HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/03/23 Item 11
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
MARCH 23, 2010, Item-1L-
SUBMITTED BY:
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE
MOBILEHOMES ISSUES ST :"}i~HOLDER COMMITTEE
DEPUTY CITY MANAGE$J1DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR
CITY MANAGER~
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO ~
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
SUMMARY
In early October, Council authorized the establishment of a Mobilehome Issues
Stakeholders Committee to look at issues related to park closures and potentially
recommend changes to the City's Mobilehome and Trailer Park Conversion Ordinance
(Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 9.40). Staff will provide an update on the
committee process and outcomes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined
that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines because the proposed action consists of an administrative activity that will not
result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Therefore, pursuant to
Section 15060 (c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION
On October 6, 2009 Council approved the establishment of a Mobilehome Issues
Stakeholders Committee to look at issues related to park closures and potentially
recommend changes to the City's Mobilehome and Trailer Park Conversion Ordinance
(Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 9.40).
11-1
MARCH 23, 2010, Item~
Page 2 of3
Mobilehome Issues Stakeholder Selection & Process
Staff provided notice to all park owners and managers of the availability of applications
for the Stakeholders Committee in late October 2009 and requested that direct notice be
provided to residents and/or posted in common areas. Staff was able to verify that over
80% of the parks provided direct resident notice. The application period was closed on
November 30th with receipt of seven applications from park owners and fourteen trom
residents.
Staff worked with the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC) to review the
applications and ensure representation from a variety of parks and that participants are
representative of the full spectrum of mobilehome stakeholders (i.e. park type,
geographic representation, age restricted parks, and length of residency/ownership).
After interviewing a short list of applicants, the committee selections were made and a
summary of who they represent follows:
Park Owner Stakeholders
, I' k \l.'.L' \1phlldlOtni.' 'J\\ S\\ 'r 1.:,11'> of
_dill!.: elt (s) ~
R('"trlcti.'d I rallL'r E 0\\ nl'r'ihlp
John Baldwin Bayscene N M NW 5
Daniel Cacho Don Luis Estates N M SW 15
Jerry Fick Caravan & Rose N T NW 51
Arbor
Steven Robert Luecht Farmhouse Park N T SW 32
Randy Terry Terry's, Broadway, 5- Y&N M&T NW& 40
10, Continental SW
Steve Epsten Lynwood South Y M SW 40
Virginia Jensen Terry's, Broadway, 5- Y&N M&T NW& 40
10, Continental SW
Resident Stakeholders
"\ I) k \l.'.l' \lohl1dlOll1C i\ \\ S\\ I \ i.'drS 01
dIne al Rl''''lr~Ch..d I r,uler I RL's!dcm:)
Sheldon Goldie Granada Y M SW 15
Jim Matney Chula Vista Y M NW 14
Duff Roberts Bayscene N M NW 30
Elizabeth Schaeffer Sharon's Y T NW <I
Penny Vaughn Otay Lakes Y M E 2
Steve Molski Terry's Y M NW 13
Bernard Tardy Hacienda Y M SW 35
11-2
MARCH 23, 2010, Item~
Page 3 of3
Staff believes the committee accurately reflects the cross section of parks within the City
and that the selected stakeholders would be effective in communicating with the larger
mobilehome community. Four of the resident stakeholders are board members of their
Home Owners Associations.
The committee was tasked with looking for amicable solutions to park closure issues.
For a little over a month the committee met both jointly and in separate meetings, as
follows:
January 4, 2010
January 11,2010
January 25, 2010
January 27, 2010
February 1,2010
February 8, 2010
4 p.m. - Joint Issues Stakeholder Committee
2 p.m. - Owner Stakeholder Group
4 p.m. - Resident Stakeholder Group
4 p.m. - Resident Stakeholder Group
10 a.m. - Owner Stakeholder Group
4 p.m. - Joint Issues Stakeholder Committee
4 p.m. - Joint Issues Stakeholder Committee
Committee Recommendations
From the start of the process it was acknowledged that resolutions to park closure issues
may be difficult to resolve due to the complexity of issues. Park owners contended that
they were comfortable with the current version of CVMC 9.40 and only willing to
discuss changes if rent control, specifically decontrol at vacancy turnover, was included
in the overall conversation. Residents did not desire to include rent control in the
discussions, however wanted to see changes made to CVMC 9.40, particularly related to
relocation assistance and to clarify value when a unit is not relocatable.
Staff participated in the February 8th meeting to confirm that the group consensus was an
impasse. Both stakeholder groups indicated that if the City would like to see parks
redevelop appropriately, the City should also financially participate in the relocation
process.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is
not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of
Regulations section I 8704.2(a)(l) is not applicable to this decision.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
Prepared by: Stacey Kurz. Senior Project Coordinator, Development Services Department
11-3
..
"
.::S'f~
~
H~,lAH'.)A
~~~1!.(~~~~i';~ ,',
.... ",'
"'3"
~',",'''', .., '" '0,,1-,:'-
~~,-" '<~;
~'"
".,-.,/.,-.,
H,H.>" .
c::J,
r::r.:::::::J' ,
"t' ,'~
/;-.-- \""
'.....'..;...."..'!'1
" ,
[l..~,"',,"
, '
! ...;...A. '7'
,,~~, '
Mobilehome Is~ue~ '
Stakeholder' Co~mitt~e ,:, I,'
!' I ,. I'; i " 1 ~ ;.' ,'I' ':H'
.. .;r'~:-, ,
..' ,',Chuld Vista
{"T'rirl:i""" .('(',1,+1" '. <'(;:{j\
",," ",
1./
I,,:'
;;'{r1 '
, '1', I "~!
,'1 f-lr;,'~!
. ;;~,!i-ilk':r;
t, q;~
'10;i~~,n', 2~:f 'l1t:~! '\':
'<:'~"'~i~ ;' i"i"'1-"':;
;~qJ
;;J,:,:;<,::':-:FO\;
~"(~
~,
<'~.'AV"'A
'" i
" .,.;,' ,_oJ;' . ~J
~~,,;,~;,,'q~tob,~r~' ~,~?~ I "j"";" ,. ':"" :{.:1,
t:-- ,,' -. l ~!'.;_E:s~ablis~'st~~c,~~!,~~~:;~~Mmiit~:C?::~o
~f;m!~:1!!:r'l~ i~~vicw, park' closurc'_is~l!cs '\1 '
<::- 5 parko..\.rj(:rs (2:tltematC's). "t -
, '~ ~p~j-~}e:ii~i:HtHi ~Itcmhi:(:s) ," , ;" , '" '
,.'..'...'1.,...1;..............,',.+,'.;.,',.'...,., ",. ..if':'.::.....;. ;<,1""1
- N~tlr'nal C\~,JlfllSl:K.c~{JlllHOll (~~nter;~Clt(;;){i
Potctltialh;;m~ke cI-i'ang'es t~ CVMe'};?;
'9,10 .~. ' , ,y'
"':;;'~I'I / ,IIi}::;!" i":"
-~'-t~~""r~Il1~. "';,.,," ,;J~:,~~'~'~'::- .':;:;; ~.,~~.
c::J't
~ "1
.,....' "
'-''-'.-- .,
~"'I-''''''''
Ln~-':J ,-
, "
, "
I ' ,~
" "t".,
,""
,,!t,..
~
rHtfA'\1'f^
k.J:';""
^'... ........
r;PI'U(:A""-'>N:'
~
1"'1"".1,(il
><".,.. "" ,~,
I:: 'I,
tF'--mi
h~'
1""''-'
Dcvdop;nent St'l7Jic('J
rv~-; .'.i'+~:..~::r~:::.(:.~~/._...-o
:!;"
,~-::....::u~o::;;:. n _
'.'1 ,=.c ' F' '--:J
~.._...-
,~., ~~;:': . ,._'",<<-:'~
tlif~~2:f~
:L3!C,: O~t?be~, T '"
Ii" :N(~yt;mber~O,i,iO()c)':
.~,:80% park~ ' ','
~'confi~ed'dircct
notice' '
-,.;.;1>,,;.,,":....;........,):';_,
7o~'n~r &' 14 I
, .
resident application~'
received" .. ' ,
~@':E~~r~'Ift'~f..~S'
~':'"\;"::'l:t:. ~-',C=-"_. .'-
Q---
"'w 1 .'
! t I J 'I
, ~. "
f ~"...,..~~~___.._ " ...__
". ..'" ",-.. ",'m~ '
..-._-,.._.~-_..._.
-"--'~--'-'-
--..-....-. ----- --
- .._~-- -- ,'~_.-..__.
.----' . ..
..------
.~,.';..~k.
n.;,~~
~,d-, -\\~\lO<,\r~
.r:k~, "
3~3/\a
1
'-"'''''.,
".: U::' ;', ,.'" ~ "t"
i Staff~ ,NCRC.revie~e<dap~.~~';tio~~
Short )li~i: & :i~t'~rviews,: .a~'n~ces~an;'l: ,: i:
,^ :~~:s~;~d~~6~'~~~;c'c~kJ: i: ",":',' ,:'_":': "~" 1'~,';;
......:!(,,-
~
U"'Ay,,:l~
~
~',~ ~cs~dc.i~;~~~k~~o~de'rs," .:i.,!Rl'<
r< " It! ~. SIl(:l~!~~n.G.o!,~jl::lq~~lOlld~'.:<;~i,:,1'i
^'--J jn~ r\latUey ,cnJla' VistiL ":, ;".'
L11~~ ~ :'6~ffR<'>b~n;~, Ra)'sc:r;e f .'~"..,'
IY,:L7/;<J .,:; lfliz:i.b~thSd~a~~~~eI', ?haWli's
Iffi;117-'"1;,;; ,:+ Jl~,q~l;Y~~ghl~'t9,tay l,~~<~;~i.i"
""""",___, ' ;". c:..'St{~'~l~ J'd61~~i, '~l\!rrrfS ,: ';" P:'
............,... _\. ,t> '''_':;';',Bcrt~~ro;~;~~dy,''I'bci~da' '
h ~.~i:'i" ~~:'~~~~,
';~l^ B~~~~!~l:'~.~1?;~q~~~;.~~~~
'~'~""'---"~''';'~ - .,- ",,:'L" ....~.."..,,..:':":!-,~. . '--;.:;-'~---
, ,'''.,
Owner Stakeholders' - ''', ",
:i~J~;h~I~'aj~~il: 'H~y,s<:ene ."t! L, (,
"..,- Da'nid Cachci, Don' Luis
"- Randy 'i~~'rh', ~i'c'rry"g, HI'Oad~~)'.:5 10.
,- C()I1~ncntaP, .:~' ... ",~.,...~" ::~ > f"
'+Jsll)'i'i'ich':Carv;~:r &'.R~;s~,:'-0,a;9.r:
f '''~ Si~~vcil Robcrt:Luccht, Farmhhuse
f, '....:.StC\.c Epst~l, Lynw{}()d'Sc'n;th .".:1~-r~
,..,-Vir!,;.jniaJeriscn, Tcrry's,.Bn)ad\\-'a\', 5:tO,
::,c, ':D:~~n:l:)f'L~~",:;;i: p' ,
-I
~i
~'
I!-.~~~J
I. .1
r I'~.
r:.j."........,',../
n,
2
3
,
'.
4
=L.\=~\ \\
A~\c-~\\-\ o"'"c( S~
3,.63,/\Q
MEMO
TO: Chula Vista City Council
FROM: Mobilehome Owner Stakeholder Committee
Sheldon Goldie, Jim Matney, Steve Molski, Duff Roberts,
Elizabeth Schaeffer, Bernard Tardy, Penny Vaughn
RE: Chula Vista Municipal Code 9.40
In order to successfully resolve the issue of park closures, the City Council needs to know
the tollowing:
I.) The existing ordinance is antiquated. It was written over 20 years ago when
relocation costs were much lower.
2.) Mobile home owners "eed the following should a park close:
Relocation fees of a maximum $25,000 or actual cost of moving mobile home
IF the mobile home owner is able to find space in another park.
. All eligible mobile owners shall bc cntitled to receive the cost of relocation
shall include to relocating displaced homeowner's mobile homc/manufactured
home trailer, accessories and possessions to comparable mobile
home/manufactured/ home/ trailer park within 50 miles of its existing
location, including but not limited to costs of finding space suitable to their
home, packing, storage of household item, disassembly, removal,
transportation, and reinstallation .ofthe mobile home/manufactured
home/trailer and accessories at the new site, and replacement or reconstruction
of blocks, skirting, siding, porches, decks, awnings and earthquake bracing if
necessitated by relocation: reasonablc living expenses of displaced
person/persons from the date of actual displacement until the datc of
occupancy at the new site; payment of any security deposit required at the
new site; and the difference bctween the rent paid in existing park and any
higher rent at the new site for thc tirst twelve months ofthe relocated tenancy.
OR
Should mobile home owners be unsuccessful at locating spaces in other
parks, purchase of their mobile home based on compa.-ahle ,'cplaceml'nts
for ALL tenants regardless of income level
. "Comparable" defined as what the mobile home owner would have to pay to
buy another mobile home that is of like kind. Example: double-wide, two
bedroom, two bath at current prices.
. All mobile home owners, regardless of income level, must be compensatcd
given that they are being forced to move. Simply because a mobile homc
owner is not low-income should not automatically mean that hc/she should be
forced to pay for moving costs and/or a new home given, particularly because
the move is not of his/her choice.
OR
First right of refusal
· Mobile home owners must be given first right to buy land upon with their
mobile homes sit.
· City assistance for mobile home owners unable to purchase their lots.
OR If living accommodations are being built upon the land, first right to purchase
condo/house.
Note: at no point during the committee meetings did the mobile home owners ever say
that the park owners needed to pay for expenses incurred should a park close. Because
the ci(v ordinance is written as such and because prior park closures have resulted in
park owners paying mobile home owners' relocation costs, the assumption appears to
be that is the accepted method.
It is the recommendation of the mobile home owners that other resources such as
developer assumption costs and/or government ftmding be explored.