Grandview Avenue is 54,540 square feet.
KMA examined mobile home park comparable values which ranged from $92,000
per space with ocean views to $50,000 per space and set the Culver City Mobile
Home Park price conservatively at $80,000 per space.
KMA further examined comparable land sales for apartment development and found
the value to be $60 per square feet.
Finally, KMA surveyed relocation costs as dictated by State law (regarding moving
mobile homes and relocation within 20 miles of the original site). When these
criteria cannot be met, the relocation costs must include the cost of a replacement
mobile home of equal size. Thus relocation benefits may range widely from $15,000
to $100,000 per space and KMA conservatively set the relocation costs at $65,000
per space. Based upon these assumptions, the density necessary to support Park
redevelopment with relocation benefits is as follows:
4025
Grandview
4071 Grandview
Value as Mobile Home Park @ $80,000 / Unit $1,600,000 $1,840,000
Relocation Cost @ $65,000 / Unit 1,300,000 1,495,000
Total Assemblage Cost $2,900,000 $3,335,000
Apartment Land Value @ $60 / Sf Land Area
Total Land Value $2,340,000 $3,272,000
Value per Unit @ 29 Units / Acre $93,600 $93,600
Shortfall (Total Assemblage Cost – Apartment Land Value) $560,000 $63,000
Base Number of Apartment Units @ 29 / Units Per Acre 25 36
Additional Number of Units Required to Eliminate Shortfall 6 1
Total Number of Units 31 37
Density Required to Incentivize Conversion 35 units / acre 30 units / acre
If density is allowed under the current zoning the following would be permitted:
4071 Grandview Avenue = 54,540 sq. ft. parcel / 1,500 = 36 units maximum
4025 Grandview Avenue = 39,000 sq. ft. parcel / 1,500 = 26 units maximum
This density is inadequate to recover the costs incurred with payment of relocation
benefits as described above.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Alternative Density:
Required density for 4071 Grandview Avenue = 35 units per acre
Required density for 4025 Grandview Avenue = 30 units per acre
These densities are consistent with the City’s current Mixed Use Ordinance and
close to the current density permitted on the site.
It would be necessary to include a reevaluation provision in the Zoning Code
Amendment in order to reflect changes in values and relocation costs over time. As
proposed, the Mobile Home Park Owner would need to provide a letter to the
Community Development Director, requesting consideration of the density increase
and supply an economic analysis similar to the one above in order to receive City
Council approval for the incentive zoning.
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.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss the Proposed Ordinance and consider
the following options: 1A) introduce the Proposed Ordinance for first reading; AND
1B) if the Proposed Ordinance is introduced, direct staff to return to City Council with
the related Fee Resolution; AND 1C) direct staff to initiate the process for
consideration of any necessary Zoning Code Amendment; OR 2) determine not to
adopt a City ordinance and continue to rely on state law in the event of a closure;OR
3) 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
assistance benefits; however, the specifics of any such monetary loss to the City is
difficult to determine at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
2. September 12, 2011 Agenda Item Report (including attachments).
3. Excerpt of minutes from September 12, 2011 City Council meeting.
4. September 12, 2011 City Council/Public comments and questions and related
responses.
5. Public Comments received after September 12, 2011 City Council meeting.
6. Responses to specific questions raised in public comments received after
September 12
th
meeting.
7. Comparison table.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1A. Introduce an Ordinance to amend the Culver City Municipal Code by
adding a new Chapter 15.13 relating to mobile home park resident
protection;
AND
1B. If the Ordinance is introduced, direct staff to return to City Council with a
related resolution establishing the fees for processing a Relocation Impact
Report application, concurrently with the adoption of the Ordinance;
AND
1C. Direct staff to initiate the process for consideration of any necessary
Zoning Code Amendment;
OR
2. Determine not to adopt an ordinance and continue to rely on state law in
the event of a mobile home park closures;
OR
3. Provide other direction to staff as deemed appropriate.
1-18
19 — 91
92 — 98
99— 108
109 — 121
122 — 125
126 — 127
MEETING DATE: 12112/11
AGENDA ITEM: (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; and
(2) Direction to Staff Regarding Potential Zoning Code
Amendment for Future Change of Use of Mobile Home
Park Properties.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. September 12, 2011 Agenda Item Report
3. Excerpt of minutes from September 12, 2011
City Council meeting
4. September 12, 2011 City Council/Public comments
and questions and related responses
5. Public Comments received after September 12, 2011
City Council meeting
6. Responses to specific questions raised in public
comments received after September 12th meeting
7. Comparison table CHAPTER 15.13: - MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENCE PROTECTION
:
15.13.005 - Purpose and Applicability
15.13.010 Definitions
15.13.015 - Mobile Horte:::Ratk:Ch ange of Use or Closure
:
15.13 :. 020 7 Application Filing for RolOOption Impact Report
1513 : .:025 uie.o . Notification
15A3.030 - Informational Meetings
Relocation Impact Report
15:: 13.040 - Findings and Conditions of Approval
15::13.045 - Relocation Assistance Benefits
15.13:05.0 - Exemption from Relocation Assistance Benefits
15.13.055:- Fees
15.13.005 - Purpose and Applicability
Sections:
-1-
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
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:
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. The provisions of this 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
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 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 all pertinent judgments, orders and
decrees of the court.
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
Beniefits. The written agreement shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 15.13.050.C.1.a and 15.13.050.C.1,b.
Any prospective purchaser
•tit a Mobile Home in the Mobile Home Park shall bc advised as
Mobile Home and provided with a copy of the recorded
agreements,
Chapter shall not preclude an Applicant's obligation to comply with State law
requirements that are not addressed in this Chapter.
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 Park; or
15.13.010 - Definitions
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.
-2- 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.
-3-
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
value of the Mobile Home while located on the present site, as detcrmincd by an
appraiser who has thc professional designation of MAI by the American Institute of
Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors and is cxperi
with manufactured housing.
Change of Use of a Mobile Home Park. Use 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
Home Par••'
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 of
Culver
City Community Development Director or his/her
designee.
Eligible Occupant. A Mobile Home Owner residing in the Mobile Home on a full
time basis and his or her "immediate 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.
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 registered 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 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 Assistance Benefits. Monetary benefits (e.g. cost of moving a Mobile
Home and :personal belongings, rent- differential, the purchase of an Eligible
Occupant's Mobile Honn0 or non-monetary benefits (e .g. services of a relocation
specialist, transportation to Oletiv alternative housing sites, packing and unpacking
assistance) provided to mitigate the impact of the Change of Use or Closure of the
Mobile Home Park on an Eligible Occupant.
Relocation Impact Report A report on the impact of a Closure or Change of Use
of a Mobile Home Park upon 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. 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.
Space. Any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad or portion of a Mobile Home Park
designated or used for the occupancy of one Mobile Home. 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
15.13.015 - Mobile Home Park Change of Use or Closure
cl-Fnent-ze-Fd4R-g
er land use-permit-that-would result in a
Change of Usc or Closure of a—Mobile Home Park, an application for
A. Prior to a No Mobile Home Park Closure s resulting in a change of the Mobile
Home Park status to a vacant use, shall be permitted unless the Applicant
has submitted to the Housing Division a Mobile Home Park owner shall file an
Relocation Impact Report approved by the
City Council; and the Applicant has filed a written statement with the Director,
signed under penalty of penury, 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 15.13.025t, has expired-in-accordance with
. .
Flowing Division.
Division.
BC. 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
Applicant has submitted a Relocation Impact Report approved by the City
Council in accordancewith 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 bfk:Mobile Home Park.
DE. No building permit shall' be issued pertaining to a project that resultsed in a
Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park unless and until the
Applicant files a written statement with the 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
A. A Relocation Impact Report application shall be completed, filed with the
Housing Division and processed in compliance with this Chapter. The
application package shall include all information specified in the application,
-5- B.
-6-
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
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.
B. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to establish evidence in support of the
finding required by Section 15.13.040.A.
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 and that any
new resident entering the Mobile Home Park after the filing of the Relocation
Impact Report shall not be eligible to receive Relocation Assistance Benefits.
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 wider pen alty of perjury, that each prospective resident
received by mail or personal delivery the notification required by this
Subsection 15.13.015.A shall be filed with the Director.
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. This notice shall not be given to Mobile Home Owners and residents
prior to approval of the Relocation Impact Report. Purpose. The purpose of the Relocation Impact Report is to address the
impact on residents of a Mobile Home Park, who qualify as Eligible
Odcupants, who Will be displaced as a result of the Change of Use or Closure
of the Mobile Home Park.
A.
Process.
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
15.13.030 Informational Meetings
A. Not later than 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 and residents of the Mobile Home Park
regarding the status of the Relocation Impact Report to be considered, the
timing of the proposed relocation of Eligible Occupants, and the details of the
Relocation Assistance Benefits proposed in the Relocation Impact Report.
B. 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) designated in the Relocation Impact Report shall be
present at all informational meeffrigs.
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 perfOry ,::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 :inforrnatioriameeting or meetings were
conducted ancl ::the names and addresSe .S. :::dit all attendees.
15.13.035 - Relocation Impact Report
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:
1. A legal description of the Mobile Home Park property.
-7- -8-
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
2. A map and detailed description of the condition of the Mobile Home
Park, including the nature and location of structures, landscaping,
easements, utilities and other onsite features and amenities.
3. The names 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 names and addresses of all residents Within the Mobile Home
Park as of the date of the Relocation Impact Report application.
4. The 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
title search conducted through the California Department of Housing
and Community Develop'ment.
6. The total [limber 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.
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.). -9-
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
10. A determination of the total number of Mobile Homes 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, rhoving, 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 k e . - -; h , alue of cost of purchasing
each Mobile Home all associated fixed property cannot be
relocated to a :reasonably comparable Mobile Home Park within 20
miles of its exigtinq Ideation at its in-place value as determined by a
qualified appraiser. In determining the in-place valueAdjusted Fair
Market—Val-ue, the appraiser shall consider: (a) each Mobile 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,: and (b) the -value of the Mobile Home attributable to the
. Mobile Home Park location and amenities. The appraiser shall not
consider the effect of the -Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile
Home Park on the value of the Mobile Home and the value of the land
on which the Mobile Home sits.
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 and the basis for determining the in-place value 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 adequately 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
Report. /
-10-
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
17. A list of Mobile Home movers and housing specialists with proven
expertise in the fields of housing and relocation of persons displaced
from housing. This list shall include the names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of persons who are qualified as Mobile Home
movers, and an explanation of the services that each housing
specialist provides.
18. 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 thisSubsection 15.13.035.C.
D. Confidential Household and Income Data Applicant's retained 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
the Relocation Impact Report, the City shall notify each of the Mobile Home
Park Owners, Mobile Hcithe Owners , and Mobile Home Park residents of the
approval and availability of the Relocation Impact Report.
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. 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
2. If Relocation Assistance Benefits have not been provided to all Eligible
Occupants within one year of approval of the Relocation Impact
Report, on the anniversary date each year after the approval of the
Relocation Impact Report, the 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 CPI for the quarterly period closest to the anniversary date of
the approval of the Relocation Impact Report.
3. If Relocation Assistance Benefits have not been provided to all Eligible
Occupants in accordance with the approved Relocation Impact Report
within three years 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
A. Required Finding.
Following a public hearing, the City Council snail, 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 adverse impacts.- of the Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home
Park on 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 requirernents of applicable State law and this Chapter have been
satisfied.
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, and style of Mobile Homes within the
Mobile Home Park proposed for Change of Use or 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 Occupant cannot relocate to a reasonably
comparable Mobile Home Park located within a 20 mile radius of the
City and the justification for that conclusion.
-11-
I I 1.
1
-12-
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
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 avoiding or reducing payment of Relocation Assistance
Benefits.
6. Whether reports and notices required by applicable State law and this
Chapter have been properly prepared and properly served.
7. 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.
8. 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 Pahs, 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.
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:
Consistent with California Government Code Section 65863.7(e),
payment of the reasonable cost of relocation gaymeRt-ef-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. Reasonable cost of
relocation may include, but shall not be limited to:
2,a. Payment of the cost of relocating the eligible Mobile Homes
identified in the Relocation Impact Report to available Spaces in
reasonably comparable Mobile Home Parks within the study 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
area referenced in the Relocation Impact Report. The cost of
relocating the eligible Mobile Homes 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.
&b. For Eligible Occupants who are unable to reasonably relocate
their Mobile Home, payment of the cost of purchasing Adjusted
Fair Market Value for their Mobile Home based on information
contained in the approved Relocation Impact Report as set forth
in Section 15.13.035.C.12, and reasonable expenses incurred
in relocating to a new residence within the study area
referenced in the Relocation Impact Report.
4,c. Payment to Eligible Occupants of a lump sum to compensate
for payment of the first and last months rent at a reasonably
comparable Mobile Home Park or other rental housing, as
determined by the Relocation Specialist.
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.
62. ,f,:1 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.
73_ 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.
The Applicant shall execute and record against the Mobile Home Park
property a covenant and agreement to comply with the conditions of
approval of the Resolution approving the Relocation Impact Report in
a form approved by the City Attorney.
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.
-13-
13 D.
/
'
)
I
-14-
•
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
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), 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) shall give each Eligible Occupant
written notice of his or her Relocation Assistance Benefits.
B. In the case where an Eligible Occupant is entitled to make selections
between alternative Relocation Assistance Benefits, Applicant shall provide
written notice to each such Eligible Occupant who is entitled to Relocation
Assistah-oe-Be-nefits-that he or she has 90 days to select his or her Relocation
Assistance Benefits. Not later than 90 days from the date of notification to
the Eligible Occupants of their respective alternative Relocation Assistance
Benefits, Eligible Occupants who are entitled to make selections between
_ _
shall submit to the Applicant their
selection of Relocation Assistance Benefits in writing on a form provided by
the Relocation Specialist(s). If an Eligible Occupants who-does not submit
their his or her selection of Relocation Assistance Benefits to the Applicant
within the 90-day period, the Applicant may select the Relocation Assistance
Benefits on behalf of the Eligible Occupantshall forfeit all rights to such
benefits.
C. 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 Mobile 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.
No Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park shall be permitted until
all Relocation Assistance Benefits required by the approved Relocation
impact Report have been provided to all Eligible Occupants. An exception
may be made if the Applicant and an Eligible Occupant have agreed to an
alternate arrangement by written agreement, which must be approved by the
Director. The written agreement shall comply with the requirements of
Sections 15.13.050.C.1.a and 15.13.050.C.1.b.
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 a. The written agreement shall be in at least 12-point type and
shall include, but is not limited to, the following terms and
conditions:
The Eligibl&Occupant is aware of the provisions of this
...:Chapter andi::•:a copy of this Chapter is attached to the
.:agreement.
The Eligible Occupant's 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.
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:
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
considered by the City Council at the public hearing for the Relocation Impact
Report.
1. The Applicant has entered into a written agreement with specified
Eligible Occupants providing for mutually satisfactory Relocation
Assistance Benefits. A4request 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:
No Eligible Occupant signing a relocation assistance
agreement may contest the adequacy of the Relocation
Impact Report.
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
V.
-15-
ic -16-
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
fee interest in the Mobile Home Park property of the existence
of and content of the agreement.
c. Any A prospective purchaser of an Eligible Occupant's Mobile
Home in the Mobile Home Park shall be advised as to the
existence of any such agreements between the Applicant and
the Eligible Occupant 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 Home Park would eliminate
substantially all reasonable use and economic vafue of the property for
reasons not caused or contribdted 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
law
If the Applicant contends that continued use of the property as a
Mobile Home Park is economically infeasible due to the costs
of necessary repairs, improvements or both, that are not the
result of the Mobile Home Park Owner's negligent failure to
„
properly maintain the Mobile Home Park, then the following
items must accompany the request for exemption:
A statement 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 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
improvements and repairs due to deferred
maintenance.
(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 Applicant's obligation to provide
Relocation Assistance. Benefits.
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 Park within the next five
years necessary to pay for such improvements and
repairs that are not the result of the Mobile Home Park
Owner's or Applicant's negligent failure to properly
maintain the Mobile Home Park property.
iv. An estimate, provided by a qualified real estate appraiser
of the value - of the Mobile Home Park property if the
Change of Use of the Mobile Home Park was approved
for development consistent with the Relocation Impact
Report application and the value of the property if the
use was continued as a Mobile Home Park.
Such other information which the Applicant believes to
be pertinent or which may be required by the Director.
15.13.055 - Fees and Costs
The Applicant shall 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.
-17-
/7 places within the City.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2011.
MICHEAL O'LEARY, Mayor
City of Culver City, California
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,
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
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby declares that, if any provision, section,
subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of this ordinance is rendered or declared
invalid or unconstitutional by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by
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.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARTIN R. COLE, City Clerk CAROL A. SCHWAB, City Attorney "No-Closure" Covenant
.......
Pliohe Numbér:.
........
(310) 253-5782/(310) 253-5746
Contact Pérson/Dept:
Public Hearing: Action Item [X] ::.:Atta.chments.,•JX,:
Public Notification: Agendas and Meetings - city Council (09/08/11)
moLile home park owners and residents and persons within a 500 foot
i-nobilezhome.:park:::::(08/29/11:and:-09/0V1.4)
...... .........................
:
£vlailing
: all
:
:
radius of ::each::::
[)(J
Ii
[X]
Fiscal Impact: General Fund
Commission Action R
equired : :
Yes
[J
Date: [X)
rSol.Billrilehtel.d .(0.9/0.4.144)
...... ......... ............. :........:..............:...:.........
Chief Financial OfftcerApprovaJ::..
Jeff
: ::..
(by N
:
Kimball) (09/07/11)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) 0W07/11)
City. nagerA
John.tili*Nathbar.(09/08/1:1-)
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
:
Meeting
:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of 1) 1
Aoloiitiitly:::th0:::icOl1017 :::,:CIti(i.11110:0:1•:C : .....j.PaI.:.:'.:.C.Otlelo:::;Adif ,i* •
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
19 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,
g•1 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.
Staffs 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.
)_3 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 RJR, 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. Cannpagna as follows: (1) 8.
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
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:
09112111
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
2-7 protection as follows:
CHAPTER 15.13: - MOBILE PARK RESIDENCE PROTECTION
Sections:
15.13.005 - Pu
15.13.010 - Ofigitions
15.13.015 4 - ;,11 :bloile Home-Park Change-of Use or Closure
15.13.020 2- Application Filing for Relocation Impact Report
15.13.025 - R' 644ifedpit
15.1.3;:030., infa-C404;i61
_ _
0,Impact Report
3.040 - Findings 6-04 .„Conditions of Approval
3.045 - Rag -Option Assistance Benefits
3.050 - Exemption from kelocation Assistance Benefits
54a.,-.055 - Fees
15.13.00'5.A-.P*pose and Applicability
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
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 theb of Culver City, California,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Title 15, Land Usage, ':.4:the Culver Cil:- ,Municipal Code is
hereby amended to add a new Chapter 15,-M :rolating to Mobile Home Park resident
-
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 IvlobiLe Home Park Owners to
provide adequate relocation assistance benefits.
A.
-1- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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 Pa
b. The discontinuance of the us0;.Wilfdperty as a Mobile Home
Park which is the result ofalk:Wdjudi6'6.40.n of bankruptcy of the
Mobile Home Park by a?.*.irt of competent jurisdiction. The
Applicant shall have thWirden to produce 4stantial evidence
that a court of cOpetent jurisdiction has determined in
connection with < i proceedin, in bankruptcy that the
discontinuance of use pf thei.,i aftkoted Mobile Frcitne Park is
necessary. The doetitifikatatidri shall include the title, case
number, Amd court in wi4i0*the bankruptcy proceedings were
held, anaW0Kcopies of 411 judgments, orders and
decrees °PAW
c.
A. Mobile Home PadcitthVtlthe Applicant has entered into a
vnjten adreenightiO4 100 percent of the Eligible Occupants
providing for 'inaally satisfactory relocation assistance
benefitii The 'Mitten agreement shall comply with the
reguirgitients of *khan 15.13.050_C.1.a. The aoreements
stAftWidatded agUist the Mobile Home Park property on the
records of ffiedativ of Los Angeles in sufficient form and
'Mail to advise a Potential purchaser of the fee interest in the
Mobile Home Park property of the existence of and content of
the aWeArnent. Any prospective purchaser of a Mobile Home in
The MOB& Home Park shall be advised as to the existence of
'.*riy such agreements before purchasing a Mobile Home and
provided with a copy of the recorded adreements.
15.13.010 - .:-- -1:tefinitions
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 site
value of the Mobile Home while located on the present site in place, 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 Hor*rark is not the Applicant,
then the Applicant must provide evidence of the mak* interest owner's consent to
the filing of the application for consideration of azROPCOtiph Impact Report. If the
Applicant is the holder of a leasehold interest in telllobil -6*,me Park, the owner(s)
of the fee interest in the Mobile Home Park
shall
consent fb, the application for
consideration of a Relocation Impact Repo
City Council. The City Council of thefity of Culver City .
.obile Home Park for a purpose
*via or more Mobile Home Spaces
.tabitation. Change of Use shall
"Ot;:a Mobile Home Park rule or
Mit, Home Park or any portion
nge 162a Resident-Owned Mobile
erne Park. Mobile Home Park Closure. The
fproperty as a Mobile Home Park.
The
jEiigible Ocouji4ii. A Woo Home Owner residing in the Mobile Home on a full
time basis and tiicor her tafhediate family," as that term is defined in California
Ciikcode Section 70.35, who resides in the Mobile Home at the time of filing of
the 'llAccation Impact Report application with the City. Eligible Occupant shall
include ittylabile Ii6,46 Owner who is subleasing his or her Mobile Home, pursuant
to the pralsionS , :of California Civil Code Section 798.23.5, due to a medical
emergency tiri :.„fkgdical treatment that requires the Mobile Home Owner's temporary
absence fromiiis 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.
Change of Use of a Mobile Home Park.
other than the rental or the holding out for rérit .
to accommodate Mobile Hoilif4sed for hunial
not mean the adoption, amdttlpfreWpr repeal
regulation. Change of Use may4fleé rt4a4ritire
thereof A Change of Use shall 4.61, hick***
Home Park.
Dire
deal
Closure VMobile I
discontinuateeof the use
muray Development Director or his/her
-3-
3 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
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, otnerson(s) purchasing a
Mobile Home pursuant to a written contract.
Mobile Home Park. An area of land where two or,inbreAlobile Home Spaces are
rented, or held out for rent, to accommodatef *bile 'Owes used for human
habitation_ Mobile Home Park shall not incki4 a Residerit4wned Mobile Home
Park.
Non-Owner Resident. A resident 411- frá Mobile Home who does riot have any
ownership interest in the Mobile Home iri-Oich he e resides.
Park-Owned Mobile Home. _ 44ftRy Mobile HoriikWhich is owned by the Mobile Home
Park owner or any person X- en-5 L -* :-which has attfpwnership interest in the Mobile
Home Park.
Relocation ImpactReport. A report on,tfie-f-r_:,;i„ s_t of -6 :Closure or Change of Use
of a Mobile Horng:RVV4p .pn the dkpjaAtfresio"--,Of such Mobile Home Park, as
required by c 06-rnia Government OOde Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4 and
containing Ilife:- .4iformation S .-- 6t forth in section 15.13.035 of this Chapter.
Resident-Ow -KW .
resideut,
Iiiiiitedt
!
-1,a'condominium, stock cooperative or planned
unitdvetfttarnent 6 -14Nlobile Home Park.
pace. Any arp#,, tract4iland, site, lot, pad or portion of a Mobile Home Park
esignated or user the crOupancy of one Mobile Home.
15.13.64 5 - Mobile Home Park Change of Use or Closure
Prior :t4iWapproval 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
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
Mobile Home Park that is owned by its
A.
-4-
3 ) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 project that resulted in a
Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile HO* Park unless and until the
Applicant files a written statement with thkiliector - -,Signed under penalty of
perjury, that relocation assistance benefits. required p*st_lant to the approved
Relocation Impact Report have been provided, that ,- : .*p Applicant has
complied with all Relocation Impaa=Report conditions of'aproval, and the
notice period provided by the notice of termination of tenan0, -,$s_set forth in
Section 15.13.025.C, has expire
15.13.020 - Applicatioa Fifittsfor ReloCation Impact Report
A. A Relocation Impact Relidit -
Housing Diy,i§ ,14A and pro0Osse
applicatiogioiSk4Wshali inftp,I1 info
any ap,ible HotiOjg Divisi*jtiandout,
by tte.-,iiirector in ':.trider to *duct a
application, and all fee.S:
_ _
•
shalri*,completed, filed with the
ianCe with this Chapter. The
specified in the application,
any additional information required
thorough review of the proposed
bAcita
he retiiiik(Sibility of ifie`''Ahlifitant to establish evidence in support of the
in rritvpquired , .,-by Section 15.13.040.A.
3.025 - Rd(tuired Mdtification
The fäliblwing notification requirements are in addition to any State law notification
requirerinOts relating to the Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park.
Where th67;fgkukektents 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-
32- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
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 iptification shall include a
copy of the proposed Relocation Impact Report 40'a copy of this Chapter.
The copies shall be provided free of charge, eogroof of service, signed under
penalty of perjury, that each Mobile Home Oft'mr and resident of the Mobile
Home Park has received by mail or per401 delivery the notification and
copies required by this Subsection „I5 -J3.025.13, hiiist be filed with the
Director at least 14 days prior to the 1100-6 - hearing.
- -
C. Not later than 12 months priofto the date the Mobile HoltQwners and
residents of the Mobile Home PaTrk -are reqyri-6 -iflo vacate thelaribile Home
Park, Applicant shall provide written*ifiation of termination of tenancy, by
certified mail, to all MOO Home Owners and residents of the Mobile Home
Park.
15.13,030 Information Meetin
A.
for thal.lobile _
regarding the .sta:tys 0
4
p
ose
d re6
1
111e4, — of
of
All informatiOal me6,fifrgs shall be scheduled and held to maximize the
number of M-014e Home Owners and residents of the Mobile Home Park that
e able to attend these meetings. The informational meeting or meetings
stt
. be 9 q64 ted on the premises of the Mobile Home Park or other stall
as approved by the Director. The Applicant's retained
RelocW -tp1 7 Specialist(s) be-using 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.
Not latptc . flan 21 da* prior tc the public hearing to consider the Relocation
Impe-' .Report, the AtiPlicant stiall conduct at least one informational meeting
We Owners -:aRd residents of the Mobile Home Park
.9 41241bn Impact Report to be considered, the
of Eligible Occupants, and the details
°cation assistance benefits proposed in the Relocation
-6- I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
26
97
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 ,WiWisultant anthIqlocation specialist
(hereinafter, collectively, !!.,0:646cation Specialissubject to the
Director's approval, to pwlarb a Relocation Impact ROport relating to
the Change of Use or Clcrti a4 of a Mobile Home Park.
2. Upon the filing of a RelocationTrOPOt Report application, the City shall
notify the MobilfAlFge Park reskIi:_1),. that such application has been
filed and a Relo6§110V.:.4:ftact Repo - - -4- i be prepared.
Required Content of Readirt. Thdlidlbcatiori lfipact Report shall contain,
_
1. T legal clescrigon of th0Wlobile Home Park property.
-
—
2. Al.filap artd - - i descriptio Th of the condition of the Mobile Home
_turA„ and location of structures, landscaping,
IS, utilities and otfier onsite features and amenities.
3. Tfi-qames'alrl addresses of all Mobile Home Owners within the
_
Mob-10 .:7HomeT:paik as shown on each respective title documentation
for the Mobile 1-romes located in Spaces within the Mobile Home Park,
._,._ .-
and thijames and addresses of all residents within the Mobile Home
L7
_.,_
Park as:.tif the date of the Relocation Impact Report application.
r.
4. 'TtOMiumber of Spaces within the Mobile Home Park, length of
dd6upancy 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
C.
. • . g 41,551614 : on:
but need notbro_fimited to,
-7- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
'14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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:, Mobile Home is a
principal residence or second home. All tOS'iients shall be classified
as Eligible Occupants or Non-Owner Roirts
7. A description of the project pros ' ,",:ed for -Itte, property that is the
subject of the Mobile Home Park Change . •:. 4f, Use or Closure, if
applicable.
8. The proposed schedule0fAhe Mobile Home Park Chaage of Use or
Closure.
9. The location of easonably cotparable Mobile Home Parks within a Cnr
20 mile, radius 141,,E .,;. obile Hor":,,,Park that is the subject of the
Change of Use or --'7'e„ ,:e: e, including the reasonably comparable
Mobile Home Park- rianne';',aut* .lzer of "SOces, number of vacancies,
lease cotes and terrn&policieW46 -0 -m-.9trigt restrictions imposed upon
the residents of a lvtebile" tiome, re stuctions on the type of Mobile
,Ogie's araz.i4idents'ecepted in the Mobile Home Park, amenities
Of ib r e d , and pfOximity toervices (bus stops, grocery stores, hospitals,
*P-). ,.
, _
A dét4okiation number of Mobile Homes that arc eligible
be'tejitr.,ated to a reasonably
comparable Mobile Home Park, and
OasidViiiiwhich such determination is made.
11. The estimated C .Pst of relocating the eligible Mobile Homes identified in
Subsection 10 above to available Spaces in reasonably comparable
Mobile kri)me Parks within the area identified in the Relocation Impact
Report. g The cost of relocating shall include the costs of physically
to a new site the eligible Mobile Home and movable
-
1,111provements, 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
-8- 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 be relocated and the basis for determining the
Adjusted Fair Market Value of such Mobile Hpipp.
14. The availability and cost of rental housifigtrof reasonably comparable
size and quality within a 16 mile radius 4'41;0 -Mobile Home Park_
4
15. A relocation plan which shaUpclude a schedule for physically
relocating each Mobile HO* and/or paitigtit of relocation
assistance.
16. Proposed measures to acr844.tely nriltrOW the adverse irri -P'acts of the
Change of Use or Closure ofiligM06'Home Park upon each Eligible
Occupant based on the informatWgrovided in the Relocation Impact
Report.
I
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.
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
17. A list of Mobile FiOgie movOr'S .,, vand higising specialists with proven
expert*..,in the fields hotigittAlcit:_reldcation of persons displaced
frorw-_,I*Vg. This :list , Fsliall iii - CW: . the names, addresses, and
tAphone ncinibers ofiOéisons who are qualified as Mobile Home
iVers, and- ,an expliOtion of the services that each housing
,
, .
i ec alist provides.
-_ . .
nY*14,1tOrial inforrnSOPequired by the Director in order to conduct
thoi*gh review of Ifre impacts to Eligible Occupants and the
plOposedl*Jocation Impact Report.
19. Applicants retained Relocation Specialist shall determine what
constitutes a "reasonably comparable" mobile home park or other
rental flaming, as referenced in this Subsection 15_13.035.0
D.
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
CoOldcMiapHousehold and Income Data. Applicant's retained eonsultant
Relodati0 .- 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.
-9-
3‘c' 3
4
5
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 efete 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 haviMitAlepded within the one-year
period. No more than two extent#6 maikk granted by the City
Council. A request for an extension Must be filWwith the Director not
less than 45 days prior to jlt:k*piration of the. Impact
Report. A public hearing b0ffiré the City Council s'ffai sl_be held on the
request of the Applicatl.=_Ilf such extension 0 CCIJF4,11 required
deadlines set forth in ttfe_ .,,felocatiol- j- =.11npact Report will also be
extended for the same timej$094. E4ranted by the extension of the
Relocation Impact_Report.
2.
If relocation assiStAndeilltlefits have_=ribt been provided to all Eligible
Occupants within -01e year , bf,__apprO cual of the Relocation Impact
Report,., on the annkessary,date --Opir year after the approval of the
RolocatiønImpact ROArt-11 -16 reloc, assistance benefits shall be
ip14ased bsi,an amoW6quivalent to the cost-of-living index for the
ós Angeles/Riverside/Orange County area published by the U.S.
partmentOtabor. Theancrease shall be determined by taking the
agerage QPV-fp -Mt*gmarteitpperiod closest to the anniversary date of
the approvalof tfra -Reiciq4 ,in Impact Report.
,
,r0locati•ssistance benefits have not been provided to all Eligible
dC4.lpantS*4ccordance with the approved Relocation Impact Report
withikithree yéas of the original date of approval, a new Relocation
Impact.Report shall be prepared in accordance with Section
15.13.04,
15.13.040 - Findings and Conditions of Approval
A. 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
-10-
3 7 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 (atreasonably comparable
Mobile Home Park located within a 20,4ffi46 - radius of the City to
accommodate the displaced eligible Motrice -rHomes.
s and notices required by applicable State law and this
%)perly prepared and properly served,
tion, aV,Style dffApile Homes within the
f90 1 -khange of ligOr!ior Closure are such
zAlte to be moveealld accepted into
glocated within a 26 '41te radius of the
3. Whether the age, type, condition, a
Mobile Home Park proposed f
that the Mobile Homes are
reasonably comparable p,
City.
le tit
ange of U;
e to be move
4. Whether the Eligible OccdP#41At:inot relocate to a
reasonably
comparable Mobile_ Home Parinkojed within a 20 mile radius of the
City and the justre#04 for that cd*Osion.
5. Whether there is eVidendelhat the APpiiitant has attempted, at any
time, tovict or othe*se ca:406 ,
piternoval of Eligible Occupants for
the ...0.046 of avoiding or of relocation assistance
6.
y the GO4nge of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park is to another
r'r e'Siclential• -(ise, whether the residents of the Mobile Home Park will
an opportunity to rent or purchase, if for sale, the new units, and
wheth4 the c*struction schedule will result in unreasonable long-
term digplacements.
hetb-4 the relocation assistance benefits to be provided adequately
6 any adverse impacts of the Change of Use or Closure of the
e 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.
-11-
4. 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. 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:
1. Payment of relocation assistance to el=a6h Eligible Occupant who
resided in the Mobile Home Park ,at . 04- - .Jime of the filing of the
Relocation Impact Report applic*on and who will actually be
displaced as a result the Chapje:Of Use or i=Closure of the Mobile
Home Park.
eating the eligible Mobile 'FfOltnes identified
'4ort to **able Spaces Wteasonably
Rf the study area referenced in
cost of relocating the eligible
dude the e4SIs of physically moving to a new
lpme and'Itgvable improvements, such as
eh costs nay include the dismantling,
F40§§.0mbliM, and rebuilding of the
improvements (including skirting and tie-
, moving and unpacking of all personal
3. ROt„ligiqle -_clégmants wilitk:tare unable to reasonably relocate their
Mobile IlOnit-. p4t -nejit of the Adjusted Fair Market Value for their
bite *pine based-1 dift-' information contained in the approved
ipcatiti!i,.,Jmpact Report, and reasonable expenses incurred in
i:; :.A new residence within the study area referenced in the
ReldOtio n IririOst Report.
Payment to Eligible Occupants of a lump sum to compensate for
payment of the first and last months rent at a new reasonably
i6ble Mobile Home Park or other rental housing, as determined
he 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-
2. Payment of the cost of
in the Relocation Impac
comparable Mobile Home
the Relocation Impact Report.
Mobile Homes 43141
site the eligible
patios, carports ar#,Do
packing, moving, itipackin
Mobile IT:ope and rnONa
), di#1:,-:.Jhe pa
'perty.
sq 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
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 ale mobile
home park or other rental housino, as referenced in this Section 15.13.040.
15.13.045 - Relocation Assistance Benefits
A. Not later than 30 days from the approval etle Relegation Impact Report, the
Applicant's retained Relocation Special#s)housing Ver4alist(s), shall make
personal contact with each Eligible . ,0* --vant of the Mobile Home Park and
commence consultations to disgti'S's' the applicable re1e4ton assistance
benefits to be provided. TheCebcation S•ecialist a - '7=!.:,.cpecialist(s)
shall give each Eligible Occupant_written _fiitilke of his or her relocation
assistance benefits.
B. Applicant shall providet*ri, ra notice to 40 ;,Eligible Occupant who is entitled
to relocation assistanc&A:eili ,=-_that he or she has 90 days to select his or
her relocation assistancéDene liter than 90 days from the date of
notification to the Eligible -O rAtcupantOaffyeAcreSP:6-ctive relocation assistance
benefits, FOXIK .Pccupanti - 02,0* .e 0 - _ -s to make selections between
alternative relocation assistance Venefits sha I submit to the Applicant their
selegtOreof relocatiettassistarenefits in writing on a form provided by the
Reldea:tion Specialiat(6)houf„ -ing''t*cialict(s). Eligible Occupants who do not
submit**, selqc00.0fpatcication-assistance benefits to the Applicant within
the 90-daSkprigr -shatt fdfaX410bhts to such benefits.
,
asn' -q1,1:.-monetkitrelocation assistance benefits shall be paid to the Eligible
Occupant* leaSf46-.days prior to the date the Eligible Occupant is required
to vacate the. Mobile Park.
. .
A request forijnodification of the time limits set forth in subsections A, B and
shall be considered by the City Council at the public hearing for the
'Oation_liftkPact Report.
15.11050 - 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- 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
77
28
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 prowle relocation assistance
benefits shall include a statement specifying at least one of the following
bases for the exemption:
1. The Applicant has entered into a *ten ad -Weffient with specified all
Eligible Occupants providing,::::4 'Mutually ' satisfactory relocation
assistance benefits. A reqq03r exemption under this Subsection
shall apply to only thos l esiifecified Eligible Ocacrqnts that have
reached an agreement 4iifir,:the Applicant and shall Cahply with the
following:
The written , agreement StiOkbe in at least 12 -point type and
shall inclgiANNt is not liWite.d to the following terms and
The Eligible QeCup4int-fiA_aWare of the provisions of this
-Chapter:ARO a copy a ' fit Chapter is attached to the
-avreeme
Eligiblepccupant's right to seek advice of an
1---- pliciii0:signing the agreement
A reasonable time table for the provision of relocation
assistance and a clause that such agreement shall
eeome void if such relocation assistance has not been
ded 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.
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_
a.
- 14-
4/ 1 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 Hori10:-, Park would eliminate
substantially all reasonable use and ecpdirithic value of the property for
reasons not caused or contributed toafrOlApbile Home Park Owner,
A request for exemption under thist giftseciltia ,shall be accompanied
by a qualified appraisal and shall inpl6de the fdllt*log:
a. Statements of profit. t01 085 from the operatigts of the Mobile
Home Park for tke.:1 va-year period prior to tile:::.,gate of the
Relocation Impact ROort appt4Ton. Such statements must
be certified by a certifiec(_ --7 -public accountant All such
staternegts.,shall remain cipOdential to the extent permitted by
law.
If the Applicant corritengS ,Illat coritirkied use of the property as a
"bile Home -Park is.bt.OrtOitticaily infeasible due to the costs
4 - pessary twat, -iMprove4hts or both, that are not the
result :41 the Mobile Home Park Owners negligent failure to
properly maintain Mobile Home Park, then the following
items ibiist accompa* the request for exemption:
stdterilOpriade under penalty of perjury by a State
licensed general contractor, experienced in the design,
construction and maintenance of a California Mobile
lome 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- 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
23
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 consiWation of the request for
exemption of the ApplicartIV obligation to provide
relocation assistance beng
iii. A statement verified bta:-fbertifi*tpublic accountant as to
the necessary increase in rental tAts of Mobile Home
Spaces within t,t0Tóbile Home Park ilvithin the next five
years necessOr to pay for such intrayements and
repairs thateaTO not the result of the I'VEdbik,Home Park
Owner's or 'Applicant'54 :,Aegligent failure to properly
maintain the Mal4ile HO-0;e Park property.
iv.
Ail•.st,kte, providedlka qualified real estate appraiser
of tiler :. váliof the MiOte Home Park property if the
Change ; of 11 .- S6 144the IV1614Home Park was approved
for de*lopmerit- ViOigent4ith the Relocation Impact
Report 'agpOibn alifttit value of the property if the
e was continued as a Mobile Home Park.
Lich other 47i-formation which the Applicant believes to
ent or hich may be required by the Director.
he Applicant SW-, be responsible for all expenses incurred by the City in
.-
coROpotion with the_ - _. ubmittal, review and processing of the Relocation Impact
RepOk-.Rpplication,;:ijOluding all costs relating to the retention of consultants to
review nt1 verify4tie information contained in the Relocation Impact Report.
Applicant' 40,00 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-
(c)
'13 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,
, 2011. APPROVEDANEVADOPTE
or words of this ordinance and as st.ithtetshall remain-10,TO force and effect.
MICHEAL O'LEARY, Mayor
City of Culver City, California
ATTEST: •
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARTIN R COLEX*olerk CAROL A. SCHWAB, City Attorney
-17-
.t,
subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of thisyou r inanep= is rendered or declared
invalid or unconstitutional by any final action in gq,eourt of compete4 jurisdiction or by
reason of any preemptive legislation, the ha City Council would have independently
"
adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections --paragraphs, sentences, phrases , CA Codes (gov:65850-65863.13) Page 1 of 2
(900-e-r en M 'en t
pert1el4Krtw-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 priorto 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 tile 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_0- 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).
1,41,, • 1,-. • --•• err, 1 •^r.-;•,•-F "e, 00[14 ee; _1•••••;•rk el; Q-1,1•••IXT e•kr‘e-1.9 CV{T frerIllr5. -- - -41161).Rrfi1.F.-
1/ 76
04/1417(111 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 mobi/ehome park residents, the report shall address the
availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks.
(h) 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 mobi/ehome park to resident
ownership_
http://www
,leginfo.ea.gov/egi-bitildisplaycode?seetion
—gov&group=65001-66000&fi1e—... 04/14/2011 CIVIL CODE
SECTION 798.55-798.61
798.55. (a) The Legislature fiads 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).
(a) 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 mobiIehomes within a
reasonable time after the homeowner receives a notice of
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?seotion=-civ&gro up=00001 -010 008thle=7 04/21/2011
'17 - • •-• • s."
noncompliance from the appropriate governmental agency.
(ID} 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 rtle 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 12-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 198.55 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 t 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 12-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
Lj
http://www.leginfo.ca_gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=eiv&group00001-0100086file=7._. 04121/2011 CA Codes (eiv:798.55-798.61) Page 3 of
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 a5009.5 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 (b) 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 a2-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 thad 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 lienholder, 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 lienholder, or registered owner, of the
mobilehome, if other than the homeowner, during the preceding
I2-month period.
(B) The legal owner, junior lienholder, or registered owner of the
mobilehome, if other than the homeowner, has not previously cured a
default of the homeowner during the preceding 12-month period.
(C) The legal owner, junior lienholder or registered owner, if
other than the homeowner, is not a financial institution or
mobilehome 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 park 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
ip://-ww-w.leginfo .ca.go idegi-bin/displayeode?seetion=viv&group=00001-01000&file=7... 04/21/201 y7 CA Codes (civ:798_55-798_61) rage t oi o
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_
(1) 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 nbtice 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
" 1
4 ' '
. .
,.
4 , n '
...,
. 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))
. 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 fling of the application. (15.13.015.B & C)
. 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))
. 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 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 horns 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 pei ll rmt sha 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 cii
YEA4524|1010|"g9
iNG
Culver City Terrace
A Resifle.TA-Owned Iviobilehorae Conimiinity
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 Mobilehome Park Residence Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barnes,
am writing as President of the Board of Directors of Culver City Terrace, the "resident-owned
mobileharne 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 (13)(20(a):
A Resident-Owned fvlobilehorne 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.
YotArs
JJ
Loene Trubkin RECEWED
u ,
...fLvFA CITY NCTUSIN3
I Aug is .3: Loene Trubkin
Tr)50 Playa Street - J6
Culver City, California 90230
toenetrufakir3@gmail.com
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,
am wilting as a mobilehome park resident in Culver City. I am not writing in any
official capacity and am speaking only for myself_
As a mobilehome 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. %Wing
mobilehornes is an expensive endeavor_ Older mobilehornes may be neither movable
nor acceptable to other Parks_ One's investment in a mobflehome 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 mobilehomes, 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 Tevis Barnes, Housing Administrator
August 15, 2011
Page Two
R.ECEWED
VER eri"
i I
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 mobilehome 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
7 GRAND VIEW MOBILEHOIVIE PARK
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Comments on the Proposed Culver City
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance
The following comments represent a consensus of the Grand View Mobilehoine Park
Neighborhood Association mobile home owners in the Grandview Mobilehorne 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, 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 rainfinum 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. hi
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 ternas and
conditions of all pertinent factors of the closing_ Section 15A 3.030 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 BA. of the proposed
Ordinance requires that the Culver City Community Development Director approve the
consultant who will prepare the Rik. This is a reassuring requirement.
51( 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 nights, 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,
A/ Frank Carnpagna
Frank Campagna, President
Grand View Mobilehome Park
Neighborhood Association Page 1 of 2
Baker, Heather
From: Keith Moret Ikerno0325@yahoo.corn]
Sent: Thursday, August 18,2011 5:15 PM
To: Malsin, 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:
14 15.13.010 Definitions "Eligible Occupant" 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 |1010|) OR/130011 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 councilmembers 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 310377,5300 x350
Fax 866.656.2088
DRF# 01802527
OR/1 8 noi 1 6/ 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 corneron 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/PATRE 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, Arid the space rent equaled the
rented one bedroom apartment around the corner,
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 mats ouka 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 $84,00(100 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 $160,000.00.
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 in.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 m.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 ATTACHMENT 5
STAFF RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Letter of Augp st MM1 . n Loene TrdPr -AdCt.
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
IVIobilehome Park.
B. Email of July 11, 2011 from Frank Cannpagna, 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. 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 RlR active. However,
the Proposed Ordinance also has the added protection that if
benefits have riot 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 Rift
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 1513.040.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 15.13.050.0.1 was revised to
read:
'The Applicant has entered into a written agreement
with specified Eligibte 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
2
5-** 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
• 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 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: GIVIPNA 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 15.13.040.7)
C. Email dated August 18, 2011 from Keith Moret (Frank Tenq'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
4
67 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.
5 M7j
co).
47 0;
lopp,
-
ittir
Cg.
PAJAIVIALAW
The Law Offices of Sabrina Burton
2015 Navy Street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Tel. 310399.4667
Fax 310_496.0134
sburton@pajanialawnet
May 10, 2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY
- The City of Culver ay
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 Crilver Qty. 13y way of follow-up on Mr. Matsuoka's recent meetings with City
Coundl members (and on my recent email corre spondence with City Staff), I am wilting to put
forward more formally a proposed alternative to the mobile home park closure ordinance that the
City has been considering_
As we have discussed, Mr. Matsuoka would be willing to enter into a binding covenant
pursuant to which Mr. Maluoka 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-c1c6ure period).
• During the no-dosure period, the My would suspend enachnent cif any mobile home park
closure ordinance.
• During the no-dcsure period, Mr. Matsuoka would work in good MI to reach written
agreement on relocation arrangements for each unit owner presently living in his park.
The covenant would be recc,rded as an encumbrance on Mr. Matsuolcars property, and
would be expressly binding on any successor owner of the property. Qty 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 Qty as well.
We feel certain that the residents of both parks would welcome a period of certainty, which
such a no-closure covenant would provide them. We also feel that providing each park owner with
a reasonable period of time within which to address the partimlar 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. opportanky to work with you and with City WI 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 spedric questions in this regard, I would welcome an opportunity
to speak with you. You can reach me at the number indicated above.
Sabrina Burton
a Mr. Roy tvlatsuoka
Mr. Michael Goodman
Mr. David Evans
Terry Dowdali, Esq.
Ms. Tevis Barnes
Heather Bake-, Esq. From: Foek Nan Teng
Date: June 17, 2011 11:36:26 AM PDT
411111111111=11111.1
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. I 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.
7/ 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 §6103
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"), iii 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 Park; and
1
72, WHEREAS, in exchange for Agency's agreement to defer adoption of the
Proposed Ordinance for such period, Owner has agreed riot 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
h. 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
mobilehome 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 peimitted by law and
equity, binding for the benefit and in favor 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
73 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
7 L1 IN WITNESS WEIEREOF, 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 hinted:
Title:
4
75- Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO THE AGREEMENT CONTAINING COVENANTS
AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY FOR GRANDVIEW BOTJLEVARD
[TO BE ATTACIIED]
5
26. eli
IMO
.15,01111114
wrt./ /V
71Z.1 —
1.
.204 • 401b...SHIMOVIP5 -1414 • •
. • •
rio,t4111144• •
Pagp.1 f 2,
'-t3ocre
LJ
s
6e4 _4(A24a4
11 1111M111111
1111111M
.0.14.A.zovirw MOBILt fitME
'The. 'aided:pal Resid.oht Unit'Ovaler -seaoh ipprt tho.iea of art. agrbeviezt btfweee the: City ofCthr.et City. ,and the
:ownAr or the Ofandiriew MobilehonA. Park (Roy Mitsuoka). that 'would aWb PJ frtini cji _240 tor a perfo.a of
at ia Itz-grN, in .ovdex to allow the Park Chntir and. the Reoldent Unit Groinas: to reac -h ogreeltorit an the sp.ecifie
yelomroItfirrwav,ean,e4t$ .Jr bEes vtuods, that w.oiaJ plyL-rthp -rvt*.wm.to.elose thtt tturp.
Vat No. Resident NRITKA
ReTS:pectitily SubrettO tho Cof
.Cy
CIAVP
Roy ilifaitsvolca 2011
T *ph ciu:04 sigrottmo Data Sigragi Sittatuto T619;1040 D*081010(1
f .
I
WAS/
744)7.
EMICittit NatO
PV4 145cCI 6Y bA,6 tr?:
LibNikaA,
GIUNDVIEW MCDVIt TIONE. PARK
WITION ViLaRLmq ,(A149 7pl .p1WcOVIRVANIC:
Noatimted)
Tho t.1.1aderzigtieti Roident Unit :Owrier.5 se -,a spp.ott tø iclat aiut agte4mont botweeri the City of ,Oulva City and. the
.owner of the- Grandview Maillehorne Park .(Roy lqatmika) that wort.dd _ ii hejllrk 1roaubL4 fora:period d
,81 2,L_ Voitt_Loal.lu ord.e.rtt)flôw the P4.rk Owrie and the Rogident Unit Own:er8-to reach apeenaerit on the EARet.tiU
rageatinoarTgAgtmontR.tbr o.a0 tfte Riegidatt Own.- thgt vaztid qpIy if .the Park .werz.tpc1ae in te fawn.
Paget.of
T.Ta
it Islo„
- 11111
11111
1111. Jordan, Sherry
From: Barnes, Tevis
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 201110:56 AM
To: Baker, Heather, Jordan, Sherry; Kennedy, Mona
Subject: FW: Petition for the Agreement of Park nonclosure
Attachments: IMG.pdf: 1MG_0001.pdf, IMG0002.pdf
From: Foek Nan Teng rmailto:foeknanProadrunner.conil
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:55 AM
To: Barnes, Tevis
Subject: FW: Petition for the Agreement of Park nonclosure
From: Foek Nan Teng fmailto:foeknartOroadrunner.coml
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:47 AM
To: rtevis.bames©culvercity.org'
Subject: Petition for the.Agreement 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 Tong.
1 Lull No Resident Name
Ilk C>A4r
Siwk-k.4 anAtei,,os
•
s_ 4c)L- )t kii6
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
Culver City and the owner of the Grandview Mobile Home Park (Frank Teng) that would prohibit the -
Park from being dosed for 'a period oft least 3 3 .rears in order to allow the Park Owtwr and the Resident
Unit Owners to reaeh agreement on; the specific re.location arrangements for each of the Resident Unit
Owners that would apply if the Park were to cloSe it the future.
Respe.cgidlY *mated . tft City of Culver City
By
Frank 27£71g on in/y 2011 0
I
• zn.kwe,
_PAIV441 f'10 Ittlatr
r rAs Agr#
GRANDVIEW MOBILE ROME PARK
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF NO-CLOSURE COVENANT
Thorodergigti Resident thii1.Dwneis. each support the idea of an ageement between the City of
caVet. Cite and the- iiwx of th iidview Mobile-Home Park (Frank Teng) . that -Would prohibit the
Park frout.being closed for a period of at least 3. years in order to allow the Park Owner and the Resident
Ijnrf Owners • to reach agreement on the specific relocation arrangements far each oldie Itcsident Unit
Owners thatuOtdd applyit the Park Were to close hi the:future.
Unit No_ Resid eta Name Telephotte Si ore DTc Skied
7712-eqf
Nb41301(
GRANDVIEW MOBILE IliOME PARK.
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF NO-CLOSURE COVENANT
2 The undersian. Resident Urit Owners each support th.e idea of an agreement between the City of
Culver City and the oWner of the Grandview Mobile Florae ?ark (Frank Teng) that would prohibit the
Park from being dosed for a period of al least _3 years in order to allow the .Park Owner and the Resident
Unit Owners to reach agreement on the specific relocation arrangement for each ofthe Resident Unit
°Valets that would apply if the Park Were to clOse in the future.
Unit No, Residvaf Name Tel phone SEgrtat ore /.3211e Signed
CI*, le, 6W69 ORM
a
tA
111
d y'r -
3 R E C
r.;` CiT
A
I AUG -9
Pm 08
9,2011
Tevis--
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 COELianation 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.
-1 am currently preparing petitions signed by members of our Grand View Mobilehome
Neighborhood Association who were misled and/or coerced to sign the referenced
petition submitted by Mr. Matsuolra 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 puiposes
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 rue 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. Matstioka refused to give him a copy, then or afterwards. That individual
then requested that his name be removed from the petition; MT. 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
GIVIP Neighborhood Association
?-3 7
Signature .
ri
Unit # Date rvi
( <71
- .4 Pi
h
44/ g
0//10:6t.,
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 p etition. 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 adoatioW
of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. r.-
. -
Name
Yo R
ECEIVED
t AUG
30 Atf 10: 53
Y A
yi,
el
T?1,-
i.:Li-!t'-f-Rtic 116HT.
n
f CVL
-VCITY
4071 Grand View Blvd., Unit 14
Los Angeles, CA 90066
August 15, 2011
RECEfVED
II
AUG 1 5 Ptf 3: 3 6
Ms. Tevis Barnes, Housing Administrator
Culver City City Hall
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 99232 .
Dear Tevis:
Attached please find three (two multiple page) Petitions sig -ned 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 Mobilehome Park.
Petition No. 1 has been signed bY or with authorization of mobile home OINDrs 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 Home 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 preferefted 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 tofcatup@vahoo.coni.
Thank you for coordination of these Petitions with the other documents in support of
the Ordinance.
rank Can4p1§a.a.
President
GMP Neighborhood Association
2°,5- Name
p.
kf, ti e ci
( 6/64421 i&L—A.4 4144
Unit #
4111 7
41.
4111,
Date
- 2
q)- 7
RECEiYED
CT
1 1 AUG 15 PM 3:36
Petition No. 1 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehorne 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 hi a final version of the Ordinance.
Signature •
ti/
kc
cte,
/f,0-/441nA Petition No. " .1 of Mobile-Flome Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehorne Park
We the below signed mobile home owners at the Grandview Mobileborne 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.
- Name
(1—k
Signature
A-Q—C14-0 ia,t.IATR*1 c 3
14.chkesl>
Unit # Date
*IL ri(3(1(
_OW k3(«
`'NNI Page 1 of I
Re: Fw: Info from Jeri Kish Hide Details
FROM: jertkish@juno.com Saturday, August 13 : 2011 146 PM
trifcampaanoo.corn •
Frank.
Thanks for the information,
•
This is my okay to add my name to the list of mobile hoine owners at Grandview Mobilehorne 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 Lite 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 signed copy please let me know and 111 try to find a scanner.
Jeri
http :1/3
6olik6dgmcd1n.yomanail. yahoometioni/api/1 0/openm ail. app .invoke/36oh1c6dgmc ... 8/13/2011 Signature Unit ft
Name,
D at6
litt. ,217/
Petition No. 2 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandvie -w Mobilebome 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 wa.s
very demanding in his request and I signed his petition. I have -sine 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 adoption
of a mobile home park conversion ordinance.
,4,(clAnroL,
YoLIWN-A
ipp
( r-eg44
P _e_xA7
4/ (T
(-1 Petition No. 2 of Mobile Home Owners
at the Grandview Mobilehonie 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. 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
CV7
L. 4" ((
g-
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 fora 3-Year Covenant bylnin 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 4
-71-
tac,in g
)y Cow'icd iJes
September 12, 2011
Item A-1
(continued)
3. CREATE THE AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DRAFTING THE ARGUMENT IN
FAVOR OF, AND REBUTTAL 70 ARGUMENT AGAINST, AN INCREASE IN THE
CITY'S TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY (HOTEL) TAX; AND,
4. APPOINT MAYOR O'LEARY AND VICE MAYOR MALSIN TO THE AD HOC
SUBCOMMITTEE; AND,
5B. DETERMINE THE CHARGE OF THE AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE TO BE THE
DRAFTING OF THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF, AND REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
AGAINST (IF NECESSARY) THE MEASURE AND DIRECT THE SUBCOMMITTEE
TO SUBMIT SUCH DRAFT ARGUMENT(S) TO THE CITY COUNCIL NO LATER
THAN OCTOBER 24, 2011 (FOR THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR) AND NOVEMBER
14, 2011 (FOR THE REBUTTAL ARGUMENT AGAINST) AT WHICH TIME THE
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS THE WORK OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE IT SHALL
ALSO CONSIDER DISSOLUTION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
o0o
Item A-2
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.
Staff provided a summary of the material of record.
Heather Baker, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that copies
of correspondence from legal representatives for Mr. Matsuoka
were available to the public.
13 September 12, 2011
Item A-2
(continued)
Councilmember Weissman indicated that he had many questions
regarding applicability; income requirements; affordability;
adequate mitigation of adverse impacts; eligibility of new
owners; relocation assistance benefits; interests acquired
after the initial application was made; examples of monetary or
non-monetary benefits; vacant use; change of use; closure;
prospective new residents; relocation specialists; extension
requests; clarification that closure or relocation would not be
approved until all benefits are paid; language regarding
conditions of approval; clarifying financial hardship;
alternative relocation benefits; forfeiture of rights; and
specified eligible occupants.
Mayor O'Leary invited public comment.
The following members of the audience addressed the City
Council:
Frank Campagna, Grandview Mobile Home Park Neighborhood
Association, asserted that none of the mobile home owners in
the park wanted to see it closed at any time; he noted that the
ordinance was not an attempt to receive invalid benefits but
was rather a plea for protection in the event of a park
closure; he discussed instituting a covenant not to close the
park for a given length of time; expressed support for the
passage of an ordinance to protect the residents; discussed
basic human rights and the rights of business owners; the
effect of a park closure on mobile home occupants; quality of
life; responsibilities of business owners; and he asked for
help with the minimum time of notice.
Yolanda Phelps expressed concern with the ordinance and asked
for protection from the City to allow her to continue living in
her home.
Cecilia Kurtz indicated that it had been a long, difficult,
emotional situation for the mobile home residents and the
terminology used in the ordinance and covenant was difficult to
understand; she discussed the insecurity that the residents
have to live with; and she indicated that they wanted to be
able to stay in their homes.
14
93 September 12, 2011
Item A-2
(continued)
Susan E. Bourland reported being on a fixed income, noted that
she would be on the street if the mobile home park were to be
closed; she indicated that she bought the mobile home with the
understanding that she would be able to stay there forever; and
she asked the City Council to consider that they need a place
to live.
Sherri D. Hodge noted that many had signed the petition
allowing them to listen to the owners to see if they can create
a covenant to assist them and she thanked the City Council and
staff for their attempt to help them With the ordinance and for
putting energy into the project.
Michael Goodman thanked the City for their help; read a
statement from Roy Matsuoka, the owner of the Grandview Mobile
Home Park; he commented that an alternative to the proposed
ordinance was a no closure covenant option to protect all
interests for the next three years to allow enough time for
everyone to tailor and personalize agreements; he felt the
proposed ordinance would de-value the land; discussed a
proposed offsetting density bonus; noted the commitment of the
owner to the safety and well-being of residents; he strongly
urged the City Council to forego enactment of the ordinance as
drafted and instead to pursue the no closure covenant as an
option; and he cited comments made by speakers as an indicator
that people do not fully understand the ordinance and he felt
that matter should be considered further.
Terry Dowdall, a property rights lawyer, discussed procedural
issues; issuing a 12-month intent to close or change use; the
Relocation Impact Report; relocation entitlement; the 60 day
notice of termination of tenancy; requirements when a park
owner is going out of business; changes of use when permits are
required for development; he discussed issues with the
ordinance; the use evaluation; cited value; change of title and
the title report; the experience of the City of Thousand Oaks;
and he asked staff to reevaluate the item.
Alice Prasad, Associate Analyst, read written comments
submitted by:
Christopher White
15 September 12, 2011
Item A-2
(continued)
Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff regarding
the genesis of the ordinance idea; rights of the mobile home
park owners; providing greater certainty and financial
assistance to residents; building in the value of the property;
respect for the rights of both parties; clarification that
mobile home park dwellers have a financial stake in the
dwelling; protecting resident investments; exploration of a
future zoning amendment to create an overlay to provide
additional density to support the increased compensation
required by the ordinance; language regarding eligibility;
Huntington Beach ordinance versus Thousand Oaks ordinance;
enforceability of the covenant versus the ordinance;
involvement of consultants; clarification that staff believes
in the validity of the proposed ordinance; recourse for
residents against violations of the covenant; satisfying
concerns; defining rights and responsibilities of both parties;
the potential overlay zone; and providing additional clarity
that is lacking from the state legislation.
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, suggested that
the City Council move on to Action Item A-3 to allow staff time
to gather additional information for the City Council.
o0o
Item A-3
Approval to Close Portions of City Streets in the Downtown
Area, and a Segment of Washington Boulevard between Culver
Boulevard and Overland Avenue, for the ‘2011 Step Out: Walk to
Fight Diabetes 5-K Walk' Organized by the American Diabetes
Association; and Direct that Parking Enforcement occur Only on
Streets that Have Existing Permit or Time Limit Parking
Restrictions.
Gabe Garcia, Traffic Engineer, provided a summary of the
material of record and clarified that the closure would only
extend to Overland Avenue.
16 September 12, 2011
Item A-3
(continued)
Mayor O'Leary invited public comment.
The following member of the audience addressed the City
Council:
Cary Anderson alleged that the Downtown neighborhood was not
notified about the item; discussed violations that occurred at
previous events; and he expressed concern with enforcement.
Councilmember Cooper received clarification regarding the route
and noise concerns. •
At this time, an American Diabetes Association representative
discussed the potential for noise in the neighborhood and
previous locations.
Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff regarding
the event as a potential economic stimulus for the Downtown
area; advertising; proposed conditions for approval;
consequences for violations; a suggestion to require a deposit
for the event; clarification on the route and street crossings;
water stations; the number of participants; police officers
hired for the event; clarification on procedures for special
event processing; and a request to change the start time of the
event. ,
At this time, Michelle Wolf, American Diabetes Association,
addressed the City Council_ She felt that it could be
difficult to change the time as publicity for the event had
already begun; she indicated that participants could be emailed
and asked not to park in the residential areas; and she
suggested that participants could be encouraged to arrive early
to register and arrivals could be staggered.
17
?6, September 12, 2011
Item A-3
(continued)
Following discussion, the following motion was made:
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ARMENTA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MALSIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. APPROVE THE CLOSURE OF PORTIONS OF CITY STREETS IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA, AND A SEGMENT OF WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, BETWEEN
DOWNTOWN AND ELENDA STREET.
2. DIRECT THAT PARKING ENFORCEMENT OCCUR ON CITY STREETS THAT
HAVE EXISTING PERMIT OR TIME LIMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR THE
EVENT.
o0o
Recess
The City Council recessed its meeting at 9:30 p.m.
o0o
Reconvene
The City Council reconvened its meeting at 9:40 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
o0o
18
97 September 12, 2011
Item A-2
(continued)
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, reported that
staff was prepared to address several questions but that the
item would need to return to the City Council at a later date.
Staff provided follow-up information to questions posed
previously by City Council regarding needs based criteria;
applicability of relocation benefits; assistance levels; the
Relocation Impact Report; assessing and addressing adverse
impacts; criteria for determining adequate mitigation;
applicability of the ordinance; exemptions from providing
relocation assistance benefits; advising prospective
purchasers; the issue of vacant use; clarification that the
City selects the consultant with the applicant bearing the
expense; posting of notices; the percentage of eligible
occupants assisted; issuance of building permits; the ability
to add conditions of approval; financial hardship; security
deposits; alternative benefits; forfeiture of rights; public
comment; notice requirements for termination of tenancy; the
difference between 100% written agreements versus specified
eligible occupants; the length of notice for termination of
tenancy; and the Superior Court decision regarding the City of
Thousand Oaks.
Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff regarding
relocation benefits; concern with forfeiture of rights;
providing alternatives to the owner; staff agreement to provide
information to the City Council on an overlay zone or density
bonus; City notification; a suggestion to give priority to
displaced residents for affordable housing in the City; support
for extending the period of time for notice from 12 months to
18 months; protecting the well-being of the residents in the
mobile home park; relocation claims for mobile home owners who
do not actually live there; title infoimation; clarification on
eligible occupants; procedures for extending the time period
for notification; other liens on the units themselves; and a
request for staff to provide a timeline for filing periods and
waiting periods.
o0o
19 ATTACHMENT 4
QUESTIONS FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGARDING PROPOSED MOBILEHOME PARK ORDINANCE
1. There does not appear to be any needs-based criteria for relocation benefits. Is
the Proposed Ordinance applicable to any Eligible Occupant regardless of income
or anything else?
Yes. As the Proposed Ordinance is currently written, there are no income or
needs-based criteria in the determination of an Eligible Occupant. The only
criteria to be eligible to receive relocation assistance benefits is that an
individual meet the criteria of an Eligible Occupant as defined in Section
15.13.010 of the Proposed Ordinance: "A Mobile Home Owner residing in the
Mobile Home on a full time basis and his or her 'immediate 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 RIR 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."
2. How do we assess whether or not the Relocation Impact Report (RIR) adeguatelV
mitigates the adverse impacts? Are there standards to apply or does City Council
have discretion?
Section 15.13.040.A of the Proposed Ordinance sets forth criteria the City
Council shall consider when making the finding that the RIR adequately
mitigates the adverse impact of the Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile
Home Park. In addition, pursuant to Section 15.13.040.B, in the event the
City Council determines that the RIR does not adequately mitigate impacts,
the City Council has the discretion to impose additional conditions of
approval in order to ensure such adverse impacts are adequately mitigated.
3. Section 15.13.005.B.2.c refers to 100% of the Eligible Occupants entering into a
written agreement for relocation assistance benefits, but Section 15.13.050.C.1
refers to entering into a written agreement with "specified" Eligible Occupants, Is
there a conflict between these two sections— should Section 15.13.050.C.1 also
refer to 100% of Eligible Occupants?
Sections 15.13.005.B.2 and Section 15.13.050.0 each serve a different
purpose and are not in conflict. Section 15.13.005.B.2 provides an
exemption from the provisions, in their entirety, of the Proposed Ordinance if
Page 1 of 10 a Mobile Home Park Owner obtains a written agreement for mutually
satisfactory benefits with 100% of the Eligible Occupants. Under this
circumstance, there would be no need for the provisions of the Proposed
Ordinance to apply. This is distinguishable from Section 15.13.050.C.1,
which provides grounds for an exemption from the obligation to provide
Relocation Assistance Benefits to specific Eligible Occupants where an
agreement for mutually satisfactory benefits has been reached. This Section
allows the Applicant to reach an agreement with some of the Eligible
Occupants even if he/she could not reach an agreement of all the Eligible
Occupants.
4. Section 15.13.005.B.2.c refers to prospective purchasers of a Mobile Home being
advised of the existence of agreements providing for mutually satisfactory
Relocation Assistance Benefits. The Proposed Ordinance does not include a
provision regarding new owners being considered Eligible Occupants for purposes
of receiving relocation benefits. If new owners are not included in the definition of
Eligible Occupant perhaps we need to take that into account.
After re-reviewing Section 15.13.005.B.2.c, staff determined the provision
requiring notification to prospective purchasers of a Mobile Home is
misplaced and unnecessary. Rather, the prospective purchaser need only
be advised that the Mobile Home Park is subject to a pending Change of Use
or Closure and that the prospective purchaser and residents would not be an
Eligible Occupant and not entitled to Relocation Assistance Benefits. Staff
has added a provision to Section 15.13.025.A to address this issue. The
reason for this provision is to put a prospective purchaser of a Mobile Home
"on notice" of the pending Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home
Park before making a decision to purchase the Mobile Home. If they move
forward with the purchase of the Mobile Home, they are doing so with full
knowledge of the future impact they will face. This puts them in a different
situation than an existing owner of a Mobile Home within the Park as they did
not make the choice to locate in a Mobile Home Park that was facing closure.
In addition, there are various provisions set forth in State law that provide for
multiple opportunities for notification to a prospective purchaser of a mobile
home. These include, but are not limited to: 1) the option of management of
a mobile home park to require notification by a mobile home owner that his
or her mobile home is for sale; 2) the option of management to require prior
approval of a purchaser of a mobile home that will remain in the mobile
home park and notification by seller of a mobile home prior to close of sale;
and 3) the transfer or sale of a mobile home in a mobile home park is subject
to transfer disclosure requirements.
Page 2 of 10
1t9
0 5. The definition of Eligible Occupant does not address any interest acquired in a
Mobile Home after the application for an RIR is submitted.
As discussed above in Question No. 4, an individual acquiring interest in a
Mobile Home after the application for an RIR is submitted is "on notice" of
the pending Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park.
6. There are no examples of monetary or non-monetary benefits as referenced in the
definition of Relocation Assistance Benefits. We may be better served by inserting
"including but not limited to" into the definition, followed by examples of the nature
of what is considered monetary or non-monetary benefits, in order to provide
certainty to both sides as to what is expected.
In response to this comment, staff has revised the definition of Relocation
Assistance Benefits in Section 15.13.010 of the Proposed Ordinance to
include examples of monetary and non-monetary benefits. Examples of
monetary benefits may include the cost of moving a Mobile Home and
personal belongings, rent differential, the purchase of an Eligible Occupant's
Mobile Home, etc. Examples of non-monetary benefits may include the
services of a relocation specialist, transportation to view alternative housing
sites, packing and unpacking assistance, etc.
7. Should the terms "Change of Use or Closure" be included in Section 15.13.015.A,
and not just the term "vacant use"? Change of Use or Closure is included in
Section 15.13.015.B. It is not clear what "vacant use" means. Would it be better to
expand the definition of change of use to include vacant use rather than having two
separate provisions?
Section 15.13.015.A is included in the Proposed Ordinance to address the
situation where a Mobile Home Park owner wants to close a Mobile Home
Park but does not want to use the property for another use (i.e., leave the
property vacant). The Mobile Home Park owner would have to obtain an
approved RIR before closing the park. Staff has revised Section 15.13.015.A
of the Proposed Ordinance to provide additional clarity in this regard.
Section 15.13.015.8 is identified as a separate Section to address the
situation where a Mobile Home Park owner wants to close the Mobile Home
Park to redevelop the property. This would require some type of land use
permit (e.g., a zoning designation amendment, Site Plan Review, etc.). In this
case, the land use permit application would not be deemed complete prior to
the applicant submitting an approved RIR. Staff has deleted Section
15.13.015.B and revised Section 15_13.015.0 (new Section 15.13.015.B) of the
Proposed Ordinance to make this provision clear.
Page 3 of 10
/DI It is staff's recommendation these two scenarios remain separate rather than
including "vacant use" in the definition of "Change of Use," as these are two
distinct situations.
8. Section 15.13.025.A of the Proposed Ordinance is not clear as to whether each
prospective new resident is entitled to, or excluded from, relocation benefits. Can
this Section be revised to make it clear that tenants that enter a Mobile Home Park
after the filing of an RIR are not eligible for Relocation Assistance Benefits?
Section 15.13.025.A addresses the issue of notification to all prospective
new residents, regardless of the fact that they are not Eligible Occupants,
that an RIR has been filed. The purpose of this notification is to inform new
residents that they may be purchasing a home or residing in a Mobile Home
Park that is pending closure.
The eligibility of a Mobile Home Park resident is provided in the definition of
Eligible Occupant in Section 15.13.010 and states that only those individuals,
who reside in the Mobile Home at the time of filing of the Relocation Impact
Report, may be entitled to relocation assistance benefits. Staff has revised
Section 15.13.025.A to require that the written notification specifically
include a statement that new residents entering the park after the filing of the
RIR are not Eligible Occupants for purposes of receiving relocation
assistance benefits.
9. In Section 15.13.035.B.1, would we be better served if the City chose the
Relocation Specialist with the Applicant covering the cost rather than the Applicant
selecting the Relocation Specialist?
As currently written, Section 15.13.035.13.1 of the Proposed Ordinance
requires the Applicant to select a consultant and relocation specialist
subject to the Community Development Director's approval. The City
Council could revise this Section to require the City to select the Relocation
Specialist. This would result in the City and Applicant entering into a tri-
party agreement with the Relocation Specialist at the Applicant's sole cost
and expense.
10. Section 15.13.035.B.2 requires the City to notify the Mobile Home Park residents
that an application for an RIR has been filed and will be prepared. Why is the City
doing the notification, and if so, the applicant should cover the cost. If the
applicant provides the notification he/she should provide proof of service to the
Director.
Section 15.13.055 requires the Applicant to pay for all expenses incurred by
the City in the submittal, review and processing of the RIR. The cost of
notification will be included in the related resolution establishing the fees
Page 4 of 10
70 associated with the processing of an RIR. However, should the City Council
choose to revise this Section to require the Applicant to notify the residents,
staff would also include a provision requiring the Applicant to file with the
Director within one week of the filing of a RIR application, a proof of service
of such mailing or personal delivery of the notice to the residents.
11. In Section 15.13.035.E1 are there any standards for granting an extension to an
RIR or is it just at City Council's discretion?
The Applicant is required to provide "justification" for not providing at least
55% of the Eligible Occupants with their Relocation Assistance Benefits
within one year from the date of the approval of the RIR. After considering
the justification for the Applicant's request, the City Council has discretion in
granting or denying the request for extension and in determining the length
of the extension granted. Staff would not recommend being too specific in
defining "justification," as each request and circumstance may be unique
and it is beneficial to provide City Council with some flexibility in making this
decision.
12. Is it clear that there will not be any approval for a closure of a Mobile Home Park
until all the relocation benefits have been paid? It is important that the residents
receive their benefits before the change of use goes into effect.
There are several safeguards to ensure that Eligible Occupants receive their
Relocation Assistance Benefits prior to closure of a Mobile Home Park,
including: 1) Section 15.13.045.0 requires that any monetary relocation
assistance benefits be paid to the Eligible Occupant at least 45 days prior to
the date the Eligible Occupant is required to vacate the Mobile Home Park; 2)
Section 15.13.040.B establishes that the City Council at the time of approval
of a RIR may impose conditions to mitigate the impacts on Eligible
Occupants such as the timing of benefits; 3) Section 15.13.015.D provides,
where a property is being redeveloped, no building permit shall be issued
until the Applicant has provided a written affidavit to the Director that all
Relocation Assistance Benefits required by the RIR have been provided, all
other conditions of the RIR have been satisfied, and the notice period
required by the notice of termination of tenancy has expired.
However, in order to make this point very clear, staff has revised the
Proposed Ordinance to include a new Section 15.13.045.E, which provides:
"No Change of Use or Closure of a Mobile Home Park shall be permitted until
all Relocation Assistance Benefits required by the approved Relocation
Impact Report have been provided to all Eligible Occupants. An exception
may be made if the Applicant and an Eligible Occupant have agreed to an
alternate arrangement by written agreement, which must be approved by the
Page 5 of 10
/63 Director. The written agreement shall comply with the requirements of
Sections 15.13.050.C.1.a and 15.13.050. C. 1.b."
13, Should the language of Section 15.13.040.B. be amended to require that some of
the recommended conditions of approval be required conditions?
As each application will be unique due to the particulars of the site, age of
the Mobile Home Park, demographics and needs of the residents, etc., it may
be beneficial for the City Council to consider the individual merits of each
application on a case by case basis and determine the specific conditions of
approval that would adequately mitigate any adverse impacts on the Eligible
Occupants resulting from a Mobile Home Park closure. Staff recommends
the discretionary language remain.
14. Section 15.13.040.B.5 does not identify the nature of the hardship, how the
hardship is shown, who decides if it is a hardship, etc.
This Section sets forth the payment of a security deposit at a new Mobile
Home Park or other rental housing, as one of many options for conditions of
approval the City Council has the discretion to impose in approving a
Relocation Impact Report. As written, before the City Council could impose
this particular condition, there would need to be a showing of "financial"
hardship by the Eligible Occupant as determined by the City Council. In
other situations where a showing of financial or economic hardship is
necessary (i.e. an individual requesting a waiver of the deposit of
Administrative Citation fines prior to a hearing), the City requires written
documentation evidencing a financial hardship, including sources of income,
cash balances, monthly expenses, IRS tax filings, disability and welfare
payment stubs, etc. Because these conditions of approval are discretionary,
the City Council could consider financial hardship (as one of several factors
to be considered) in determining whether to impose the condition of
providing a security deposit, even if the Proposed Ordinance does not
specifically require a showing of financial hardship. Therefore, the City
Council may wish to consider deleting the specific requirement for a
"showing" of financial hardship.
15. In Section 15.13.045.B, what are, and how do you determine, alternative
Relocation Assistance Benefits?
Alternative Relocation Assistance Benefits are determined by the Relocation
Assistance Specialist in preparing the RIR and arise in a situation where an
Eligible Occupant is required to select between more than one Relocation
Assistance Benefit (Le, selection between alternate housing sites). It is not
intended that the City have a role in selecting between alternative benefits.
Rather, the City Council would determine whether the Relocation Assistance
Page 6 of 10
0 Lf Benefits as proposed in the RIR, which would include any alternative
benefits, adequately mitigate the adverse impact to the Eligible Occupant
resulting from the Change of Use of Closure of the Mobile Home Park (as
discussed in Question 2 above).
16. We should consider some alternative mechanism instead of complete forfeiture of
all rights to Relocation Assistance Benefits in the event the Eligible Occupant does
not submit their selection of alternate benefits within the 90-day period (i.e. Mobile
Home Park owner to select alternate benefit, minimum set benefit, compensation
placed in escrow account, etc.).
In response to City Council's concerns, staff has revised Section 15.13.045.B
of the Proposed Ordinance to allow the Applicant to select among alternative
Relocation Assistance Benefits on behalf of an Eligible Occupant who does
not make the selection within the 90-day period.
17. Would it be appropriate and a good policy to require the park owners to post the
premises with notification of pending closure?
A benefit to posting the site is that it will provide additional notice to
prospective residents who visit the Mobile Home Park that a closure may be
forthcoming. Some disadvantages to posting the site could be the potential
impact to morale of the current residents and/or deterioration of the site.
Staff does not feel it is necessary due to all of the other required noticing
that will occur upon the filing of the RIR application (including notice to any
prospective new resident).
18. Can we put displaced residents in front of the line for housing programs?
A resident displaced by a closure of a Mobile Home Park may only receive
preference in the Rental Assistance Program or on the Section 8 Waiting List
if they are displaced due to government action. An action taken by a private
owner or developer does not qualify.
19. The Proposed Ordinance needs to be clarified as to what happens between title
holder(s) vs. resident. Could there be relocation claims by the title owner vs. the
person who resides in the home?
The definition of Mobile Home Owner, as set forth in Section 15.13.010 of the
Proposed Ordinance, has been revised to clarify that the owner is the
"registered" owner of the Mobile Home. Similar to an automobile, each
Mobile Home must be registered with the Department of Housing and
Community Development or the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Page 7 of 10
/0 5" There can be no claim for Relocation Assistance Benefits from the title
holder (registered owner) unless they reside in the Mobile Home as required
by the definition of Eligible Occupant.
20. Is there anything that legally precludes the City Council from extending benefits to
residents who do not own the homes they are living in?
No. In fact, State law requires the payment of reasonable costs of relocation
for displaced mobile home park residents to adequate replacement housing
in mobile home parks and does not distinguish between a resident that owns
his or her mobile home versus a tenant who is renting/leasing a mobile
home. Although the Proposed Ordinance, as written, does not require the
payment of Relocation Assistance Benefits to a tenant who does not own the
Mobile Home, this would not preclude a Mobile Home Park Owner's
obligations under State law to provide the reasonable costs of relocation to
all displaced residents (as the City's ordinance would be silent in this
regard). However, the cost of relocating a person who does not own the
mobile home will be different than a mobile home owner. In the first case, it
is only the cost to relocate that person into another mobile home or alternate
housing; whereas, relocation of a mobile home owner must also take into
account the relocation or purchase of the mobile home itself. The City of
Huntington Beach's ordinance also only addresses the payment of benefits
to owners of mobile homes residing in those homes.
21. How are we going to address liens on a mobile home?
If there is a lien on a Mobile Home, the Eligible Occupant would not be able
to sell the home to the Mobile Home Park Owner without clear title. It is the
responsibility of the Mobile Home Park Owner and the Eligible Occupant to
address the issue of encumbrances on the Mobile Home during the private
transaction transferring title of the Mobile Home.
22. It would be helpful to have a time line for filing and waiting periods. How long is
the process to get to point of the RIR being accepted? Then would it be 12 or 18
months until the required vacation of the residents?
As the City has not experienced a mobile home park closure, and because
there are several unknown factors (e.g. quality of RIR initially submitted,
ability of Applicant to make any required corrections to the RIR, etc.), it is
difficult to determine with certainty the time period involved between the
initial filing of the RIR and the RIR being deemed complete. However, staff
estimates this process could take up to six months. Once the RIR is deemed
complete, it could take approximately three months before the item is
scheduled on a City Council agenda for consideration.
Page 8 of 10
/ 0 Regarding the 12-month notice of termination of tenancy, it is not clear in the
initial draft of the Proposed Ordinance as to when that period would begin.
Staff has revised Section 15.13.025.0 to clarify that the 12-month notice
period shall not be given until after approval of the RIR. It is important to
note that notice of the application for an RIR will be given to all Mobile Home
Park residents once it is filed, giving them an additional "notice" period of
approximately nine months (the estimated time it will take before the City
Council's consideration of the RIR).
23. It is not clear who receives the Relocation Assistance Benefits, The only person
entitled is the title holder. The Proposed Ordinance does not take into account the
legal owners or lien holders, or rent to own situations, or if someone is in a
contract. The Proposed Ordinance does not require a change of title.
The Ordinance is clear that only Eligible Occupants are entitled to the
Relocation Assistance Benefits. However, as discussed above in the
response to Question No. 20, the Culver City Ordinance would not preclude a
Mobile Home Park Owner's responsibility to pay the reasonable cost of
relocation to any displaced resident regardless of whether they are a title
holder. Regarding the issue of lien holders, please see response to Question
No. 21.
24. State law only requires reasonable cost of relocation not the value of the home. It
is not what you are relocating but the relocation cost.
California Government Code Section 65863.7 (e) requires the Mobile Home
Park Owner to take steps to mitigate the adverse impact of the closure on the
ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate housing in a
mobilehome park, which steps shall not exceed the reasonable cost of
relocation. Unfortunately, this statute does not define "reasonable cost of
relocation," nor has any case law to date given clear guidance in this regard.
In the situation where a mobile home cannot be relocated (i.e. due to its age,
condition, etc.), the "reasonable cost of relocation" could include the cost of
purchasing such mobile home. Other cities, including Huntington Beach,
Carson and Lawndale, include provisions defining the "reasonable cost of
relocation" where a mobile home cannot be relocated into another mobile
home park as the "in place" value of the mobile home. The draft Proposed
Ordinance initially presented to the Council included a different formula for
assessing the value of the mobile home, which included the appraised value
of the Mobile Home plus 50% of value of the Mobile Home while located on
the present site.
In order to clarify the meaning of "in-place value," and to ensure consistency
with State law, staff has deleted the definition of Adjusted Fair Market Value
from Section 15.13.010 and has revised Sections 15.13.035.C.12 (Required
Page 9 of 10 Content of RIR) and 15.13.040.B (Conditions of Approval) to clarify the
meaning of in-place value. The language has been revised to indicate that
where a Mobile Home cannot be relocated, the RIR must include an estimate
of the cost of purchase of such Mobile Home at its in-place value, and that
the reasonable cost of relocation may include compensation for the cost of
said purchase. Further detail has also been added to the definition of in-
place value as the value of a Mobile 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, including the value
attributable to the Mobile Home Park location and amenities. The definition
of in-place value now specifically excludes the value of the land on which the
Mobile Home sits. In addition, it makes it clear that the effect of the Change
of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park shall not be considered in the
valuation of the Mobile Home.
25. Comments made regarding the Thousand Oaks litigation.
The City of Thousand Oaks was challenged in its implementation of its
mobile home park ordinance due to a provision similar to that of the above-
mentioned cities, which defined "reasonable cost of relocation" (where a
mobile home cannot be relocated) to include "payment of a lump sum equal
to the in-place market value of each mobile home in its current location."
The challengers to Thousand Oaks' ordinance claimed that the requirement
to compensate a mobile home owner for the in-place market value of their
home was in violation of State law (Government Code Section 65863.7(e)),
which provides: The steps taken to mitigate adverse impacts on the ability
of displaced residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park shall
not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. The Superior Court found that
the City of Thousand Oaks went beyond the limitations set by State law. The
City did not appeal the court's decision and instead settled the case.
This is an unpublished trial court decision, which means that it is not binding
on a future court considering the same issue, and the City is not required to
follow its decision. The City Attorney's Office does not agree with the
court's decision in this case, as Government Code Section 65863.7(e) does
not define "reasonable cost of relocation," nor has any case law to date,
including the Thousand Oaks' trial court decision, given clear guidance in
this regard.
Page 10 of 10
/ r EP L Mg
tfrocAmenf No. 6-
September 8, 2011
City Clerk, City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
I am submitting this letter to inform the members of the upcoming City
Council Meeting of September 12, 2011, that I, as a resident of
Grandview Mobile Home Park, am very satisfied with my 41 years of
residing at that location. The landlord, Roy Matsuoka, has always been
most helpful and concerned about the needs of the residents of this '
mobile home park. As an elderly person, I have found this location to be
unparalleled for it conveniences and advantages.
The location of the park is one of optimum convenience for access to
shopping, pharmacies, my personal physicians, hospitals, post office,
library, cleaners, etc. The neighborhood is almost totally crime-free,
and the neighbors are kind and friendly, as well as the residents of the
park itself. The parking convenience (immediately next to each module
home) is extremely convenient, and provides maximum security for
each resident—something rarely available in most locations.
If I were forced to move from this location, it would be most distressing
to me, and would impose on me an unbearable financial hardship. I'm
sure that finding another location with such excellent advantages
would be practically impossible. I am looking forward to spending the
rest of my life here. Any decision of this council that would further my
aspirations in this regard would be most deeply appreciated.
L Claiborne, Grandview Mobile Home Park, Space #4-
4071 Grand View Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90066 Michael J. Goodman
Real Estate Consultant
1434 N. Beverly Dr
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
October 13, 2011
City of Culver City, City Hall
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, CA. 90232
Attention: Hon. Mayor O'Leary and Hon. City Council Members Ma!sin, Armenta,
Weissman, and Cooper
Re: Follow-up on Proposed Culver City Mobile Home Park Closure Ordinance
Gentlemen:
As you know, I represent Roy Matsuoka, owner of Grandview Mobile Home Park located
in Culver City at 4071 Grand View Boulevard. I am writing to thank you for the thoughtful
discussion that followed presentation of the draft closure ordinance at your meeting on
September 12, 20.11, and to share some additional thoughts with you (on Mr. Matsuoka's behalf)
based upon that discussion.
Though Mr. Matsuoka was disappointed that the Council chose to pursue the ordinance
over the no-closure covenant option that we had presented, we were happy that Councilman
Weissman's thoughtful questions and comments regarding the ordinance prompted the Council
to defer adoption of the ordinance until those (and hopefully other issues) could be more fully
explored and potentially addressed in the ordinance as eventually adopted. While Mr.
Matsuoka's counsel will separately address the legal concern posed by the ordinance as
drafted, [would like to call to your attention some important points by way of follow-up on the
Council's discussion of the ordinance as presented at the September 12 meeting. Those issues
are as follows:
• Notice requirements: Please review the letter addressing notices for relocation of park
residents and park closure that has been sent separately by Mr. Matsuoka's attorney
Terry R. Dowdall, The "Draft" ordinance as presented by staff exceeds the current state
laws, this is addressed in item 2 on page 3 of Mr. Dowdall's letter under the heading of
"The Noticing Period Conflicts with State Law".
• Valuation Component: Should there be an income or need qualifier for in-place value?
Need to address scenario where unit owner owns more than one unit and is landlord to
someone else. Should that unit also get 'in place value?' Should be clear that the
rented unit can be bought for unit value, no land value.
• Definition of Eligible Occupants: At one point in the discussion, a Council member
inquired as to whether even renters at the park should be included as Eligible Occupants
for purposes of relocation benefits under the ordinance. For obvious reasons, this
concept is objectionable to the park owners and to our understanding is far beyond the
legal boundaries of what the City could require of Mr. Matsuoka.
I/O • Offset for Loss of Park Owner Property Value: Councilman Malsin acknowledged at the
meeting that the proposed ordinance will deprive the land owner of a considerable
reduction in the value of their property. He indicated that the Council could take a 2
stage approach to the issue by enacting the ordinance and then later adopting some kind
of offsetting density bonus benefitting the park owners. From Mr. Matsuoka's
perspective it is questionable as to how this will be implemented. What assurances
can be offered by the City that a process will be implemented to secure a density bonus
in the future? If the City is willing to compensate for the burden it will place on the park
owners, then we feel the City should step forward now and include or enact concurrently
with the ordinance specific offsetting programs or benefits. This could include
establishing a fund or programs to absorb part of the costs of the relocation process,
As you know, state law already regulates the closure process for mobile home parks.
Protections against arbitrary or unfair treatment of residents are already embodied in the
California Government Code, and the actual closure when executed is already subject to the
approval of the City as an advisory body. From the park owner's perspective, there are
thresholds of requirements (whether involving notice and/or relocation assistance) beyond which
any additional City regulation would work an unreasonable hardship. If the City intends to add
to the regulatory burden on Mr. Matsuoka, we urge you to carefully consider the scope of this
additional burden and the reasonableness of placing it on a citizen who has already contributed
for decades his fair share towards housing the elderly and less fortunate residents of Culver
City.
We feel that the ordinance as presented at the September 12 th hearing goes beyond
what is fair and reasonable to expect Mr. Matsuoka to provide. The entire financial burden falls
on the park owners. There are no offsetting benefits currently in place that we are aware of
assuring the park owners that the City can compensate them for the loss of value their property
will suffer if the ordinance as previously presented is approved. We are hopeful that you might
reconsider the foregoing points when revising the ordinance.
Further, it is our hope that before the revised ordinance is again presented for Council
approval, it will be circulated to the affected community for review and comment.
I appreciate this opportunity to present this letter to you and your time in considering it.
We look forward to continuing to work with staff to reach a fair resolution for all parties
concerned in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Goodman
cc: City Attorney, Carol Schwab
Tevis Barnes
Heather Baker
David Evans
Roy Matsuoka
Sabrina Burton
2 Jordan, Sherry
From: Foek Nan Teng [fooknan@roadrunner.com ]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:17 AM
To: Jordan, Sherry
Subject: Grand View Mobile Home Ordinance
Dear Sherry,
I have received a notice of City of Culver City, pertaining to the continued discussion and consideration of a Proposed
Ordinance relating to Mobile Home Park Resident Protection. Here I have some thing to say on my behalf, because lam
selling the
Park to a developer who might want to develop the mobile home in the future, if for some reasons that the ordinance is
going to cost so much for developer to relocate and compensate the home owners, no one will have any incentive to
develop the property.
As a matter of fact, City has a plan to redevelop the neighborhood around the mobile home, it doesn't make sense to
leave the mobile home alone as it is. For the best use of the land, City should encourage developer to participate and
promote
the construction which comply and conform to the redevelopment of healthy community. 1 would like to suggest the City
Councilman take consideration to accommodate the redevelopment project not to cost the developer too eXPensive to
develop
the property. Any assistance from you would be highly appreciated.
Frank Teng.
1 Baker, Heather
From: Keith Moret
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 305 PM
To: Barnes, Tevis
Cc: Baker, Heather; Jordan, Sherry
Subject: Mobile Home Park Relocation Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barnes
I would like to submit a public comment on the above proposed ordinance. In full disclosure, I have
separate interests in the ordinance. First of all I am a resident and homeowner on Grand View Blvd, 2
blocks North of the mobile home parks. In addition, I am a commercial real estate agent
representing Frank Teng, the owner in the sale of 4025 Grand View Blvd.
As a resident, I have seen this neighborhood experience a classic re-gentrification in the 7 years
since I purchased my home. It's been an amazing development to watch the upscale restaurants and
retail stores spring up around me. I've seen the community come together to support the Venice
Grind, Earl's Gourmet, The Curious Pallete, Waterloo & City and more. On Sundays, I see all my
neighbors and lots of friendly new faces walking to the Farmer's market. It feels like a real
neighborhood and the cities efforts to guide the growth have been commendable.
The mobile home parks stand out as a less than optimum use of a parcel that is in the middle of this
revitalized neighborhood. I am no way denigrating the people who live there or their status as
members of the community. I'm sure they are for the most part good neighbors and nice folks. It
seems to me however, that a mobile home park has outlived it's use in Mar Vista. Most of the homes
are older and not suitable for remodeling or relocating through no fault of the tenants living there.
Now from my other vantage point as the agent hired by my client to sell his property, I realized early
on that current mobile home park owners were not going to be my best target. After extensive
mailings to every mobile home park owner in LA county, it's current incarnation was obviously
not "highest and best use" for the property. I revised my marketing targets to reach out to
developers. To a person, they all expressed serious concerns about the proposed relocation
ordinance. Developers are all to aware of the risks involved and the holding costs that can be
incurred through the entitlement process. When you add in the additional layer of regulatory issues
with the relocation ordinance, it was too much to consider for most.
Happily, we did locate a group with the vision and and energy to pursue this property and we are
currently under contract. I believe they are committed to delivering a residential use that will benefit
the neighborhood. My concern however, is that during their due diligence period the ordinance will
create so many intangible issues and expenses that it becomes untenable. Ultimately, I feel they will
deliver a development in the future that will be much more in synch with Culver City's master plan
and add value to our community.
I would like to implore the city council to think not only of the tenants in the park but the owners,
like my client Frank Teng. He has owned the park since 1983 and has provide safe, affordable
housing to many long-term residents and earned their respect and admiration. After all of the hard
1/ 3' work and resources he has invested, I think he deserves the right to sell his property for market
value and enjoy the rewards of his labors don't you?
We all agree that tenants deserve the rights afforded them by the more than equitable state
ordinance currently in place. The owners however, should also have rights and the proposed
ordinance takes away some of those rights by forcing them to pay "site in place" values which in
essence gives the tenants benefit of land value. In addition, the relocation impact report appears to
be cumbersome for anyone contemplating a use change and could very well discourage any
improvements to the mobile home parks as in place.
Please resist the temptation to pander to the "loudest" group and remember decisions made to favor
the majority (i.e. tenants)are not fair when they deprive a minority group (owners) of their fee simple
rights to their land.
Thank you for listening to my concerns
Keith Moret
Investment Associate
REMAX Commercial & Investment Realty
155 Washington Blvd
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Cell 310.617.2240
Office 310.577.5300 x350
Fax 866.656.2088
DRE# 01802527
/1 1%f
2 Marcus &"lilIichap
Real Estate Investment Services
Neema Ahadian
Vice President Investments
National Mulls Housing Croup
December 2, 2011
Ms. Tevis Barnes
Housing Department, City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd
Culver City, CA 90232
Re: Proposed Mobile Home Ordinance Number
Dear Ms. Barnes,
This purpose of this email is to serve as a public comment to
the proposed ordinance affecting the mobile home park my
client and I have under contract in consideration to purchase.
I am a Vice President of Investments with Marcus & Millichap
and have been brokering income and development properties
for 10 years. My specialization is sales of multi-family
properties and development sites in West LA. I am a Mar
Vista resident and currently own and operate income
properties in the area as well.
I am representing my client who is considering purchasing the
property located at 4025 Grand View Blvd. My client, an
experienced developer of quality housing projects, and I are
having difficulty moving forward with this transaction due to the
proposed draft Mobile Home Ordinance which will significantly
increase costs to relocate tenants, as well increase the time
requirements.
12100 W. Olympic Blvd.
Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Dix: (310) 909-5444
Fax: (310) 909-2343
License: CA 01346750
www.MarcusMillichap.com
I have received an estimate from a mobile home park
appraiser who can prepare a relocation impact report as
required per the proposed ordinance. Unfortunately, the
estimate is in surplus of $30,000 based on the required tasks
15.13.035 C — items 1-18. Not only do I believe it is
unreasonable to request such detailed information from a
report, but as a real estate agent representing a buyer, I am
Investment Sales • Financing • Research • Advisory Services
//3- Via rc L .__IssM____ Aichap
Real Estate Investment Services
Neema Ahaclian
Vice President Investments
National Multi Housing Group
certain my client or any investor/developer is not willing to
move forward with such a detailed requirement without having
an exact amount of relocation costs upfront.
This creates an issue, as we cannot expect a buyer to close
on a transaction, where he is required to spend over $30,000
for a relocation report during due diligence, that will only
provide him with information that is to be presented to the
Director, where the Director can require any additional
information they feel pertinent (paragraph 15.13.050 Item #2 b
v.). Our concern also lies that and additional information
would mean additional 'costs and increased relocation fees,
beyond those required by the State of California, which are
already cost-prohibitive for most developers.
Most importantly, if we cannot identify what the relocation fees
are upfront, my client will not be able to budget appropriate
funds to know whether this is a viable transaction.
Furthermore, if the fees are unclear during our due diligence
and too high (which it seems it may be at this point) the
investment will not be profitable for him and deter him, or any
developer, to move purchase and build on this site.
Also, 15.30.040 B 4&5 states that eligible occupants may be
allowed a lump sum for first and last month's rent, including
one month's security deposit. It does not state the amount or
conditions. This vagueness can be a significant amount, since
another housing unit in Culver City may range from the low
side of $900 (small single) to as high as $4000 for an assisted
living senior center like the facility next door!
12100 W. Olympic Blvd.
Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Dir: (310) 909-5444
Fax: (310) 909-2343
License: CA 01346750
www.MarcusMillicEap.com
Since this Ordinance is being drafted to affect only two mobile
home parks in Culver City only it seems that it would be more
appropriate to prepare a simple relocation strategy to protect
the tenants. This would include a set dollar amount for
relocation and certain amount of time, therefore making this
Investment Sales • Financing • Research • Advisory Services Ma
Real Estate Investment Services
Neema Aliadian
Vice President Investments
NaCional Multi Housing Group
process transparent. This Ordinance seems overreaching
since it only impacts two specific properties, and a very few
number of tenants.
Thank you for your consideration,
r
Neenna Ahadian
CC: Heather Baker
Sherry Jordan
12100 W. Olympic Slycl.
Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Din (310) 904-5444
Fax: (310) 909-2343
License: CA 01346750
www.MarcusMillichap.com
Investment Sales • Financing • Research • Advisory Services
1/? ARK Construction gt Development, Inc.
528 Palisades Dr. #530
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
P: 310-477-8090
F: 310-881-1147
December 2, 2011
Ms. Tevis Barnes
Housing Department, City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd
Culver City, CA 90232
Re: Proposed Mobile Home Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barnes,
We are a prospective buyer of the property located at 4025 Grandview Blvd. We have been
doing our due diligence to determine the highest and best use of this property. After reviewing
the proposed ordinance that, in reality, applies to this location and the other mobile home park
down the street, we find many aspects of this ordinance to be detrimental to any future
development.
As a developer there are mainly two items in this ordinance, time and cost, which greatly affect
someone in my position and the current owners as well. In terms of timing, the ordinance is
vague as to when the tenants are to receive notice. Whoever would like to relocate them would
have to give 12 month notice, but it does not clearly state at what point we can give that notice.
It does state that a relocation impact report needs to be approved, but due to the detailed list of
items that need to be included in that relecation report, it Gould take as long as 6 months to get
an approval and that is if the city approves the relocation impact report as is without any
changes. The ordinance creates an odd situation as the relocation impact report needs to have
every mobile home owner interviewed to obtain necessary information and it also requires a
moving company/consultant to assess each mobile home and provide an estimate to pack and
move every item in the mobile home. After we obtain all this information and put it in the
relocation impact report and get it approved by the city, then we can give them notice. Not only
will the process in general take too long, it also creates a situation where we are obtaining all
the information from the mobile home owners, yet we can't give them notice that they will have
to vacate within a certain time. One question would be what happens if a mobile home owner
does not provide access to their mobile home or denies an interview for us to get the proper
information for the relocation impact report?
The other issue which effects the property financially is the costs associated with the relocation
and fees associated with it. By our estimation the costs could be in excess of $400,000. After
consulting a few relocation experts these are the estimates we are getting. This number is
based on the ordinance as is and does not include any other conditions the city might impose
after reviewing the relocation impact report. If this ordinance was more detailed and clearly
stated all the fees and process required with no discretionary changes, then maybe it would be
easier to quantify, but if the relocation impact report is reviewed and more conditions are placed,
we feel that it is too unpredictable_ The other item in the ordinance that we feel needs to be
clarified and reviewed is the adjusted fair market value of the mobile homes. We do not believe
that the mobile home owners should be entitled to 50% of the site value. We are still trying to
115/ ARK Construction & Development, Inc.
528 Pa Iisades Dr. p530
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
P: 310-477-8090
F: 310-881-1147
quantify that but in our estimations, which percentage is too high and something more
reasonable needs to be agreed upon.
I appreciate the time you have taken to review my comments and please feel free to contact me
with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kambiz Kamdar
Vice President Sayles Consulting Group
December 3, 2011
Ms. Tevis Barnes
CITY OF CULVER CITY HOUSING DEPARTMENT
9770 Culver Boulevard,
2nd
Floor
Culver City, CA 90232
RE: 4025 Grandview Avenue
PROPOSED MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE
Dear Ms. Barnes,
I am writing to you to express concerns about the proposed Mobile Home Ordinance as it affects
future use of two mobile home park properties on Grandview Avenue. I am currently acting as a
consultant with the potential purchaser of 4025 Grandview Avenue, and am writing this public
comment both on behalf of my Client, and for myself. While I have immense respect for the City's
desires to protect the existing tenants during any redevelopment process, the ordinance as currently
drafted has serious issues which ultimately may make redevelopment of those properties infeasible,
because it will be too costly and timely for any future owner.
Overall I am troubled by the City's desire to adopt an in-depth ordinance applicable only to two
properties, rather than establishing specific conditions of approval as part of a Relocation Impact
Report as mandated by the State of California. If this ordinance was a land use related policy, it
would be challenged as a form of spot zoning, and potentially result in a taking of private property
rights due to the negative property value resulting from the ordinance. It seems the incorrect
avenue to adopt a City ordinance governing future development of only two properties, where there
are other means of establishing protections for existing tenants of the property through review and
approval of a Relocation Impact Report and other procedures set forth by the State of California.
As a resident and a business owner in Culver City, I am very supportive of Culver City's desires to
exceed minimum standards set by the State of California regarding tenant relocation. However, the
costs of relocation established by the state for mobile home park relocation are already very
expensive, and preclude many interested investors from acquisition of the properties. Culver City's
low-density development policies and high standards for sustainability and design, already make
development extremely challenging and borderline financially feasible. The properties on
Grandview face additional financial challenges to redevelopment because they are burdened with
state mandated regulations for tenant relocation that don't apply to other properties in the City. As
a result, as a baseline, Culver City's zoning ordinance does not provide enough density to make
multi-family redevelopment of these properties viable without entitlement actions for increased
density.
I believe that the development community will be very supportive of Culver City's impositions of
additional relocation exactions ONLY IF there is just compensation for these costs in the form of
significant development incentives so that the property value remains neutral. Without such
actions, Culver City's imposition of additional protections for the existing tenants above and beyond
state minimums will preclude redevelopment of the property. The only way to mitigate the financial
)2,0
Sayles Consulting Group
4.153 Keystone Avenue, Ste. B • Culver City, CA 90232 • 310.259.9288/ 310.842.8486 fax • www.thesaylesgroup.com DRAFT Mobile Home Ordinance
PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 2 of 2
burden of relocation costs is to offer development incentives in the form of additional density
coupled with the provisions for additional height and story permissions to accommodate additional
density. Without recognition by the City Council that additional development rights are necessary to
compensate for additional project costs, the properties on Grandview Avenue will remain in their
current condition, and undevelopable.
The current language in the ordinance is extremely vague on the actual additional costs of relocation
above and beyond the state's minimums, and leave ultimate discretion for establishment of
relocation costs to the City Council. This is an unreasonable unknown cost to place on any future
property owner, who may not be able to quantify costs of redevelopment during a land acquisition
due-diligence process. Furthermore, the unlimited discretion given to City Council to determine
financial protections for individual residents is a power that potentially negatively influences private
property values. This negative impact can result in a taking of future property rights if the costs of
relocation result in the property owner's inability to use the property to their fullest extent afforded
by land use regulations. Therefore, I strongly urge the City to establish known costs as part of this
ordinance, or to rely on established policies and procedures of the State of California, and not
reinvent the wheel.
The Ordinance as proposed is also very vague regarding timing for submittal of the Relocation
Impact Report in relation to Entitlement process timing, and notification of tenants. I urge the City
to permit any future developer to sub-mit Relocation Impact Report as quickly as possible, and
simultaneously permit the developer to file notices for relocation with their tenants. The Relocation
Impact Report should also be filed prior to entitlements, so that any conditions of approval or
additional exactions imposed by the City Council may be mitigated by a developer in the form of
potential development incentives.
I hope that the City Council does not take action to approve this ordinance on December 12, 2011, as
there are still very serious unresolved structural issues with this ordinance, and adoption of the
ordinance as currently drafted will ultimately result in another well intentioned policy of the City
that makes redevelopment of the properties on Grandview undevelopable.
Thank you,
Dana A. Sayles, AICP
Sayles Consulting Group
4153 Keystone Avenue
Culver City, CA 90232
cc: Heather Baker
Sherry Jordan
Sayles Consulting Group
4153 Keystone Avenue, Ste. B • Culver City, CA 90232 • 310.259.8288 / 310.942.8486 fax • vinvw.thesaviesgroup.corn |1010|21 ATTACHMENT 6
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS
SUBMITTED AFTER SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGARDING PROPOSED MOBILEHOME PARK ORDINANCE
A. Letter of October 13, 2011 from Michael J. Goodman, representing Roy
Matsuoka, owner of Grandview Mobile Home Park located at 4071 Grand View
Boulevard:
1. Comment: The noticing period conflicts with State law.
Response: State law provides minimum of six months' notice. The City
may require a longer period. The mobile home park residents had
previously suggested 18 months. Staff recommends that 12 months is a
reasonable period of time because the residents will have already been
put on notice regarding the pending closure upon the filing of the
Relocation Impact Report (RIR) application. It is estimated that the time to
process the application and schedule the item for a City Council hearing
could take up to nine months.
2.
Comment: Should there be an income or need qualifier for in-place
value?
Response: Staff does not recommend any qualifier for in-place value
other than the fact that the mobile home cannot be relocated. The value
of the home remains the same regardless of the mobile home owner's
income or need.
3. Comment: Need to address scenario where unit owner owns more than
one unit and is landlord to someone else. Should be clear that the rented
unit can be bought for unit value, no land value.
Response: The scenario described above regarding the unit that is
rented would not require the payment of any benefits under the Proposed
Ordinance because an owner of a mobile home who does not live in the
mobile home does not qualify as an Eligible Occupant and is not entitled
to Relocation Assistance Benefits as defined in the Proposed Ordinance.
4. Comment: What assurances can be offered by the City that a process
will be implemented to secure a density bonus in the future?
Response: The City Council may: 1) introduce the Proposed Ordinance
N•
Page 1 OF 4 on December 12 th and provide direction to staff to begin the process of a
Zoning Code Amendment addressing this issue; or 2) postpone the
consideration of the Proposed Ordinance until such Zoning Code
Amendment returns to the City Council for consideration.
B. Letter of December 2, 2011 from Neema Ahadian with the firm Marcus &
Millichap, representing prospective buyer of the Mobile Home Park
property located at 4025 Grand View Boulevard:
Comment: Regarding the potential conditions of approval
(Section 15.30.040.B)— Is concerned that the requirement for the
payment of first and last month's rent and security deposit is vague
and creates financial uncertainty to a Mobile Home Park Owners in
determining relocation costs because another housing unit in
Culver City may range from the low side of $900 (small single) to as
high as $4,000 (assisted living senior facility).
Response: Section 15.13.040.B.1.c provides the City Council
with the discretion to require, as a condition of approval of the RIR,
the payment of a lump sum to compensate for first and last months
rent at a reasonably comparable mobile home park or other rental
housing, as determined by the Relocation Specialist. Therefore, a
situation would not arise where the lump sum would be valued
based upon rents at an assisted living senior facility, as that would
not be comparable to the existing mobile home in its current
location. In addition, this determination is made by a professional
specialist in the field of relocation.
C. Letter of December 2, 2011 from Karnbiz Kanridar of the firm ARK Construction &
Development, Inc., the prospective buyer of the Mobile Home Park property
located at 4025 Grand View Boulevard:
1. Comment: The Proposed Ordinance is unclear as to when the 12-month
notice of termination of tenancy can be given. Is concerned that the
period of time before the mobile home occupant can be required to vacate
is too long if the 12-month notice cannot be given until the RIR is
approved.
Response: Staff has clarified in the Proposed Ordinance that the 12-
month notice cannot be given prior to the approval of the RIR. This does
Page 2 0F4
i23 not prevent a Mobile Home Park owner of offering incentives to the
occupants to vacate the premises earlier than 12 months from the date of
notice, as long as such agreement is in writing in compliance with the
provisions of the Ordinance.
2. Comment: What happens if a mobile home owner does not provide
access to their mobile home or denies an interview for us to get the proper
information for the RIR?
Response: State law and the Proposed Ordinance are silent in this
regard. If this situation were to arise, it would be one of the many factors
considered by the City Council in evaluating the RIR.
3. Comment: Believes the ordinance should be more detailed and clearly
state all the fees and process required with no discretionary changes. The
current ordinance is too unpredictable.
Response: Virtually every city ordinance staff has reviewed in the
preparation of the City's Proposed Ordinance provides the legislative body
with discretion to impose additional conditions if warranted. As each
application will be unique due to the particulars of the site, age of the
Mobile Home Park, demographics and needs of the residents, etc., it is
important for the City Council to retain its discretion in considering the
individual merits of each application on a case by case basis and
determining the specific conditions of approval that would adequately
mitigate any adverse impacts on the particular Eligible Occupants
resulting from the closure of a particular Mobile Home Park.
4.
Comment: The requirement for valuation based on 50% of the site value
is too high and something more reasonable should be considered.
Response: Staff has revised the Proposed Ordinance to limit
compensation to the appraised value of the Mobile Home in its current
location, as discussed in further detail in the staff report and Attachment 4.
D. Letter of December 3, 2011 from Dana Sayles from the firm Sayles Consulting
Group, consultant to the prospective buyer of the Mobile Home Park property
located at 4025 Grand View Boulevard:
1. Comment: The current language in the proposed ordinance is extremely
vague on the actual additional costs of relocation above and beyond State
law minimums, and leaves the ultimate discretion for establishment of
relocation costs to the City Council. This is an unreasonable unknown
Page 3 014 cost to place on any future property owner, who may not be able to
quantify costs of redevelopment during a land acquisition due-diligence
process. This also potentially influences private property values, which
can result in a taking of future property rights.
Response: See Response C.3 above. In addition, State law "minimums"
are not defined and leaves discretion to a legislative body to condition the
approval of a change of use or closure to require steps to mitigate any
adverse impact of the closure on the displaced residents' ability to find
adequate replacement housing. Regarding the contention of a potential
taking— Staff has reviewed this issue and determined that the
implementation of the Proposed Ordinance would not constitute a taking.
2. Comment: Ordinance is very vague regarding timing for submittal of the
RIR in relation to Entitlement process timing and notification of tenants.
Response: Per Section 15.13.015.B of the Proposed Ordinance , an
application for a land use entitlement shall not be deemed complete
without an approved RIR. Staff has revised the Proposed Ordinance to
clarify that the 12-month notice to vacate cannot be given to the residents
prior to approval of the RIR.
Page 4 OF 4
1 ATTACHMENT 7
I ISSUE: ,DiIon of utl,ia1e Cast1 cot1oi r
KA -niobile home cannot 10ied f fo valuation of the rnobile home)
Proposed Ordinance The cost of purchasing a Mobile Home, and all associated fixed property, that cannot be relocated to a reasonably
comparable Mobile Home Park within 20 miles of its existing location, at its in-place value as determined by a qualified
appraiser. In determining the in-place value, the appraiser shall consider each Mobile 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, and shall not consider the effect of the Change of Use or Closure of the Mobile Home Park on the value of the
Mobile Home. .
State Law . Does not define "reasonable cost of relocation."
Carson For a resident whose mobile home cannot be relocated within a reasonable distance to a comparable park— a lump sum
payment based upon consideration of the fair market value of the mobile home on-site, including resident improvements
(e.g., landscaping, porches, carports, etc.), any mortgage obligations of the resident on the mobile home, and the costs of
purchasing a mobile home on-site in a comparable park or acquiring other comparable replacement housing.
_
Lawndale For a resident whose mobile home cannot be relocated within a reasonable distance to a comparable park— a lump sum
payment based upon consideration of the fair market value of the mobile home on-site, including resident improvements
(e.g., landscaping, porches, carports, etc.), any mortgage obligations of the resident of the mobile home, and the costs of
purchasing a mobile home on-site in a comparable park or acquiring other comparable replacement housing.
Huntington Beach If the mobile home cannot be relocated to a comparable mobile/manufactured home park within 20 miles of its existing
location, and the homeowner has elected to sell his or her mobile home, the reasonable costs of relocation shall include
the cost of purchasing the mobile home, including any optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expand rooms at its in-
place value. Such value shall be determined after consideration of relevant factors, including the value of the mobile home
in its current location, assuming the continuation of the mobile home park in a safe, sanitary and well maintained condition
and not considering the effect of the change of use on the value of the mobile home, but at no time shall the value of the
mobile home be less than the replacement costs of a new home of similar size and square footage.
Malibu Does not define "reasonable cost of relocation."
Westminster If a mobile home is unrelocatable— a lump sum payment determined by the "appraised value" of the mobile home unit,
upon which the park owner shall have the option to assume title of the mobile home. The appraised value shall be
determined by a certified member of nationally recognized appraisal association(s) who is qualified to appraise
mobilehomes, accessory structures, and appurtenances as herein noted. The appraisal shall be conducted no more than 60
days prior to the submittal of the appraisal. "Appraised value" shall mean the value of the mobile home being appraised
and all improvements (including all skirting around the home, patio covers and fixtures, porches, landings, decks,
appurtenant structures, decorative lamp posts or yard lighting, homeowner-installed landscaping, pads or hardscape,
sheds, cabinets, carports and awnings. The appraised value shall not include permanent non-movable accessory structures
and appurtenances or concrete foundations and landscaping installed by the mobile home park. It shall not include the
value of the land on which the home rests, or value attributable to park location and amenities. The expense for the
appraisal shall be that of the park owner. The selection of the appraiser shall be made by the homeowner from an
accredited list of appraisers presented by the park owner. ATTACHMENT 7
r Y g >e4h
1 ifig' of notiCe givgii g cirrie par k residents- of termination of tenancy VaCati IA
Proposed Ordinance 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. This notice shall not be given to Mobile Home Owners
and residents prior to approval of the Relocation Impact Report.
State Law (1) where local government permits are required for a change of use, a minimum of six months written notice of
termination of tenancy shall be given after such permits are approved; or (2) if no local government permits are required, a
minimum of 12 months written notice of termination of tenancy shall be given prior to the date the change of use is to
occur.
Carson
Within 45 days of the approval of the RIR, a minimum of six months notice of termination of tenancy shall be given prior to
closure of the mobile home park.
Lawndale Follows State law.
Huntington Beach A change of use of a mobile home park shall not be approved unless notice of the intent to change use has been given to
the mobile home park residents at least 18 months prior to the date the mobile home resident is required to vacate the
premises.
Malibu Follows State law.
Westminster Ordinance is silent, so mobile home park owners would need to comply with State law.
70.-)
Page 2 of 2