Loading...
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-