The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-07-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSURE (2)AGENDA REPORLt, Manager Approva . Item to be presented b UNFINISHED BUSINESS Lynn M. Harris, DATE: July 14, 1992 SUBJECT: PROPOSED MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSURE ORDINANCE DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On June 23, 1992, the City Council was presented with correspondence from the City Attorney recommending that the City Council not adopt nor from the current ordinance for purposes of adding,new regulations on vacancy decontrol or park closures and relocation benefits. As a Consent Calendar item, the. City Council approved staff's recommendation to receive and file the report. However, at this meeting two interested parties had requested to speak in favor of adopting a park closure ordinance. Therefore, the City 'Council rescheduled this item .to allow for public testimony. In order to facilitate public participation, Community Development Staff contacted. the -parties to discuss their issues and make available all City materials on these subjects. The City Attorney will make summary comments at themeeting on the recent court decisions that led to the recommendation that no changes be made to the City's ordinance at this time. ANALYSIS Staff received three letters in response to the adoption of a park closure ordinance. In summary, the letters express concern over possible relocation impacts in the absence of an ordinance. Those impacts include potential loss of investment, potential loss of ownership and independence, possible failure of new tenants to acquire financing. These letters are attached. Each of the suggested amendments represents a significant change to the City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The City Council will recall this Ordinance was developed with a working group of both residents and park owners. Vacancy decontrol, for example, was discussed by the committee and not included in the ordinance. Should the Council feel amendments are necessary, then staff would recommend a review process by either a new committee or previous. representatives. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive public testimony. 2. Uphold the City Attorney's recommendation that the City Council not adopt nor amend the current ordinance regarding vacancy decontrol or a" park closure ordinance with stringent relocation requirements at this time. 5V ..th w� uhf . ov' /&J0 Agenda Item: ATTACHMENTS 1. City Attorney analysis from June 23, 1992 2. Public correspondence LMH:DDP:940 N•n11N L DWwI' w•4 n. «�wn•r aw• 1 OMv • 0 11 iVwlrp N, fOM' pcn••Ic n Twnr• - lost•• • NbL'f .Gn6iY ••••n w. Vnpvn JCnh N. mfr<LSO I C4CRYLJ .NCOG ChCRTLJ NwNC• R.vrpNO U, NI:IIT�• pYLr':. OVfLIr i n.INN• �,. I�f04w a. •nu n.WYAww DEN 0. [IRCNLR NICNELC.00..n $y-pTT ). IILI.O NUT RCOU/ OAVL NWUS C. TOUND.. "IvL...w�xoN . NEITI � CNNLM VInw,N n. ,'L1C1: i us. C 4 •Naze L. wwwNnL .IN 4 wCn«.LI N. wi'i YYM.n •NNr NIMrY 4 ' �w.nl1,N w, nww 1260.1 Maydr and City Counc_ilmembers -and- Chairman and Manufactured Home Panel Members Cit of Santa Clarita 23920 V41enuia Boulevard, Suite 300 san�s. Clarita, California 91355 Re: Yee v. CitX of Escondido - United 3tatea.' Supremo Court Upholds Mobilehome Rant Control Regulation Against Constitutional Attack Doak Ladies and Gentlemen: on April 1, 1992, the United States Supreme Court deeded Yeey. City of Escondido. The Court unanimously held the an ordinance which regulated the rents which maybe charged in obilehome parks was not unconstitutional on its face because ihn�nrdinancs did not constitute a physical takinq of the ' moblehome park owner's property. The Court specifically left una swered whether the ordinance constituted a regulatory taking. The Escondido rent control ordinance set rents back to their 1986 levels and prohibits rent increases without.the approval of the City Council. Park owners may apply to the Council for rent increases at any time. The City Council must appove any increases it determines to be "just, fair, and reasonable," after.considoring various factors, including those I LAw 111•Irf ✓K BURKE, Wrt•T.TAMR & SORENSEN OII weir pulY sl«aylr wlu vVu nOKwTv «wppCN Lo! ANUCLL:U, L 1,11 UIIMIo wwVI, 49I4TYM pDYll.r pPiI:G w.w l.4n uu. Ofu.•ur. tam "nDKOOSA DONE oNOTn•• w wscxtw I9DI 900.0000 $WIN 1 ... i . rnL.N I I C•N•FlLIo. ui.LEwxIA •9010 rwnn. fwT vww TGMr n'.ylnr..m 16LCC•I F.' ILUI DSt-LTOO O•N�ur 14 Vr. r . V O.wNDL COVNTr OIIICE Mn•. M•WwVV4 .nn•Cat C..VaTi T. lr Y..wr C. NIWMi STLt[t OEODITC !Ow w nN•.wrm " JIFIY..I /Ir.0 SW 0 0rn r.•. p nfrY <V .prw r wn.wu.M NC%•. .LII'OgNM 4199/ COC4.11.. OLKc a TOLNLur gON.LY]I Ulnl H/3499 4110Cwe4 MW�LI,. �• V NLSnRV n wwlMDi OYwNL.hOOw LN i LN OQ.-INjo-C« LIOYTON rfOt 1O1L19w -0.1W.w1 GMI[YOIO MORONI P. WNWIII .Yo... Yp Aril 13 1992 P , ...".4. ow.—. x..n, x.r.DwD .00.0 iw.Lr , fCNY4w. / r.Nr DDD <LD< nMCT !. ONp.DI ww4 G MO[OtON wNl'.NN L YIW4NCNL DWMY1 w NTVf.LI. K q OwI.lAO4GL AWNj JONN J Tw.l.'rlr YM. JO Y V ICXCR K104TUN JCIMLI LIONTUNOLf wwlTCw'p DIPG<e pus LO'.IN t MIN.EGI.N �z13� 236-18371 IW4N Y O. UDL.... TINOINT D. CNCNIN �[ 0va i1LL NO. 02012-035 nw.n.w w nza<w lWwq L M•<.+V.c Maydr and City Counc_ilmembers -and- Chairman and Manufactured Home Panel Members Cit of Santa Clarita 23920 V41enuia Boulevard, Suite 300 san�s. Clarita, California 91355 Re: Yee v. CitX of Escondido - United 3tatea.' Supremo Court Upholds Mobilehome Rant Control Regulation Against Constitutional Attack Doak Ladies and Gentlemen: on April 1, 1992, the United States Supreme Court deeded Yeey. City of Escondido. The Court unanimously held the an ordinance which regulated the rents which maybe charged in obilehome parks was not unconstitutional on its face because ihn�nrdinancs did not constitute a physical takinq of the ' moblehome park owner's property. The Court specifically left una swered whether the ordinance constituted a regulatory taking. The Escondido rent control ordinance set rents back to their 1986 levels and prohibits rent increases without.the approval of the City Council. Park owners may apply to the Council for rent increases at any time. The City Council must appove any increases it determines to be "just, fair, and reasonable," after.considoring various factors, including those I 13, 1992 2 apesfically enumerated by the ordinance. The ordinance also con aims a vacancy control provision which regulates the amount of ent which can be charged to a new tenant when a mobilehome is so in place. The park owners argued that Escondido's rent control ord nonce, when viewed against the backdrop of Calitornia's Mob'lphome Residency Law (Civil Code 5 798 et sea.), amounted to a p ysical occupation of their property entitling them to Com ensation from the City. The park owners argued that the rent con rol ordinance deprived them of all use and occupancy of their rea property (the mobilehome park) and granted the tenants of the mobilehomes the right to physically permanently occupy and use the park owners' real property. The basis for the park owners' argument was that bec use the California Mobilshome Residency Law prohibits the par owner from evicting a mobilehome owner or easily converting the property to other uses, the mobilehome owner is effectively a pe stual tenant of the park,.and the increase in the moblehome's value (resulting from being located in a rent- eonlelow rolled park) represents the right to occupy a mobilehome pad at market rent indefinitely. Furthermore, because the Mob,lehome Residency Law permits the mobilehome owner to sell th" mob'}lehome in place and the City's ordinance limits the amount of rent that can be charged to a new tenant, the mobilehome owner can receive a premium from.the sale of the mobilehome. As a rosillt, the park owners argued that the rent Control ordinance had transfered an interest In their land -- the right to occupy the land indefinitely at below market rent -- from the park owner to tho.mobilehome owner; and this transfer amounted to a right of phyIUcal occupation or Che park owner's land. The court rejected the argument and upheld the declsicn of a California Court of Appeal which had dismissed the park own rs' complaint, bluntly stating that there was no physical inv cion of the park owners' property which is required for a pay ical taking. in making its decision the Supreme Court effectively overruled federal oases from the Ninth Circuit Court of ppeals which had held that control of mobilehome park.rents, ins uding vacancy control provisions,. coupled with the California Mobilshome Residency Law, did amount to a physical taking of pr4erty for which compensation was required. The Supreme Court's decision in Yee; unfortunately, does not completely resolve the question of whether mobilehome ren control ordinances are valid. The Court expressly declined 1266.4 Apriµ 13, 1992 Pagoll 3 i I i to dbtermine whether the Escondido ordinance was valid Al apulied Ito a park owners. In addition, the court in a lengthy portion of a opinion, left open the possibility that the ordinance may be ai "regulatory" taking. on April 2, 1992, the park owners fi* a new lawsuit in San Diego superior Court alleging that Esc ndidolo ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking. While the United states nuprome Court has not addressed tho'iesue of whether a mobilshome rant control ordinance contitutes a regulatory taking, the California Courts of Appeal hav done so. Two different Courts of Appeal have upheld the velIdity of mobilohome rant control ordinances against a chaftenge that a regulatory taking occurs when the ordinance fai}s to contain a vacancy decontrol provision, thereby allowing rents to be returned to market levels when a tenant leaves. ( 1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 43; Pevard vCapetvav. toMogan1ii1( Cal.App.3d 212.) Another Court of Appeal has indicated, however, that a fac ally.volid•rent control ordinance could still be challenghd by 4 particular park owner as applied to him. Such challenge would allege that a mobilehome rent control ordinaneets application resulted in the park ownarc not receiving a just and fail return on their investment. (Kirkpatrick v. City of e d� (1991) 232 Ca1.Anp.3d 267.) As can be coon, while the Xlft decision rwxnived one aRpact of the mobilehoma rent control controversy, the issue is rarlfrom settled. Please feel.free to contact me should you have any further questions regarding this matter. very truly yours, LISA X. KRANITZ , for BURKE, WILLIAMS 6 SORENSEN coilCarl K. Newton Timothy B. MCOsker George Caravalho, City Manager Lynn Harris, Community Development Director 1"Ll • LAW OFFICES ' BUEKE, WILLIAMS Sc SOAENSEN 611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2500 MARTIN BDRKE' ROBERT V. WwoDEN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA BOOT] VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE JAMES T. BRADSHAW. JR.- MARYANN UNK GOOOKIND 2910 PONDEROSA DRIVE MARK C. ALLEN, JR.- TIMOTHY e. MCOSKER 12131 236-0600 MARTIN L BDRKE' PITA JL MUNSON SURE I CAMARILLO• CALIFORNIA 93010 CARL K. NEWTON' STEVEN J. 0AW50N (8051 987-3460 a ROBERT FIANORICK' TERRY P. KAUFMANN TELECOPIER: 1213) 236-2700 NORMAN E. G.t STEPHEN R. ONSTOT .DWPRO M. FOX' JAIME AREVALO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE DENNIS P. BDRKE' F. DANIELS CRAWFORD. ME HARRY C. WILLIAMS 3200 BRISTOL STREET LELAND G COLLEY' JOHN E. CAVANAVGH I1i12.196T - SUITE 640 NEIL F. YEAGER' MARK D. HENSLEY M. SORENSEN CAL COSTA MESA. 92826 CALIFORNIAROYAL BRIAN A PIERIK' PETER O. TPEMBLAY 1191419631 0A. SAS -5559 " CHARLES M. CALDERON' GILBERT A TRUJIU PETER M. THORSON. GREGORY P. PRYMOS _ JERRY M. PATTERSON DANO M. MCCSRTNY BURKE, WILLIAMS. SORENSEN 6 GAAR HAROLD A BRIDGES' JOSEPH P. BUCHMAN N PLAZA CNERYLJ. GREGORY T, - 7300 COLLEGE COLLEGE RAYMOND a J. FUE ANTIMONY. P. CONDOTiI ON 11BOULEVARD SURE 220 BARRY S. G ASENTE$' AUDREY NO -{ June 11, 1992 OVERLAND PARK. KANSAS 66210 VIRGINIA q, PESOL4 PESO KAREN J. SCHULOT (913) 339-6200 S. PAUL BRUGUERA JAN" S. GARMS* B. DEREK STRMTSMA PAUL G ANDERSON ' GON G. KIRCHER BRENDA L OWDERICHS CXP,SE. MICHELE VADON-RIVERA TIMOTHY V. P. GALLAGHER _ DWIGHT A NEWELL SCOTT F. FIELD JOHN a WELSH - MARY REOUS GAYLE' MARY JO SHELTON-CUTCHER RUFUS G YOUNG. JR. JEFFREY KIGHTLINGER •' WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL STEVEN KAALTON KOP EDVIN E. MMASSIAN JUDITH A ENRIGHT JUDITH K ANDERSON ( 213) 236-2837 "THRYN P. PETERS. _ TIMOTHY D. CREMIN JMOM0.5 G WOOD GREGORY G. OMI OUR FILE NO. 02012-035 "USA E. KRANITZ KENNETH O. ROZEUL NIM E MCNLLLY LAURIE G SHERI M. LOIS BOBAK 'PROPCSSIOHAL CGFAO.MTXK 1A PROFESSIONAL A3SOCMTgN .."WIN KANSAS 6 MISSOURI ^AOIH . IN KANSAS IAo.. IN CALIFORNIA. KANSAS 6 .11...X Mayor Klajic and Coucilmembers City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa.Clarita,-California 91355 Re: Analysis of Proposed Park Closure Ordinance Dear Mayor Klajic and 'Councilmembers: The .purpose 'of this letter is to provide you with a revisited analysis of a proposed park closure ordinance: ("Ordinance")_in'light'of the recent decision of Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) 118 L.Ed..2d 153. The Ordinance was submitted to the City Council by Don Wilder in late 1991, prior to the Yee decision. The Yee decision does not change our analysis of the Ordinance which was provided to you by letter dated.February 28, 1992 under attorney/client privilege. The primary.issue of concern regarding the,Ordinance is whether the type of relocation benefits which the Ordinance imposes constitutes a taking. It is our opinion that the type of relocation benefits set forth in the Ordinance would be subject to legal challenge and may not withstand judicial scrutiny. The City's ability to regulate mobilehome park closures and conversions is found in Government Code sections 65863.7 and 65863.8. Subsection (e) of section 65863.7 provides: 19594.1 Mayor Klajic.and Councilmembers June 11, 1992 Page 2 "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'adequats housing in a mobilehome park. The stens 11 (Emphasis added.) The phrase "reasonable costs of relocation" is not defined and one of the issues therefore becomes whether the requirements imposed by the Ordinance proposed by Mr. Wilder are in fact reasonable relocation costs. Among other.requirements, the proposed Ordinance requires the following benefits: Requires the`park.owner.to pay for packing, moving :. -and storage of all tenants household articles and personal property (§ 100.112.(A)(1)); - Requires the park owner to pay reasonable costs of lodging, meals, kennel fees and other expenses if the.tenant is unable to occupy. -the coach because of activities related'to the move (§;100.112(A)(5)); Re .res that if the basic monthl • Requires -that y park rental at the new location exceeds that of the old park, the park owner will pay the excess for seven years (§ 100.112(A)(6)),- Requires 00.112(A)(6));Requires that if the coach is destroyed during relocation, it must be replaced .by a comparable current year coach (§ 100.12(A)(8)); • Requires an adjustment alloyance of between $7,000 and $10,000 (§ 100.112(A)'(9)); • Requires that where an owner is required to purchase the mobilehome because relocation is not possible, the cost will be 125% of -the on-site value (§ 100.113(B)(1)). It is fairly well accepted that'the on-site value of,a mobilehome.generally exceeds the market value of the mobilehome; and 19594.1 Mayor Klajic and Councilmembers June 11, 1992 Page 3 • Requires an incentive relocation bonus of $3,500 to be paid when a tenant consummates arrangements to relocate within 120 days (§ 100.114). It is clear that not all of the requirements directly relate to . relocation and it is questionable whether, those requirements that do relate to relocation would be held to be reasonable. The only appellate decision dealing with a park closure ordinance is the unpublished decision of Rooke v. Scotts Valley (Sixth Appellate District, 1990). Among other things, the ordinance at issue in Rooke required a park'owner to purchase the mobilehome for its on-site value. Following the reasoning employed by -the federal court in Hall v. City of Santa Barbara (9th Cir. 1986) 833 F.2d 1270, the Rooke court found this provision to constitute a physical taking. The reasoning.of Hall was recently rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Yee v. City of Escondido, supra. In Yee, the Court -rejected the argument that a vacancy decontrol ordinance constituted an actual physical taking"of the.park owner's property, but.indicated that there might be a regulatory taking.. A physical, taking requires the landowner'to submit. to the physical occupation of his.land. (118 L.Ed.2d at 165.) The Court notedthat "(alt least -on the face of the regulatory scheme, neither:the.City nor the State compels petitioners, once they have rented their.. property to tenants, to continue doing so." (1d.) While -the park owners argued that the park; closure laws created a "gauntlet" which prohibited them from changing their land'use, the Court did not address this issue asthe park owners had -admittedly not tried to close the park (,Zd.)` However, attorneys representing the City's interests reported that the Justices' questioning showed that there was an interest in park closure ordinances. This interest is reflected in the opinion in which the. Court specifically states: "A different case would be presented were the statute, on its.face or as applied, to compel a'landowner over objection.to,=iyent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy." (118 L.Ed.2d at 166.) The United States Supreme Court has therefore indicated that a park closure law, either by itself or in conjunction with other laws, may constitute.a taking. 19594.1 Mayor Klajic and.Councilmembers June.11, 1992 Page 4 According to discussion of the League of California Cities Mobilehome Committee it is likely that park closure ordinances will be the next "wave" of litigation and in fact.in recent months there have already been several lawsuits filed involving park closure ordinances. One of the issues which has been raised in such suits is that which:was touched upon by the Supreme Court, i.e., that a park closure ordinance with stringent relocation requirements prevents an owner from going out of business and therefore constitutes a physical taking. In light of the decision in Yee Y. City of Escondido we anticipate that the lawsuits will also allege a regulatory taking. Another argument which has also been raised in the lawsuits is that the relocation ordinance is preempted by Government Code section 65863.7. It is our recommendation that the City Council refrain from adopting a park closure ordinance until it is possible to determine the outcome of the current litigation. Alternatively, if the City does desire to'adopt a park closure ordinance in the near future, we recommend.that the relocation requirements be limited in nature and not go as far as the proposed Ordinance in order to reduce the City's exposure to costly litigation. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter. LEK:mjs cc: George Caravalho Carl K. Newton Timothy B. McOsker »s94.t Very truly yours, Lisa E. Ya�nitz for BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN CITY OF. SANTA CLARITA Har 29 2 40 M `92 25000-101 N. Hawkbryn Santa Clarita, Ca 91321 Cli May 28, 1992 - City of Santa Clarita City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca 91321 Re: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 90-38, chapter 8.57 OF,THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE - RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE Because of the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in the Yee vs the City of Escondido upholding "Vacancy Control", the Rent Stabilization Ordinance of Santa Clarita can now be amended to provide this much needed protection. from unreasonable rent increases upon the sale of an existing mobilehome. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Upon the sale or transfer of an existing mobilehome,..the new resident shall be subject to an adjustment of:the: current gross rent for that space equal to the lesser of a six percent (6%) increase or an increase equal to the percentage of the.CPI`at the time of the sale or transfer. .This`.addition to the ordinance is necessary•to stop.excessive rent increases now being made and seriously hampering the sale.of,older mobilehomes. sincerely, Antho y J. De Lill Mulberry Mobilehome Park 6 25000 Hawkbryn AVe 9125 Newhall, CA 91321 June 26, 1992 City Council City.of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear City Councilmembers: I am writing to you to show my concern for the recent overlooking of the Mobilehome Park Closure Ordinance.at the June 23, 1992 City Council meeting. Having this Ordinance in place is vital in order for our City to maintain affordable housing for its citizens. This ordinance is also important to protect the property.of the Mobilehome residents, who purchased their home with the belief they would be able to remain in the mobilehome Park. Should a Park close without the type of protection this ordinance can give, the residents are left to the mercy of the Parkowner.and this will always leave the residents without being properly compensated. Since I was a resident of Desert Gardens, I am well aware of what happens when a park closes. The emotional and mental trauma of leaving your home is great enough without having to deal with financial ruin as well. I believe using the pending appeal of the Yee decision as a reason to shelve this ordinance is a disservice to the more than 2,000.00 people who currently reside in mobile homes in Santa Clarita. The benefits that we included in the Ordinance (basically all of which are negotiable) are basic benefits that should be paid out since the mobilehome resident would be virtually unable to move his/her home and the Parkowner would be aware of this prior to his closure of the Park. All we have ever wanted was to .be treated fairly by the Parkowners. If they were to make a decision to close their Park, then they have that right, but not to the extent of forcing financial chaos on the tenants who supported that Parkowner for the many years they owned their Park., Niederbruning ry Mobile Home Park /jn 0 Patricia A. Robinson 28504 Sand Canyon Rd., Sp. 129 Canyon Country, Ca. 91351 June 28,1992 Santa Clarita City Council 23920 Valincia Blvd. Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 Dear Council Members: I am writing you this letter both as the Manager of Canyon Breeze Village Mobilehome Park and a mobilehome owner. 5 1/2 years ago when my husband and I bought our home, we read in the paper that our park was closing. I learned that there is not a lot of protection for mobilehome owners. We were deeply concerned about this so we became involved with the Santa Clarita Mobilehome Area Cauncll. Of course our f first concern was about our park closing, but rent stabilization effected far more people so we made that our first priority. With that being completed we turned to park closure. In the meantime my park owner asked me to become Manager of his park, with full knowledge of my involvement with rent stabilization and park relocation. I have been Manager. for 2 1/2 years now. In my job, I see even more the need for a relocation ordinance. I have had two banks tell me they would not make new loans to prospective buyers because they heard our park was closing. i tried to assure them the rumer was not so, but they didn't want to take the chance. An even greater problem for the people in my park, because of these rumors, is that they can not sell their homes. When prospective buyers hear this rumer they back out of the sale. I have over 27 homeowners that have been trying to sell their homes for over 2 years. Some of them have relay taken a loss on their investment because of this. We have had a number of home owners that because of job change, or they out grew their homes, have had to abandoned their homes because they could not find a buyer. This has been a big financial loss to them, but they were forced Into the only decision they could make. These are good, hard working people that are seeing their credit rating destroyed by something beyond their control. With this relocation ordinance the banks and prospective buyers would have some insurance that they would not loose their investment The values of our homes have dropped because of the rumor of closeure. We payed $60,000.00 for our home and have done several thousands of dollers worth of improvements to.our home. At this time if we wanted to sell, we probably could not hope to break even. This relocation ordinance would help to stabilize the value of our homes, by taking away the the damage these rumors do. When we wrote this ordinance we spent 2 years studying other ordinances that are now being used by other cites in California. We worked very hard to be as fair as you can with this very touchy subject. We realized when we wrote it that we would need to negotiate some of the figures, but all in all it is very important that we have an ordinance for the security of mobilehome owners as well as banks and loan companys. . Mobilehomes are one of the last affordable housing young family's and fixed income people can invest their money into. I wish you could see the joy and pride on their faces, when they come in for park approval, on owning their own home. The saddest part of my job is when they come back to tell me they can't Find financing. I like the others in our group feel that if a person opens a park for mobilehome living that they are not in a business like others that can just pick up and move without tearing a lot of other lives apart. But as longus there are people..that are strictly out to make money we need some assurance that our investments are protected too. Respe yours, RZC JZfVe0 James H. Robinson AUIV 2 911992 17 O OF 28504 Sand Canyon Rd., Sp. 129 c'xRy sArvricinF�rn"r Canyon Country, Ca. 91351 June 28, 1992 Santa Clarita City Council 23920 Valincia Blvd. Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 Dear Council Members: In 1990, while the City of Santa Clarita was working to adopt a mobilehome rent stabilization plan, mobilehome owners began a simultaneous effort to help protect themselves against parks that might be closed and converted to other uses. The Desert Gardens Mobilehome Park had closed and had proved to be a very traumatic and, to some mobilehome owners, a devastating experience. The young City of Santa Clarita had no protection plan and was forced to stand by virtually helpless as some of its citizens were subjected to painful losses. The following is a list of some of those losses; 1. Loss of belongings - Some people were moved to smaller places or were moved in with friends or relatives who had no place to store their belongings. 2. Loss of investments - Some of the homeowner's equity was transferred to the park owner when the park closed because those whose homes were bought by the park received less than what their homes would have been valued at had the park not closed and normal marketplace sales had taken place. Those that could were forced to buy homes of equal or lessor size but at higher mortgage cost, essentially losing the equity of the original home. 2.1. If a property owner had a parcel of land for sale that had been Improved, the selling price would include the value of the Improvement because the improvement also increased the value of the land itself. The improvement also has a value of its own but its total value also depends on the land that it is on. The two values of land and Improvement contribute to one another which in turn determines the total value of the property. 2.2. By ignoring the value of the mobilehomes on the park land, the park owner ignores total value of the property. 2.2.1. When the mobilehome was generating space rent, the park owner used the increasing value of the mobilehome to Increase the space rent. if the homeowner wished to sell, the asking price for the mobilehome would be partially controlled by the park owner who sets the space rent. If the space rent is increased, the homeowner could not ask a high value because a prospective buyer would have to deal with the park owners higher space rent as well as the price of the mobilehome. 2.2.2. When the park owner wishes to sell the park land, the homeowner is forced to accept a lower value of the mobilehome because it no longer has the park space to add to its value. 3. Loss of pride - Because for most, the move into higher cost housing on an unchanged income forced them to adjust to a lower living standard. 4. Loss of home ownership and independence - Some were too old to ever have an opportunity to invest in their own home again and will be forced to spend the rest of their lives renting, living with friends or relatives or were even moved to rest homes. 5. The City of Santa Clarita also lost because the proposed tax producing business venture, to this day, stands as a weed growing f ire hazard and eye sore. It stand as a monument to the greed of the owners who were in such a hurry to clear their land before the City could find a way to make them offer a fair deal to the homeowners. A group of homeowners met with some park owner representatives In an effort to establish both a rent stabilization ordinance and a park closure/relocation ordinance. After awhile, negotiations were at a deadlock and park owners stopped participating on both issues. When the homeowners presented the City with a proposed rent stabilization ordinance, park owners objected to it. The City Council called for meaningful negotiations assuring the park owners that there would be a rent stabilization ordinance with or without them. Some of the park owners came to the negotiations and we now have an ordinance. That same group of homeowners, in the same manner as they had developed the rent stabilization ordinance, researched a number different California city mobilehome park closure ordinances, relocation plans and mobilehome park conversion regulations in existence. The following is a list of those ordinances; Monrovia Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 pertaining to closure of mobilehome parks, adopted by the City of Monrovia on 7 February 1989. 2. Relocation Pian, Shady Oaks/Happy Haven Mobilehome Parks, adopted by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on 11 December 1985. 3. Addition of section 2289.900 through 2289.909 to the City of San Buenaventura Ordinance Code relating to permits required for mobilehome park closure, adopted by the City of San Buenaventura Ordinance on 10 February 1986. 4. Addition of Chapter 9.40 to Title 9 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, relating to the requirements for the conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses, adopted by the City of Chula Vista on 19 May 1982. 5. Adding of chapter 19.98 to the City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code, regulating conversion of mobilehome parks to other use, received from the City of Sunnyvale in 1987. While these are obviously not all of the ordinances in the state, they do represent the intent of California citizens to protect mobilehome owners. After months of analyzing the particular needs of the City of Santa Clarita, a format was decided upon and the proposed ordinance before you was developed. The proposed ordinance contains no new gimmicks, no untried positions, and no never before used rules or regulations. Also there are no provisions that have been stricken down by the courts. While some of the dollar values that were used were increased to compensate for inflationary changes in some of the provisions they were taken from, this ordinance was not an attempt to make a profit but merely an attempt to be fair. Our main goal has always been to make the closing of a park a no loose situation for all concerned. The park owners get their land cleared for some other profit making venture while the homeowners get moved or otherwise compensated in such a manner as not to loose the value of their homes and are not forced to lower their living standards. This ordinance was finally submitted to the City Council late in 1991 for consideration and analysis. I have read the analysis given by Burke, Williams & Sorensen'and am very disappointed. While I suppose the attorneys believe they are giving their client prudent advise, I wander if it might be a tad "chicken hearted". While the City's legal council recognizes the recent "Yee" decision by the High Court there is still a timidity toward working with this ordinance. 2. While the City's legal council can point to where they think the ordinance might have problems, they do not suggest fixing them or even discussing them. They suggest dropping the whole matter until the United States Supreme Court comes to Santa Clarita and Draws up an ordinance for us. In the "Yee" decision we have been given an indication by The High Court that The City can expect support from the court if we develop a well thought out and equitable ordinance. The court also told park owners that they take on a certain responsibility when they decide to make their living from the public.sector. May I please request that the City of Santa Clarita not table the needs of the approximately 2,200 mobilehome owners of this community. May I request that the City of Santa Clarita continue to move forward with us to develop and adopt an ordinance that will truly protect both the mobilehome owner and the park owner. Thank You, Mariam Mayor & Council Members: My name is Patricia Robinson. I live at 28504 Sand Canyon Rd., Sp 129, Canyon Country. I am the Managor of Canyon Breeze Village Mobile Home Park. 5 Years ago when My husband and I bought our home we read in the paper that our park was closing. We were deeply concerned about this so we became involved with the Santa Clarita Mobilehome Area Council. 2 1!2 years ago the owner of my park asked me to become manager of the park, with full knowledge of my involvement with the Area Council on rent control and the relocation package. The reason I have come before you is to try and tell you why it is so important for us to have a relocation package. It has been very difficult for the home owners to sell there homes in our park because of the rumors, that still exist about our park closing. I have had 2 banks tell me they would- not make loans to new buyers because of this rumor. We have had many prospective buyers, that when they hear the rumor decide not to buy in our park. Also because of this we have had several home owners forced into abandoning their homes after trying to sell them for over a year and not being able to. These are good; hard working people that are seeing their credit ratings destroyed. We have over. 27 owners that have been trying to sell their homes, some have been on the market for over two years. With this ordinance the banks and prospective - buyers would have some insurance that their investment would be secure. When we wrote this ordinance we used other ordinances that are now being. used by other cites We realize we may need to negotiate some of the figures but all in all it is very important that we have this ordinance for the security of mobilehome owners as well as - banks and loan companys. Mobilehomes are one of the last affordable housing that young familys can invest their money in. It is realy sad for me when I see their dreams being crushed because they can't get financing. Thank You,