|
Diana O’Dell, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and staff representatives responded to questions pertaining to: thresholds established by the Municipal Code and, if the applicant could delineate from the thresholds established in the Conversion Impact Report (CIR) at a later date; if the thresholds established in the CIR are legally binding even if there was potential litigation at a later date; whether procedures for tonight’s public hearing only effects the Conversion Impact Report and not changes to the land use; could the bonus dates be amended in the CIR; regulations governing the criteria for residents within the park (i.e., seniors only; no children); staff review of Assemblywoman Lieber’s letter and if her comments could be added to the report; whether the applicant had been given a copy of Assemblywoman Lieber’s letter; references to the Municipal Code and the changes to that language in Assemblywoman Lieber’s letter where it references the Conversion Impact Report rather than the Municipal Code; if there was an obligation by the City to pay the 85% if residents chose to negotiate with the City versus Centex Homes; does the Conversion Impact Report constitute the submission of a permit triggering the six month noticing period; does the requirements in the Conversion Impact Report satisfy the requirements of the Municipal Code; what would the next action be if the Council rejected the Conversion Impact Report; if comparable appraisals were not provided in the report was that justification for a sufficiency in the report; what deficiencies would constitute the Conversion Impact Report being deemed as insufficient; and, what were the next steps, from the City’s perspective, if the Conversion Impact Report was approved
Vice-Mayor Swegles disclosed that he met with the property owners and residents. The purpose of the meeting was informational only and the substance of the information was very brief. The information received has not affected his ability to be a fair and impartial decision-maker based on the facts and the record.
Councilmember Fowler disclosed that he did not meet personally with anyone but he had receive phone calls and the reason for that was to receive information from both sides. Councilmember Fowler stated he was in a position to make a fair and honest opinion based on the facts received after the public hearing tonight.
Councilmember Howe disclosed that he had met with residents of the mobile home park in person and by telephone, the owner of the park, and approximately three months ago he and two other Councilmembers met at the mobile home park. The purpose of that meeting was an informational only meeting. He stated that he was able to have an open and fair mind and he would be able to weigh the facts and the situation adequately.
Councilmember Hamilton disclosed that she had met personally and taken phone calls with both sides on the matter. She noted that she had driven through the park; however, she had not met with any residents at that time; but she had seen the facility live.
Councilmember Miller disclosed that she had attended a meeting at the park with the owners, she had driven through the park and was quite familiar with the park because she had friends that lived in the park in the sixties. Councilmember Miller indicated that yesterday she had met with the potential future developer and, she had met with three owners in City Hall. Councilmember Miller indicated she had not met with the owner of the park. Councilmember Miller concluded by noting this was for the purpose of research and information gathering and in no way affected her ability to make an impartial decision.
Councilmember Lee disclosed that he had met with some of the residents of the park at the park site and on the phone. Councilmember Lee indicated he had also met someone on the newspaper comic strip. Councilmember Lee indicated the information gathered was very helpful and thanked Maria Nicholas who showed him around the park, introduced him to residents, and explained the park situation. Councilmember Lee indicated that the meetings and calls would not affect his impartiality on this matter. Councilmember Lee concluded by thanking those that had called and sent e-mails to help him make a decision on this matter.
Mayor Chu disclosed that he had met with the developer approximately three to four months ago in a short meeting to discuss the process he would be going through. Mayor Chu indicated he too had done a drive through the facility and met some of the residents at that time. Mayor Chu indicated since that time he had taken a number of phone calls from both sides that were informational only and the substance was to talk about the process and peoples’ views on where they would like the decision to go. Mayor Chu indicated at this time he had not made a decision and he was waiting to hear the information at the public hearing. Mayor Chu concluded by noting at this time he was impartial and would make a decision based on the facts of the record.
Mayor Chu highlighted the procedures for tonight’s public hearing and that the only matter being considered this evening was the Conversion Impact Report.
Mayor Chu opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Margaret Nanda, applicant’s representative, spoke regarding their request for approval of the Conversion Impact Report and compliance with the Municipal Code. Ms Nanda indicated: reports were personally served or served by mail on May 13th and 14th; three meetings were held at the Park Clubhouse and all questions were answered at those meetings; empty mobile homes have been removed from the park; number of mobile home parks within a 20-mile radius of Oasis, of which all 151 parks were contacted; number of senior parks within the 20-mile radius and prices of the mobile homes in the parks within the 20-mile radius; 309 parks within a 200-mile radius of the 1439 parks were contacted with the least expensive homes being located in outlying areas in Lompoc, Manteca, Stockton and Tulare; relocation activities of home within this park; housing specialist designation was given to Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County and they are in residence within the park in Space 12 and are helping residents relocate and find suitable housing; efforts made to help residents find other housing; moving expenses that would be paid to those within the park and an incentive bonus being offered to those residents; number of and appraisal process for mobile home owners in the park; amount being paid based on the appraisal is 100 percent of the appraised value and a minimum amount was set at $22,500 irregardless of the appraised value; home owners were informed they can seek their own appraisal; base relocation and incentive bonus fee established for homeowners bringing the relocation and bonus fee to a maximum of $8,265 dollars in addition to the appraised value of the home; and the comments received regarding the Conversion Impact Report. Ms Nanda responded to questions pertaining to: relocation fees for those that stay to the final date of February 1, 2006; if an appraisal has been provided to every home owner as of this date; number of bonus relocation packages paid to date; if previous sellers of homes within the park would receive the additional funds if they sold their home for less than $22,500; how bonus dates were established in the report; if the applicant would be willing to add additional dates to the bonus timeline; were rents being paid during the relocation time period and how much rent was being paid.
Maria Nicholas, member of the public, spoke regarding the Conversion Impact Report and how her view of this process had changed. Ms. Nicholas noted that the whole process had been wearing on the residents and she asked the Council to approve the Conversion Impact Report tonight so they could move on. Ms Nicholas concluded by stating she hoped there would not be any litigation from residents or homeowners in the park and if there was any litigation, that their benefits not be delayed because of the pending litigation.
Marjorie Peters, member of the public, spoke regarding the conversion of the park. Ms. Peters felt it was time for replacing the park, noting that things were outdated and in disrepair. Ms. Peters thanked Dubrovnik for coming in, clearing out the empty homes and cleaning up the sites. Ms. Peters responded to a question relating to whether she was or was not a mobile home park resident.
Barbara Eheler, member of the public, spoke regarding the Conversion Impact Report, and asked the Council to pass the Conversion Impact Report. She concluded by noting that at her age it was not easy to move; but it was inevitable. She thanked Catholic Charities and Dubrovnik for their assistance during this process.
Jack Pollack, member of the public, spoke regarding his concerns about the closing of the park and the effect it would have on his residence at Rancho Mesa. Mr. Pollack asked about the future of his park, what the future held for him, and when a mobile home park lost its status as a mobile home park, was it based on the percentage of vacancies within the park.
Ronald Salazar, member of the public, spoke regarding the stress of the process and he indicated he hoped the process would not be delayed.
Wally Wiseman, member of the public, spoke regarding the Conversion Report. Mr. Wiseman felt they had been offered more than anyone else would have offered for the residence. Mr. Wiseman concluded by asking the Council to approve the report so they can move on.
Mayor Chu called Michael Durran to the podium to speak, and Mr. Durran declined.
Mitch Sewell, member of the public, spoke regarding the Conversion Impact Report. Mr. Sewell asked the plan to be rejected because: Centex removed the relocation plan off the table last month, violating the terms of the agreement; a resident was in the process of closing a deal when he heard the relocation plan was off the table and lost his offer; a coercive and hostile environment had been created within the park; Centex had turned those who want to move against those that did not want to move in a divide and conquer scenario; any action against Centex would cause the property owner to receive nothing; Centex’s moving of coaches out of the park without approval of the plan; the relocation plan would only be put back on the table if Council approved the Conversion Impact Report; and, he felt misled by the Council based on the summary comments given by Mayor Chu at the Council’s February meeting.
Monica Smith, representative for Assemblywoman Lieber, spoke indicating the Assemblywoman had been working on this issue in their office. Ms. Smith thanked the Council for their work and asked for their consideration of Assemblywoman Lieber’s comments in her letter to the Council on the matter.
Arthur Schwartz, member of the public, spoke regarding the Conversion Impact Report. Mr. Schwartz inquired about the requirements of the CIR and the twenty-five percent vacancy rate; when does the vacancy rate take effect, prior to the report or after adoption of the report; equal treatment of all residents; and, all residents should receive the entire bonus amount if they were trying to relocate but were unable to do so prior to the February 1st date.
Linda Hinze, member of the public, spoke regarding the Conversion Impact Report. Ms Hinze indicated that there was an additional offer if the CIR was approved through the Ordinance with the City and park residents still retained the right to sue if they should chose to deal with the City versus Centex Homes. Ms. Hinze indicated that people had not been allowed to buy homes within the park, causing the vacancy rate to increase.
Irene Dulfer, member of the public, spoke regarding the Conversion Impact Report. Ms. Dulfer indicated she had serious issues with the conduct of Catholic Charities in the park and had asked that they send the residents a letter about the miscommunication. Ms. Dulfer cited the Civil Code and the noticing requirements which begin after the issuance of permits, and if no permits are issued, there was a 12-month noticing requirement. Ms. Dulfer indicated the CIR simply states they have a 6-month noticing requirement which was different than what was cited in the Civil Code. Ms. Dulfer also cited information contained within the February staff report and asked why, if the General Plan was not being amended, how the residents could be given a termination notice once the CIR was approved.
Gary Scallisi, Golden State Mobile Home Owners League representative, spoke regarding the Conversion Impact Report and the appraisal process. Mr. Scallisi asked that the appraisal value be at 100% of market value as if the park was not going to close, and as if the park was in good condition, noting the current condition of the park was in such a state because the park owner chose not to maintain the park. Mr. Scallisi noted that the vacancy rate was also caused by the park owner. Mr. Scallisi noted that Henry Heater, a lawyer in San Diego who specialized in mobile home park matters, stated that those park residents who could not sell their homes because the park was closing were being held hostage and had to sell their homes for $12,000 and, in all fairness, the matter should be revisited and they should receive a fair value for those homes. Mr. Scallisi responded to questions regarding the appraisal process and his request to have the home value being at fair market value as if the park was not closing and if a different standard should be established other than what is stated in the code; the fee paid to residents for the sale of their home before the adoption of the Conversion Impact Report; and, his opinion of the report before the Council tonight.
Bill Eckerline, member of the public, indicated he was a Plaza Del Rey resident. Mr. Eckerline felt the study would have an impact on other parks in the area and those residents in the other parks. Mr. Eckerline spoke regarding the vacancy rate and what had caused the vacancy rate, which included filling in the swimming pool and the lack of maintenance in the park. Mr. Eckerline concluded by noting that a precedence was being set if the Council approved the Conversion Impact Report.
Mariam Gosvini, project coordinator for Catholic Charities, spoke regarding the services they have been providing to the residents. Ms. Gosvini noted all residents had either been reached by the Catholic Charities or they had come into the office for information on the process. Ms. Gosvini stated there was no misconduct on the part of Catholic Charities and they would continue to help residents find the best housing available.
Javier Ruiz, member of the public, spoke regarding the process, his feelings and rights. Mr. Ruiz indicated the appraisal price for his house was $27,000 for a double-wide mobile home and it would be very difficult for him to find another double-wide unit in Sunnyvale for that price. Mr. Ruiz felt it was very hard for him to qualify for a home because his income needs to be three times the amount of the rent and on a retirement income that was difficult to achieve. Mr. Ruiz indicated he would like to stay in his current home and that the appraisal price was too low for his home.
Joanne Mangill, member of the public, spoke regarding the vacancy rate and how that caused the conversion report to be done based on a twenty-five percent vacancy rate. Ms. Mangill asked about the validity of the report, and why it was not written by an unbiased party rather than the developer’s representatives. Ms Mangill asked, if the report was only prepared from one angle, was it truly written to protect the residents or should there be alternatives offered in that report. Ms Mangill concluded by asking had the conversion report presented all alternatives, truly protecting the residents of the park and, she asked the Council to consider that when determining whether to approve the report.
Carol Anderson, member of the public and resident of Plaza Del Rey, spoke regarding her concern over the appraisals. Ms Anderson felt that the condition of the home, the location of the home within the park, the condition of the park, and the space rent was not taken into consideration when evaluating the value of the home. Ms Anderson indicated she wanted to see the residents of the park receive a fair amount for their homes. Ms Anderson responded to a question pertaining to: how would a lower space rental affect the value of the home.
Margaret Nanda responded to questions that were raised during public testimony pertaining to: requirement to sign a waiver; outside appraisals received by homeowners; appraisal process and ignoring the cloud of closure of the park; was consideration given for the condition of the park or was the condition of the park ignored; were three comparables used in the appraisal analysis; were the comparables used taken from homes within Oasis Park; how would the company handle an appraisal that came in higher than the company’s appraisal; what triggered the third appraisal comes and who hired that appraiser; what is the worse case scenario should a homeowner choose not to sell their home; when does the six month noticing period begin; the latest date a homeowner must move to receive the relocation fee and minimum of $22,500 for their home; would other external factors allow for an extension of time to the homeowner; does the change of use, vacancy rate, or the Conversion Impact Report trigger the six month noticing period; if a contract was signed to sell a home, does the signing of the contract preclude the homeowner from filing any type of legal action; was there a waiver or release rights if the homeowner accepted the bonus; if the homeowner accepted the baseline amount would they still be required to sign an agreement; number of double-wide units in the park; vacancy rate when Dubrovnik purchased the property; possibility of the homeowners’ association taking over ownership of the park; and, if there was a requirement of membership of the majority of owners in the park to form a homeowners association.
There being no further public testimony, Mayor Chu closed the public hearing at 9:38 p.m.
Vice-Mayor Swegles moved and Councilmember Hamilton seconded to approve staff’s recommendation, Alternative #1 – Certify that the Conversion Impact Report (CIR) meets the requirements of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code, Chapter 19.72. Motion carried 6 -1 with Councilmember Lee dissenting.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Chu called a recess at approximately 10:10 p.m.
Mayor Chu reconvened the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
|