HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Ebb Tide Project Relocation Impact Report for Property Located at 1560 Placentia Avenue (PA2014-151) - Supplemental MemoMemorandum
Received After Agenda Printed
January 27, 2015
Agenda Item No. 20
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949)644-3200
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner
Date: January 22, 2015
Re: Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park Relocation Impact Report Correspondence — Additional
Correspondence
You have received several letters regarding the review of the Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park
Relocation Impact Report ( "RIR ") which is on your January 27, 2015 meeting agenda. The
comment letters are attached, and staff has summarized and provided a response to each
concern. Additionally, the applicant responded to some of the issues raised and those two
letters are provided in the agenda packet (Alpert letters).
Mr. Szecsei dated January 14, 2015
Concern A: The RIR states the anticipated closure date is July 2015. This date is not
feasible given the status of the proposed development project.
Response: The July date is an estimation of when the property owner anticipated closing the
park at the time the RIR was prepared. The RIR may be revised; however, it is not necessary
as the residents will receive the statutory notices with required timeframes. Pursuant to State
law, the residents will be provided six months' or more written notice of termination of
tenancy, subsequent to the City approving all required permits for the change of use.
Concern B: The closure timing from Concern A is out of compliance, therefore, Paragon
Partners Ltd.'s (Paragon) opinion that the RIR is sufficient is incorrect and they should be
terminated with respect to further reviews of future draft R /Rs.
Response: See response to Concern A. It has been established that the timing language is
only an estimate and this does not mean that the RIR is not sufficient pursuant to State law.
Staff believes that Paragon has the experience and expertise to review the RIR in accordance
with applicable laws and requirements, and that their assertion that the RIR is sufficient
pursuant to the required State laws is sound.
Concern C: The applicant has presented two options as the only options available, including
a cooperation agreement which specifies relocation benefits in accordance with the RIR and a
voluntary relocation agreement, which is a separate and private agreement offered to
residents by the applicant. The applicant has used coercive tactics in an attempt to compel
residents to enter into the voluntary agreement under duress.
Response: The City Council's review is limited to the relocation benefits stated in the RIR.
Staff is aware that the applicant is offering alternative relocation agreements to residents, but
has not reviewed these agreements, and therefore, cannot comment on them.
Concern D: The details of the voluntary relocation agreements are not being disclosed.
Appraisals or other applicable criteria used in determining the additional compensation should
be included within the RIR to provide transparency to the Council.
Response: See Response to Concern C above.
Concern E: The specific timing of the payments should be included in the RIR. The
suggested payment schedule is similar to the Anchor Park closure in Costa Mesa, which
provided half of the payment 30 days prior to the move out date and half on the move out
date.
Response: A schedule of payment disbursement is a reasonable request, and could be
included in the RIR. However, the applicant has stated that Overland, Pacific, & Cutler, Inc.
will manage the payments and the applicant prefers not to specify exact payment dates
because payments can be delayed by issues outside the control of the applicant, including
failure to receive the necessary documentation from the residents.
Ms. Maier dated January 16, 2015
Concern F: The unprofessional treatment of the residents and lack of information from the
property owner and developer (applicant), including assumptions made about the residents
and behavior while securing the voluntary relocation (side) agreements. Additionally, there
has not been adequate communication throughout the process.
Response: It is unfortunate if residents feel they are not being treated with respect by the
applicant throughout this process. However, City staff has not been involved with the
voluntary relocation (side) agreements and concerns with those side agreements are not
included in the Council's review of the RIR.
Concern G: The amount of money offered was insufficient, and payments should be based
on the fair market value the homes to allow residents to purchase a similar home. A period of
rent relief should also be provided because most rent spaces will be higher.
2
Response: State law obligates the applicant to pay the residents for the reasonable cost of
relocation. The City's consultant believes that payment of the fair market value of a home is
above and beyond the requirements under State law to provide adequate housing in another
mobile home park and relocation costs. This would also apply to a period of rent relief.
Concern H: A payment timeline should be established to avoid misunderstandings.
Response: See Response to Concern E above.
Concern I: All documents including the RIR need to be in Spanish or a translator should be
provided.
Response: Issues such as language barriers and limited incomes will be addressed as part
of the services of the relocation consultant. The RIR is not intended to be a blueprint for a
specific solution for each household. The RIR is effective in tandem with the personalized
assistance. The applicant has provided translators and will continue to do so as necessary.
Additionally, the relocation staff will be able to provide Spanish language assistance.
Concern J: The language in the RIR includes a requirement (`must') to sign a voluntary
agreement.
Response: If something is required, then it is not voluntary. The language could be amended
for clarification so that a voluntary agreement is not a requirement. There may be some
confusion between the cooperation agreement to be signed as part of the RIR and the
voluntary relocation (side) agreement. The applicant is available to address this concern.
Mr. Szecsei dated January 16, 2015
Concern K: Communication regarding the RIR should have been provided in Spanish.
Response: See Response to Concern I above.
Mr. Wolf dated January 21, 2015
Concern L: Timing of park closure.
Response: See Response to Concern A above
Concern M: Other RIRs prepared have included the appraised value of the homes
Response: See response to Concern G above regarding appraised value. Specific RIRs that
included payments based on appraised value may have been done for various reasons,
including applicable municipal code requirements. As stated previously, the City's consultant
believes that payment of the fair market value of a home is above and beyond the
requirements under State law to provide adequate housing in another mobile home park and
relocation costs.
Concern N: The timing of payments is not included.
Response: See Response to Concern E above.
Concern O: Spanish language translation not provided.
Response: See Response to Concern I above.
Mr. Wolfe dated January 21, 2015
Concern P: Feeling of deception by the park owner.
Response: Mr. Wolfe's comments are noted for Council consideration.
Concern Q: Amount of money being offered is not adequate or fair, and should be based on
the fair market value.
Response: See Response to Concerns G and M above.
Conclusion
To ensure a thorough and proper review of the RIR, the City retained an expert and
independent consultant to conduct the review. At the conclusion of the review, Paragon
Partners has determined that the RIR is sufficient pursuant to State law. However, it is
important to note that the City Council is the final review authority regarding the RIR's
adequacy.
Attachments: Correspondence
4
January 13, 2015
Re: Relocation Impact Report
Ebb Tide Project
November 26, 2014
PA — 2014 -151
To the City Council of Newport Beach:
V ceiveo Qr
JAN fl t 2015
°ter DcvEtoarrEnrr ,Z.
OP V wPop, b�F
As a homeowner in the Ebbtide Mobile Home Park (Park), this will serve as my submission and
rebuttal to both the November 26, 2014 Relocation Impact Report (RIR) for the Ebb Title Project
as well as the December 17, 2014 Review of the RJR by Paragon Partners, Ltd. (Paragon). For
ease of reference and to facilitate your analysis, I have categorized some of the more
predominant issues and problems in the RIR into separate issues.
ISSUE 1
Page 12 of the RIR states: "The owner anticipates the Park closing in July 2015."
Excerpt from December 17, 2014 Paragon report on its review of Draft RIR for the Ebb Tide
Project (MRL 798.56 (g) (2)- Exhibit G)):
After all required permits requesting a change of use have been approved by the local
governmental board, commission or body, the owner shall give the homeowners six (6)
months or more written notice of termination of tenancy, If the change of use requires no
local governmental permits, then notice shall be given twelve (12) months or more prior to
the owner's determination that a change of use will occur.
Please see Notice of Incomplete Filing (Exhibit A) dated October 22, 2014 from the City of
Newport Beach Community Development Department. The second to the last paragraph states:
"Please note that the City will retain a consultant, at the applicant's expense, to conduct the
environmental review of the proposed project and the Traffic Study. Staff remains concerned
about the overall plan related to the amount of open spaces provided, excessive building height,
and the number and location of guest parking spaces. We have provided guidance in an effort to
enhance the project; however, efforts to address staff s concerns have been insufficient and may
lead to staff to recommend against the proposal as currently proposed."
Since October 22, 2014, there has been no update to PA — 2014 — 110 by the applicant, and the
filing is expected to remain incomplete as of January 27, 2015 and also January 31, 2015.
I have been informed that the initial Study Sessions by the Planning Department of the Traffic
Study and /or the Environmental review of the proposed project have not even been tentatively
scheduled yet, and the soonest they could occur might be sometim,e in February 2015.
I assert that the only legal means to close the park in "July 2015" would require that all of the
permits to have been granted no later than January 31, 2015 (i.e. 6 months prior to July 31,
2015). Since the file (PA 2014 -110) and related application are expected to be incomplete on
January 31, 2015, how is it legally possible to close the park in July 2015, since it is impossible
for the permits to be granted by January 31, 2015?
I assert that the draft RIR dated November 26, 2014, as submitted to the City Council and mailed
to the Ebbtide Homeowners on January 12, 2015 is not sufficient and has not met the
requirements of the MRL, since the July 2015 anticipated Park closure date is in not in
accordance with MRL Section 798.56 (g) (2).
One possible alternative might be for a future draft RIR to read "The Owner anticipates the Park
closing on the later of [a] July 27, 2015, or [b] six months after all required permits
requesting a change of use have been approved by the local gone' rnmental board,
commission, or body, including the required land use permits /entitlement approvals from
the City" rather than "The Owner anticipates the Park closing in July 2015." Language based
upon Costa Mesa (Anchor Park) 2013 RIR excerpt below:
2.3 Park Closure
As discussed throughout the Deport, the Park will cease operating as a mobilehomelrecreational vehicle
Park. Under applicable state laws, the carliest datc that the Park can officially close is the date'that is six (6)
months after the Proposed Owner has obtained the required land use approvals from the City of Costa Mesa
for the proposed project on the site. The Proposed Owncr commits that the Park closure date will be the
er of (i) August 24, 2013 or (ii) six (6) months after obtaining the required laud use perraitsiendilentent
approvals from the City (" Closure Pate "), which date is the final date all residents must, vacate the Park. Tt
is osthrtated that the date that is six (6) months after the Proposed Owner reocived its land use approvals
inay occur before August 24, 2013; however, the Proposed Owner has committed that the Closure Date will
not be sooner than August 24, 2013, Upon receipt of the approvals for the change of use front the City of
Costa Mesa, the Proposed Owner will send each resident household, within the Park a formal notice of the
actual Closure Date and a notice of termination of tenancy pursuant to California Civil Code Section 798,
et seq., which is commonly known as the Mobilehome .Residency Law ( "MRV),
ISSUE 2
Excerpt from December 17, 2014 Paragon report on its review of Draft RIR for the Ebb Tide
Proj act
In summary, replacement housing was thoroughly researched, and important fActors such as
space rent and prohibitions on age and size of mobile homes were included, A plethora of
alternative housing was also identified, in the form of various low density and multifamily
dwellings. Given the relocation payments available, and the general availability of housing
options and price and rental cost ranges, it appears that 1here is sU icient replacement housing,
The Draft RIR Is sufficient and meets the requirements of the MRL and California Government
Assuming the City Council agrees with my assertion in ISSUE 1, I respectfully propose that
Paragon be terminated by the Planning Department as the Expert Consultant with respect to
further reviews of future draft RIRs. Since Paragon concluded that "The Draft RIR is sufficient
and meets the requirements of the MRL... ", and that conclusion is upheld as incorrect, how
could any further reviews of future draft RIRs by Paragon be expected to have integrity, and
being worthy of the Planning Department and the City Council placing reliance on this Expert
Consultant and any future reports issued by such Consultant?
ISSUE 3
Page 12 of the RIR states: "The recipients must also enter into a voluntary relocation agreement
(cooperation agreement), which specifies relocation benefits in accordance with this report."
Page 3 of the VOLUNTARY RELOCATION AGREEMENT (Exhibit B) states: "In the event
(i) the RIR submitted to the City is found sufficient without material changes in the relocation
benefits provided thereunder, and (ii) all material components of the residential subdivision
project described in the RIR submitted to the City ( "Entitlements ") are approved either
unconditionally or with the conditions acceptable to Owner and a conforming final ordinance or
resolution is adopted by the City prior to May 31, 2015, then in consideration for Resident (i)
terminating and vacating his or her tenancy before the Termination date pursuant to paragraphs 1
and 2 above, (ii) permanently vacating the Homesite and Park, and (iii) removing the
Mobilehome from the Homesite and the Park on or before the Termination Date, subject to .
Section 3 of this Agreement, Resident shall receive a payment in the sum of $20,000, within 10
business days after permanently vacating the Homesite and Park."
Mr. Sunti Kumjim has presented Exhibit B, along with the draft RIR dated November 26, 2014,
as the only two options that I have.
Black's Law Dictionary defines coercion as:
"Compulsion; constraint; compelling by force or arms or threat. It may be actual, direct, or
positive, as where physical force is used to compel act against one's will, or implied, legal or
constructive, as where one party is constrained by subjugation to other to do what his free will
would refuse. As used in testamentary law, any pressure by which testator's action is restrained
against his free will in the execution of his testament. "Coercion" that vitiates confession can be
mental as well as physical, and question is whether accused was deprived of his free choice to
admit, deny, or refuse to answer."
Black's Law Dictionary defines duress as:
"..." "A condition where one is induced by wrongful act or threat of another to make contract
under circumstances which deprive him of exercise of his free will: "includes any conduct which
overpowers will and coerces or constrains performance of an act which otherwise would not
have been performed. "... "One who, under the pressure of an unlawful threat from another
human being to harm him (or to harm a third person), commits what would otherwise be a crime
may, under some circumstances, be justified in doing what he did and thus not be guilty of the
crime in question."
I assert that Mr. Kumjim has used coercive tactics in an attempt to compel me to agree to enter
into the agreement (memorialized as Exhibit B) under duress by presenting a non - compliant
(please see ISSUE 1) draft RIR dated November 26, 2014 as my only other alternative.
I have pointed out the non- compliance of the RIR to Mr. Kumjim numerous times, and
requested him to provide me with a compliant RIR before I make a decision, and he has refused
my numerous requests. My only hope is to humbly and respectfully beg the City Council to
consider my rebuttals.
ISSUE 4
Page 11 of the RIR states:
b) In situations where it is not feasible to relocate the mobile home, payment
MI be provided as follows:
t. A fixed payment to the mobile home owner to abandon the unit in
place, or remove the mobile home at their own cost, provided the
mobile home owner signs a cooperation agreement that terminates
any tenancy /occupancy and permanently vacates the Park. Payments
to be made as follows:
- For units 540 SF or less, a payment of $9,000
- For units 600 SF -912 SF, a payment of $14,500
- For units 960 SF -1,344 SF, a payment of $15,700
From speaking with various Homeowners, it is my understanding that certain Homeowners are
being offered a VOLUNTARY RELOCATION AGREEMENT which differs significantly and
materially from the VOLUNTARY RELOCATION AGREEMENT presented as Exhibit B.
There is no transparency provided in the RIR to explain why certain homeowners are
compensated with as much as $50,000 to $99,500 each, while the vast majority are compensated
with $29,000 to $35,700 each. If the differences are based upon appraisals and /or in -place value
provided to certain Homeowners, why can't the appraisals and any other applicable criteria used
and explanations be included within the RIR to provide transparency to the City Council to have
all facts reasonably available in making the review and decision?
I assert that by keeping each of the 52 VOLUNTARY RELOCATION AGREEMENTS details
excluded from the RIR, the applicant is not providing adequate transparency to allow the City
Council to determine if all of the homeowners are being treated equally with respect to the
compensation required by page 11 of the RIR, which is based upon square footage of the
home... period. If there are other attributes being considered in determining reasonable and
appropriate compensation, these attributes should be documented within the RIR to provide
transparency for the review process by the City Council, in order to determine if these attributes
have been measured and applied consistently and fairly for all of the Homeowners.
I propose that the applicant be compelled to include all 52 Homeowners' VOLUNTARY
RELOCATION AGREEMENTS within the RIR to allow adequate transparency to allow the
City Council to make an appropriate review of the RIR, since the reference on page 12 of the
RIR incorporates this document as a material component of the RIR by usage of the word
"must ", implying there is no alternative or other option.
ISSUE 5
The payment schedule on page 11 of the RIR does not contain a timeline of the payment dates.
There is no transparency provided with respect to the dates that the'homeowners can expect to
receive the compensation that they have been promised. The language infers that the
homeowner must fulfill requirements of the RIR in exchange for an IOU and a promise that the
check will be in the mail if and when we decide we will issue the payment.
Page 12 of the RIR states "Requests for funds will be timely processed in a reasonable manner
and signed acknowledgements of receipt of payments will be maintained in individual relocation
files." No meaningful details are provided with respect to actual dates that the homeowners can
expect to receive the compensation they have been promised, and the language is vague and
subject to interpretation.
Page 14 of the RIR states:
5. The relocation specialist will issue benefit checks, which will be available
at their offices for pick -up, delivered personally or mailed, depending on
circumstances;
6. A final payment will be issued after confirmation that the resident has
completely vacated the Park;
7. Receipts of payment will be obtained and maintained in the relocation
case file.
There is no mention of any specific dates that the Homeowner can expect to receive
compensation from the applicant, and the language used is vague with respect to the timing and
the expected dates of actual payment to the homeowner.
I propose that a transparent payment timeline be memorialized, including details of dates and
timeline specifications, within the RIR to allow City Council to review the appropriateness,
reasonableness and conformity of such with the law.
Please see excerpts below from the Anchor Park closure (City of Costa Mesa during 2013) in
which specific dates and timetables are established in order to provide reasonable transparency
for the City Council to review for appropriateness and conformity with the law.
To summarise the Eligible Residents' payments and the timing, see below chant.
Prior to Commencement
Dater
30 Days Prior to
Eligible Resident's
Move Out Date 28
On Move Out Date
Relocation
Benefits Not Nid;
f. ofFUND Amount
Remaining 'Fa of FUND Amount;
Option 'l
Eligible Resident meets
Per Diem; Personal Property
with Relocation Assistant
moving costs (if select •to do
to review Relocation
directly). All third party costs paid
options
directly to company(ies) handling
i
service.
.fFelocation T
Benefits Not Paid;
%x of FUND ?unount
Remaining V %of FUND Amount; j
Optiun 2
Eligible Resident meets
Cash equivalent ofRcsideattial
with Relocation Assistant
Stracture Moving Costs; Per Diem .
to review Relocation _ _
Amount; Salvage Value of
ISSUE 6
I have been informed by Mr. Kumjim that some or all of the voluntary relocation agreements
(please see page 12 of RIR) will be still in draft stage as of January 27, 2015. How could the
City Council be expected to make a determination of the compliance of the RIR with State Law
if a material component of the RIR is still under draft on January 27, 2015?
I propose that the applicant be compelled to complete its drafting of the voluntary relocation
agreements which are required (usage of the word must) by the RIR and reach a final issuance
stage to be incorporated into a future version of the applicant's RIR, and include each of the
final documents as Exhibits, rather than keeping the City Council, Ebbtide Homeowners and the
general public in the dark by providing absolutely nothing in writing with respect to the
voluntary relocation agreements which must be entered into by the Homeowners per the
November 26, 2014 draft RIR page 12.
Please note that this submission is not exhaustive and I expressly reserve my right to challenge
any other deficiencies within the RIR that are not mentioned herein. I also reserve any and all
administrative, legal and equitable rights and remedies to challenge any subsequent decisions of
the City with regards to the change of use and /or closure of the Park. I do appreciate your time
and respectfully request your detailed consideration of these issues: Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted,
David A. Szecsei
David A. Szecsei, Homeowner in the Park
Enclosures
Options
Residential 5truct ire based on
hide pendent oompan 's schedule
Relocation
Benefits Not Paid;
'A of FUND Amount
Remaining % of FUND .Amount;
Option 3
Eligible Resident meets
Per Diem; appraisal value of
with Relocation Assistant
to review Relocation
Options
Residential Structure
Non-Eligible
Residents
Benefits Not Paid
%of Moving Stipend
Remaining ' /a ofMTVingStipend
ISSUE 6
I have been informed by Mr. Kumjim that some or all of the voluntary relocation agreements
(please see page 12 of RIR) will be still in draft stage as of January 27, 2015. How could the
City Council be expected to make a determination of the compliance of the RIR with State Law
if a material component of the RIR is still under draft on January 27, 2015?
I propose that the applicant be compelled to complete its drafting of the voluntary relocation
agreements which are required (usage of the word must) by the RIR and reach a final issuance
stage to be incorporated into a future version of the applicant's RIR, and include each of the
final documents as Exhibits, rather than keeping the City Council, Ebbtide Homeowners and the
general public in the dark by providing absolutely nothing in writing with respect to the
voluntary relocation agreements which must be entered into by the Homeowners per the
November 26, 2014 draft RIR page 12.
Please note that this submission is not exhaustive and I expressly reserve my right to challenge
any other deficiencies within the RIR that are not mentioned herein. I also reserve any and all
administrative, legal and equitable rights and remedies to challenge any subsequent decisions of
the City with regards to the change of use and /or closure of the Park. I do appreciate your time
and respectfully request your detailed consideration of these issues: Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted,
David A. Szecsei
David A. Szecsei, Homeowner in the Park
Enclosures
EXHIBIT "A"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
100 Civic Center Drive, 15,0. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644-3229
www.newportbeaehca. gov
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE FILING
October 22,2014
Ebb Tide, LLC
Attn: Sunti Kumjim
PO Box 19583
Irvine, CA 92623
skumjim@ebbtidelic.com
VIA EMAIL
rrent as
/7/2015 (per Fern,
igner of this letter)
nd expected to be
urrent as of
/27/2015
Application No. PA2014 -110
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2014 -002
• Site Development Review No. SD2014 -004
• Traffic Study No. T82014.007
. Planned.Community Development Plan No. PC2014 -003
• Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2014 -006
1 Address 1560 Placentia Avenue
In response to a Notice of Incomplete Filing dated July 18, 2014, you submitted
additional information on September 24, 2014. Please be advised that after review of
this information, the submittal was only partially responsive and it has been determined
that further information Is required and your application remains incomplete.
Please be advised that in the July 18th incomplete letter and in previous discussions,
staff expressed concerns regarding height, design, parking, and open space. While
your proposed Planned Community Development Plan attempts to address height,
design, and lot size, staff still has concerns about. the project and the process. The
project does not meet the intent of the Planned Community District Procedures as
established by Zoning Code Chapter 20.56 of providing for the classification and
development of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects in order to take advantage
of the superior environment resulting from large -scale community planning; allowing
diversification of uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental
arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions
of this Zoning Code; and inclusion of various types of uses, consistent with the General
Plan through the adoption of a development plan and text materials that identify land
use relationships and associated development standards.
The following documentation is required to complete the application:
1 1. Revise the project description to include creation of a Planned Community District.
Include a narrative in support for waiving the minimum acreage requirement and how
the proposed project meets the purpose of Chapter 20.56 (Planned Community
District Procedures) (described above).
W
2. In order to approve the proposed Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review,
( 1 certain findings must first be made. Revise the project description. to include a
J narrative supporting the required findings (Municipal Code Sections 19:12.070,
20:52.080; and 20.30.080) and justifying the additional height requested. .
3. include within the project description the intended creation of a Homeowners
Association; applicable Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; and any easements
such as landscaping and parking.
4. Provide a Materials Board.
5. Submit the alternate design previously discussed that provides a driveway and
landscape buffer to the abutting industrial property in the City of Costa Mesa.
Provide a description and analysis of why the. proposed design is superior to the
alternative design and why the alternative plan was rejected,
6. Submit a drainage analysis for review for the proposed storm drain. The proposed
storm drain on Placentia Avenue must be constructed per City Standards. The
storm drain on -site must be privately maintained. Catch basins will likely be located
at the intersection of the entry street and Placentia Avenue.
Please note that the City will retain a consultant, at the applicant's expense, to conduct
the environmental review of the proposed project and the Traffic Study. Staff remains
concerned about the overall plan related to the amount of open space provided,
excessive building height, and the number and location of guest parking spaces. We
have. provided guidance in an effort to enhance the project; however, efforts to address
staffs concerns have been insufficient and may lead staff to recommend against the
proposal as current) proposed.
Upon verification of completion, the application will continue to be processed and will be
tentatively scheduled for a Planning Commission Meeting. Should you have any
questions regarding submittal requirements, please contact Fern Nueno, Associate
Planner at (949) 644 -3227, fnueno @newportbeachca.gov. Thank you.
0
eno.Assoti.aW4.1 IattPiaf
c:
The Totah Family Partnership
34700 Pacific Coast Highway, 303
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
ffp_mgmt @yahoo.com
October 22, 2014
Page 2
EXHIBIT "B"
Not provided
EXHIBIT 44(_;99
See Attachment No. CC 6
January 16, 2015
To: Fern Nueno, Newport Beach Planning Commission
And Newport Beach City Council
From: June C. Maier
Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park HOA Secretary
Gifted and Talented Specialist (retired)
Our Lady Queen of Angels R.0 Church parishioner and member of three
ministries
Grandmother of seven
Members of the Commission and the City Council;
My personal background in Ebb Tide MHP:
In 2008 1 retired from teaching in Las Vegas, NV, to move to Newport Beach
because my daughter, Laura Zublin, (resident of the Port Streets) needed my
help after the birth of the fourth child in the family. After looking for years to
purchase a mobile home, I located my single -wide 1958 Rod n' Reel "trailer"
Space C1 in Ebb Tide MHP. It was 400 sq ft with a small yard next to the pool,
across from the entrance and the manager. It was all I had looked for; security,
independence, gardening, exercise, and room for my Westie and cats, all
wrapped up in mid - century charm! And the price was right, fitting my small
teacher's pension.
More background on Ebb Tide closure:
In July 2014 the manager came to me asking what I could find out about the
rumors people were asking him. He said that people were saying our park was
sold, we would all be evicted, and new homes were going in here. I told him to
call Joe La Barbera, the son in law of Ray Totah, the owner and ask him. This he
declined to do. So I went to the woman who started the rumors and got Fern's
name and called her. She confirmed the basic facts.
In Augusta Homeowners' Association was formed and registered with NB City
Clerk as a legal entity. Many meetings were held and the residents were able to
vent their own situations, feelings, and exchange ideas.
The rest is a history of more rumors, lies from Joe, some information from Fern
which was all we had to go on, and a couple of vague and misleading letters
from Sunti Kumjim who represented "Ebb Tide LLC ". There was one public
meeting in October with OPC explaining how this would transpire. Residents
were upset due to the information that not only would they be forced to move,
they would be given a pittance in comparison to the equity they had put into their
homes, some over decades.
My comments on the RIR and the events of the park closure:
• Totally unprofessional treatment of the situation on the part of the Totah
Family Partnership and the developer MDK Irvine and their employee
Sunti
• Lack of information forthcoming from owner TFP, including Joe L. telling
residents bold -faced lies about the sale of the park
• The first RIR offering residents 10 -15k for homes worth way more was
iaughable as well as insulting
• Belief that because the majority of residents were low and moderate
income, some seniors, some Spanish speaking, some deaf, some living
from paycheck to paycheck, that they were not smart enough or
interested enough to be dealt with as NB citizens in other parts of town
would be treated
• Telling residents at a public meeting that they would be dealing with the
OPC employees as was standard operating procedure in a park closure,
but then Sunti walking around the park, speaking to people without an
appointment, offering secret deal verbally if they would move out by Jan.
1, 2015
• This coercive deal was never in writing, but served to further infuriate the
residents because it was an additional 20k, double the pittance, but still
not enough to purchase a new mobile or even pay off a mortgage
• When asked why the settlement couldn't be 60k to 100k to reflect "in place
value" Sunti said because then developer would not make profit since he
was paying Totah Family so much for land- rumored to be 40M
My comments on what needs to happen for this RIR to be more acceptable:
• to help mitigate the impact on the residents who are losing their
homes that they have invested in over the years, they need to receive
an independently done appraised "FAIR MARKET VALUE" so they
could go to a nearby MHP and have a large enough down payment to
purchase a similar home
• most space rents will be higher so an additional period of "rent relief'
reflecting the difference should be paid
• a timeline which clearly states when and how the settlement is
distributed so no possible misunderstanding is possible
• all documents, including the RIR, need to be in Spanish for the 10
households that need them, or a representative of OPC verbally
translate each page and explain it
• remove wording like "a voluntary relocation agreement MUST be
signed..."
• More communication, communication, communication...
Respectfully submitted by June C. Maier 0111612015
January 15, 2015
Dear Ms. Nueno:
I am writing to request that a very important issue be added to my original letter
containing 6 issues as the 7`h issue.
I am enclosing a copy of State of California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal
Guide K -4 FOREIGH LANGUAGE TRANSLATION OF CONSUMER CONTRACT dated
May 2012 (the "Legal Guide ") which states (following 5 paragraphs extracted from the
enclosure):
A person in a trade or business, who negotiated primarily in the Spanish, Chinese,
Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean language in the course of entering into a contract with
a consumer, must give the consumer a written translation of the proposed contract in
the language of the negotiations (California Civil Code section 1632).
The purpose of the law is to insure that Californians who speak a language other than
English have a genuine opportunity to read the foreign - language translation of any
proposed contract that has been negotiated primarily in that language, and to consult
with other, before the contract is signed. It is never sufficient for the seller or creditor to
give the foreign - language- speaking person the translation after he or she has executed
(signed) the contract.
The law requiring translation of contracts negotiated in a language other than English
applies to:
Contracts for the rental, lease or sublease of apartments or other dwellings (including
mobile homes) for period longer than one month.
The foreign - language translation need not be given in the following kinds of
transactions: ...Contracts in which the foreign language- speaking consumer has
negotiated the contract through his or her own interpreter (with limitations, see below).
However, the last exception applies only if the consumer's interpreter is able to speak
fluently and read with full understanding both the English and the foreign language. In
addition, the interpreter cannot be a minor (under 18 years of age). Nor may the
interpreter be employed or made available by or through the person engaged in the
trade or business.
Beginning with the initial letter from the developer announcing the initial outreach
meeting, no communications have ever been provided in Spanish, including the RIR
nor the 15 day advance notice to the residents about the City Council meeting on
January 27, 2015.
According to June Maier, Secretary of the Ebbtide Mobile Homeowners Association,
there are approximately 10 households which are English as a second language with
the primary language being Spanish. June is compiling a list of the applicable space
numbers to have for you Monday morning and also at the January 27 City Council
meeting. This is a by- product from her research which led her to print Homeowners
Association notices to residences in both English and Spanish on a routine basis. I
believe that many of the translators for the English as a second language adult
residents, both homeowners and renters, have been minors.
Since the RIR terminates the rental of tenancy of residents who have resided at Ebbtide
Mobile Home Park on a long -term basis for a minimum of one year and as long as 25
years or more, I assert that the attachment is be relevant to the RIR, and any related
legally required communications.
I respectfully request that this letter and enclosure be added to my previously submitted
"6 issue" letter and Enclosures.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
David Szecsei, one of the Ebbtide Homeowners
Enclosure
Legal Guide K -4
6TATE AND CONSUMER BERV CE6 AGENCY • GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Legal Affairs -
1625 North Market Blvd., Suite S 309, Sacramento, CA 95834 �°'
www.dca.ca.gov
FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION OF
CONSUMER CONTRACTS
May 2012
A person in a trade or business, who negotiates primarily in the Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog,
Vietnamese, or Korean language in the course of entering into a contract with a consumer, must
give the consumer a written translation of the proposed contract in the language of the
neeotiationEThe translation must be an accurate translation of every term and condition in the
contract or agreement. This requirement of California law applies whether the negotiations are
conducted orally or in writing. This section does not apply to contracts negotiated in any of the
above languages if the consumer has an interpreter.2
The foreign language translation must be given to the consumer before the consumer signs
the contract. The seller or creditor must give the consumer the foreign- language translation
whether or not the consumer requests it. The foreign - language translation must include the
proposed contract terms, such as purchase price, finance charges, payment amount, etc.
The purpose of the law is to insure that Californians who speak a language other than
English have a genuine opportunity to read the foreign - language translation of any proposed
contract that has been negotiated primarily in that language, and to consult with others, before
the contract is signed. It is never sufficient for the seller or creditor to give the foreign-language-
speaking person the translation after he or she has executed (signed) the contract.
If a trade or business that is required to provide a foreign - language translation fails to do so,
the consumer can rescind (cancel) the contract or agreement, in which event the law governing
cancellation of contracts will apply.3 The consumer can cancel the contract even if it has been
assigned to a financial institution; but in that event, the consumer must look to the original trade
or business for a return of the amounts he or she has paid. If the consumer received any goods,
the goods must be returned to the original trade or business.
If a consumer rescinds, the consumer need not pay the financial institution that has received
an assignment of the contract. Instead, the financial institution is entitled to return the contract to
the original trade or business, and to recover from the original trade or business anything it has
paid to the trade or business.
The law requiring translation of contracts negotiated in a language other than English
applies to:
Credit sale contracts involving consumer goods and services of all kinds, including
automobile purchases and leases;
• Virtually all loans or other extensions of credit for use primarily for personal, family or
household purposes, except loans secured by real property;
Consumer loans secured by real property, if arranged by a real estate loan broker, or
made by a personal finance company;
• Contracts for the rental, lease or sublease of apartments or other dwellings (including
mobile homes) for a period longer than one month. (Month -to -month and week -to-
week rental contracts are not covered);
Contracts involving the payment of fees or charges for legal services furnished by
lawyers;
• Reverse mortgages; and
• Mortgage foreclosure consulting contracts.
The foreign - language translation need not be given in the following kinds of transactions:
• Home improvement contracts.
• Contracts involving a seller who is not engaged in a trade or business.
• Contracts in which the foreign language- speaking consumer has negotiated the contract
through his or her own interpreter (with limitations, see below).
However, the last exception applies only if the consumer's interpreter is able to speak
fluently and read with full understanding both the English and the foreign language. In addition,
the interpreter cannot be a minor (under 18 years of age). Nor may the interpreter be employed
or made available by or through the person engaged in the trade or business.
At the same time and place where any contract is entered into following negotiations
primarily in one of the foreign languages listed above, a notice of the consumer's rights must be
displayed. This notice must be written in the language of the negotiation and must be
conspicuously displayed. The notice must inform consumers of their rights under this law.
This notice need only be displayed at those locations where the foreign language is used.
(The notice is not required to be given by providers of legal services or those who make or
arrange loans secured by real property.)
The business must give the consumer a foreign - language translation of the original contract
and any subsequent documents that modify the original contract or substantially change the
rights and obligations of the parties. A notice of repossession and deficiency under Civil Code
section 2983.2 is a document that substantially affects a consumer's rights under an automobile
financing contract.
However, the law does not require a foreign - language translation for any later documents
authorized by or expected to be made under the original contract or its modifications. Examples
of those documents which need not be translated include periodic statements, sales slips,
invoices, add -on sales, or refinancings that are provided by or made pursuant to the original
contract.
If the contract involves a loan made by a "supervised financial organization" such as a bank,
savings association, credit union or personal finance company, the organization need only
provide a foreign - language translation of the credit disclosures required by the federal Truth in
Lending Act. A foreign- language translation of the remainder of the contract need not be
provided. Thus, the foreign - language translation need only include the amount financed, the
annual percentage rate, the amount and due dates of the payments and other relevant credit
information — the most relevant details that the average consumer would be likely to consider
before signing a contract.
The rule is different in the case of preprinted automobile lease contracts provided to dealers
by prospective assignees, such as banks or leasing companies. The prospective assignee must
provide a Spanish - language translation of the entire lease contract to the dealer upon the dealer's
request.' The dealer then provides this translation to the Spanish - speaking customer.
In interpreting a contract subject to the foreign - language translation law, the signed English
contract determines the rights and duties of the parties. However, if there is a substantial
difference between the English contract and the foreign- language translation, the law states that
this may show that no contract was ever entered into.
All cosigners of consumer credit contracts must receive notice of their obligations in English
and Spanish and/or the language in which the consumer contract is written (if not in English or
Spanish) prior to them becoming obligated under the contract.6 The same is true for cosigners on
vehicle leases .7 NOTE: This does not apply if the cosigner is married to the individual for who
he /she is cosigning.
A Patients' Bill of Rights translated into Spanish, Chinese, and certain other languages must
be made available to all patients speaking those languages living in long -term health care
facilities, including skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, and nursing facilities.s
The provisions relating to verification of Spanish - language translations of contracts by the
Department of Consumer Affairs were repealed in 2001.9
NOTICE: We attempt to make our legal guides accurate as of the date of publication, but
they are only guidelines and not definitive statements of the law. Questions about the law's
application to particular cases should be directed to a specialist.
This document is available on the department's website at www.dca.ca.gov. This document
may be copied if all of the following conditions are met: the meaning of the copied text is not
changed; credit is given to the Department of Consumer Affairs; and all copies are distributed
free of charge.
Prepared by: Richard A. Elbrecht, Supervising Attorney, Marla L. Scharf, Staff Counsel, Legal
Services Unit. Last updated May 2012 by Claire Yazigi, Attorney.
ENDNOTES
1. Civil Code section 1632.
2. Civil Code section 1632(h).
3. Civil Code sections 1688 et seq.
4. Reyes v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App. 3d 159, 162 [173 Cal.Rptr. 267, 268].
5. Civil Code section 2991.
6. Civil Code section 1799.91 (a), (b).
7. Civil Code section 1799.91(d).
8. Health & Safety Code section 1599.61.
9. Statutes 2001, chapter 306 (AB 446).
From:
Saul E. Wolf
To:
Nueno, Fern
Cc:
"David Szecsei"
Subject:
Ebbtide Mobile Home Park - Recap
Date:
Wednesday, ]anuary 21, 2015 11:36:44 AM
Attachments:
CaoistranoTerrace 2008.odf
anchor park closure costa mesa (2).odf
Importance: High
Hi Fern:
This will follow our conversation of today's date. Thanks again for taking the time to speak with me.
As we discussed, the timing issue is one of the primary concerns to my clients. I understand the
developer's position that the July 2015 date was merely an estimate. However, that is the only date
that these residents have seen and are relying upon regarding the closure of the Park. I would
reiterate the request that the date be spelled out to provide the residents some assurance and
understanding.
In addition to the timing issue, the lack of appraisals and /or fair market value evaluations of the
mobile homes are glaring omissions from the currently proposed RIR. Appraisals need to be
performed (similar to those referenced in the attached reports) and the RIR needs to revised to
encompass those valuations so that the residents are adequately compensated for their
"replacement housing" under the applicable MRL statutes. Note: It is interesting that both Overland
Pacific, & Cutler and Paragon Partners were involved in the preparation of the attached relocation
reports for the SJC parks, both of which contain appraisals; however, neither entity mention any
such appraisals with regards to Ebbtide Mobile Home Park.
With regards to the SJC City Ordinance as the purported "difference' between the SJC reports and
the Ebbtide report, I would submit that that is a distinction without a difference. The applicable
state law (Gov. Code 65863.7) provides that the RIR must address the availability of adequate
replacement housing and relocation costs. The current RIR for Ebbtide merely provides for a fixed
payment (based on square footage) for moving costs. That is only half of the equation. That
evaluation does not consider the lack of replacement housing for the residents of Ebbtide. Despite
this issue, it baffles and concerns me that the staff's advisory position may be that the RIR (in its
current form) is sufficient. Additionally, the Anchor Park closure report addresses fair market value
based on the state law requirements — not any City ordinance — and also provides for payment of
moving personal property and per diem payments. I respectfully request that the staff reconsider
its position to comport with these other municipalities' analyses and /or the City Council make the
proper decision —to require a revised RIR that includes appraisals of the mobile homes to determine
fair market value for adequate replacement housing.
Further, as previously mentioned, the RIR does not contain any specific time frames for payments of
benefits. Again, see the attached reports for examples of specific timelines. The RIR needs to be
revised, as it appears that it was performed in a sloppy and incomplete manner.
Finally, we spoke about the language issue presenting a problem for the Spanish- speaking residents,
both with regards to the RIR and the notice (or lack thereof) to the residents regarding the
upcoming City Council meeting. Below is what I am told are the 19 resident spaces (roughly 30% of
the residents) at Ebbtide who were routinely provided HOA meeting notices in Spanish. The HOA
Board at the Laundry room /Manager office routinely had HOA notices in both English and Spanish —
i.e. common knowledge that reasonable due diligence on the Developer's part would have
discovered to cause them to have all written communications provided in Spanish. 19/62 = 31%
English as a second language (Spanish primary). 52 homeowner spaces; 10 renter spaces.
A -5 Nunez, Esau /Cesiah+ 3 children TENANTS
C -6 Pelayo, Ramon & family
C -8 Orozco, Jose & family
C -11 Abrego, Diana & family
D -2 Rodolfo, Lerri & family
D -11 Abrego, Enrique & wife
E -3 Deliao, Mario, wife & 5 boys
E -4 Gonzales, Lidia & family
E -5 Reyes, Miriam & son
E -7 Jimenez, Rigoberto / Rosa & family
E -9 Tinoco, lose /Gloria
E -11 Ramirez, Javier /Marina
F -4 Rodriguez, Teresa & family
F -11 Mezones, Mario /Maribel
F -12 Macias, Bertha
F -15 Rodriguez, Maria (tenant ?)
G -2 Orozco, Martin & family
G -4 Rosas, Raphael/ Bandilla, Maria & family
G -7 Tirado, Maria & son
Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Saul E. Wolf, Esq.
Green & Hall, APC
1851 E. First St., 10th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 918 -7000 x 282
swolf2Dgreenhall.com
www.greenhall.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
maybe an attorney- clientcommunication and /or work product and as such is privileged and confidential, If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in
error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify Saul E. Wolf, Esq. immediately by e -mail, at swolfno ereenhall.com and delete the original message.
Newport Beach City Council January 20" 2015
100 Civic Center Dr.
( Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park)
Greetings,
I am a Ebb Tide Mobile Home park Homeowner:
Thank You for taking the time to look over this letter, First I am very
impressed that you are willing to help us in this very trying time for my
friends and Neighbors. We have enjoyed living in the park and understand
that the owners has the right to sell. I must express my disapointment that I
wasn't informed that the Ebb Tide Mobile Home park was for sale when I
bought my home 15 months ago. I do feel deceived by the park owner. Had I
known, I wouldn't have bought there.
Second:
I moved my Sister who is Disabled from Oklahoma so she could have a
better life experience and be close to the Wonderful Medical centers available
here if needed. I was insulted at the RIR offer to move us and challenge
anyone to try to uproot their lives and expect this to be sufficent? I have not
accepted the additional $20k offered by the Builder reps not to talk to you or
go to the city council meetings and express my concerns and I am counting
on the compassion of the members of the city council to make this right.
Please have mercy and give the people who need to move and start over at
least Fair Market value. We are not asking for the moon, but just what is fair
and right. We need your help!
D -
Wolfe�)
Nom.
1560 Placentia Ave A9
Newport Beach Ca. 92663
949 -554 -8477