HomeMy Public PortalAbout91-103 RESOLUTION NO. 91-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARSON AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 91-1401 DENYING MODIFICATION
OF THE APPROVAL OF RELOCATION IMPACT REPORT
NO. 5-89 FOR THE CLOSURE OF EL RANCHO
MOBILEHOME PARK AND MODIFYING CERTAIN
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
A. Future Estates, Inc. filed an application to
close E1 Rancho Mobilehome Park (the "Park") pursuant to
Section 9128.21 of the Carson Municipal Code and Government Code
Section 65863.7. At the time the application was filed and
heard, Future Estates was in escrow to purchase the Park. An
August 28, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 90-1341 approving Relocation Impact Report ("RIR") No. 5-89
for the closure of the Park subject to certain conditions pro-
viding relocation assistance to the residents displaced by the
closure. On November 6, 1990 the City Council held a duly
noticed public hearing on the appeal filed by Future Estates and
certain residents. After deliberations at the close of the
public hearing on November 6, 1990, the City Council announced
its intended decision to approve RIR No. 5-89 subject to certain
specified conditions providing relocation assistance to displaced
residents and directed staff to prepare a written resolution
setting forth its findings and decision. On February 5, 1991,
after a continuance requested by Future Estates, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 91-019 setting forth its findings and
approving RIR No. 5-89 subject to the conditions set forth
therein and previously specified orally on November 6, 1990.
B. Future Estates purchased the Park on
December 20, 1990 and transferred title to the Park to ISCO
Industries, Inc. on December 21, 1990, but retained an interest
in the Park. Future Estates and ISCO Industries, Inc. (the
"Applicants") filed an application to modify Resolution
No. 91-019. After a duly noticed hearing on the modification
application, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 91-1401 denying modification on July 23, 1991. The
Applicants filed an appeal to the City Council on August 8, 1991.
Section 2. The appeal was heard at a duly noticed
public hearing before the City Council on September 17, 1991.
Based on the evidence received at the hearing, both oral and
written, the City Council hereby finds:
A. Modification of an approved RIR is permitted
under Section 9128.21 G of the Zoning Ordinance when circum-
stances have changed or new information which could not
reasonably have been presented during the prior hearings is
discovered, compliance with the approved RIR imposes an
unexpected hardship on the applicant and modification will not
unreasonably prejudice the park residents.
B. The arguments presented by the Applicants
that the benefits imposed exceed those authorized by state law
and constitute a taking of its property were all heard and
910925 jlw 0500587 (5)
fvesofution tdo. 91-103/Page 2 of 4
considered at the hearings before the Planning Commission and
appeal hearings before the City Council which resulted in the
adoption of City Council Resolution No. 91-019. Therefore, these
arguments do not constitute new information, changed circum-
stances or evidence of hardship under Zoning Ordinance Section
9128.21 G and do not provide grounds for modification of
Resolution No. 91-019.
C. The fact that the Applicants filed a lawsuit
against the City challenging the validity of the conditions
imposed on the closure of the Park under Resolution No. 91-019
does not constitute new information, changed circumstances or
evidence of hardship under Zoning Ordinance Section 912$.21 G and
does not provide aground for modification of Resolution
No. 91-019.
D. The appraisal dated February 5, 1991, which
was submitted in support of the modification application, and
which values the property on which the Park is located at
$290,000 for use as a mobilehome park, is new information not
considered at the prior hearings. However, as the Applicants
admitted, it could have been submitted during the original
hearings before the Planning Commission and the appeal hearings
before the City Council. Further, the value of the land for use
as a mobilehome park is not relevant to the reasonableness or
legality of the relocation assistance required because the Park
is being closed and the residents evicted so that the property
can be developed for a more profitable use. As shoran by Planning
Commission Resolutions 90-1360 and 90-1351, the Applicants have
already received the discretionary approvals needed to construct
19 detached condominium units on the property and the Applicants
paid $730,000 for the property on December 20, 1990, after the
City Council announced its intent to impose the conditions set
forth in Resolution No. 91-019. Further, according to public
records, Future Estates transferred its title in the property to
ISCO Industries, Inc. for $1.7 million on December 21, 1990. The
appraisal for use as a mobilehome park does not constitute
changed circumstances or evidence of hardship under Carson
Municipal Code Section 9128.21G and does not provide a ground for
modification of Resolution No. 91-019.
E. The Applicants' claim that modification is
appropriate because they have not been treated the same as other
applicants for closure of a mobilehome park was not supported by
any evidence. A similar claim was made before the City Council
during the appeal hearings and was rejected as contrary to the
evidence at those hearings. This claim does not represent a
ground for modification under Carson Municipal Code Section
9128.21 G.
F. The Applicants testified that it is an
unnecessary hardship to require them to deposit $50,000 toward
the payment of relocation benefits before they give the six
months notice of termination required by state law as no resident
can be required to move before that notice is given. Residents
testified that they should be able to relocate before that date
and will be prevented from doing so unless they receive reloca-
tion payments to assist them with the costs involved. They
further testified that they have been unable to sell their homes
and move since the application to close the Park was first filed.
G. The relocation benefits required by City
Council Resolution No. 91-019 are fair and do not exceed the
reasonable costs of relocation. No evidence of changed circum-
stances or hardship arising from those benefits was presented by
910925 jlk 0500587 (5) -2-
Resolution No. 91-103/Page 3 of 4
the Applicants except to the limited extent that the timing of
the deposit of $50,000 in a fund for payment of relocation bene-
fits creates a problem for the Applicants. No unreasonable
prejudice will result to the Applicants or the residents if that
requirement is modified to defer the deposit until the Applicants
give the statutory notice of termination, provided that the
notice is given within six months of the date of this Resolution
and the Applicants disburse relocation payments to those
residents choosing to relocate prior to the time that notice is
given prior to vacating the Park upon assurances satisfactory to
the Director of Community Development or his designee that
arrangements to vacate the Park have been made and that advance
payment of relocation benefits is required to pay relocation
expenses, and in any event not later than three business days
after the date they vacate the Park.
Section 4. Based on the findings set forth in
Section 3, the City Council finds that there is no ground for
modification of City Council Resolution No. 91-019 except for the
effective dates of certain conditions and affirms Resolution
No. 91-019 with the following modifications:
A. The $50,000 deposit required by Section 6(H)
of Resolution No. 91-019 for the establishment of a fund for the
payment of relocation benefits may be deferred to the date the
Applicants give the residents the six months notice of termina-
tion required by state law, provided that: (1) such notice is
given in any event within six months of the date of this
Resolution and (2) any resident who wishes to relocate prior to
the date such notice is given or the six months notice period
expires shall be paid the relocation benefits required by
Resolution No. 91-019 prior to vacating the Park if assurances
satisfactory to the Director of Community Development or his
designee have been given that arrangements have been made to
vacate the Park and advance payment' of relocation benefits is
required to pay relocation costs, and in any event not later than
three business days of vacating the Park. Failure to timely pay
required benefits will require immediate deposit of the $504,000
and maintenance of that amount in the relocation benefits fund as
required by Resolution No. 91-019.
B. The Applicants shall agree to accept the
conditions of City Council Resolution No. 91-019, as modified by
this Resolution, by filing an Affidavit of Acceptance with the
Community Development Department within 30 days of the date of
this Resolution and submit proof to the Community Development
Department of the Recordation of the Affidavit of Acceptance in
the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. The six months
notice of termination shall not be given and no resident may be
required to vacate the Park before the Affidavit has been filed
and recorded. However, any failure of the Applicants to sign and
file such Affidavit of Acceptance with the Community Development
Department or to submit proof of recordation thereof in the
Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County shall not
defer or delay the obligations of Applicants provided for in
Section 4 A. of this Resolution. This Resolution shall
910925 jtw 0500557 (5) -3-
Resolution No. 91-103/Page 4 of 4
automatically lapse if the six months notice of termination is
not given within six months of the date of this Resolution.
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of
October, 1991.
Mayor of the C ty of Carson
ATTEST_
j
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r Assistant City Attory
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF CARSON )
1, Helen S. Kawagoe, City Clerk of the City of Carson, California, do hereby certify
that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
resolution, being Resolution No. 91-103 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council
of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 1st day of
October, 1991, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Muise, McDonald, and Mitoma
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Calas and DeWitt
City Clerk, City of Carson, C ifornia
910925 jlw 0500587 (5) -4-