CAPITOLA -- The City Council voted 5-0 Thursday night to deny an appeal for the coastal permit to close Surf and Sand Mobile Home Park.
All five agreed the park owner's relocation benefits for displaced mobile home residents were insufficient. A resolution to confirm the action will return to the council in September.
Councilman Sam Storey proposed to form a committee of two council members, the city attorney and city staff to develop guidelines for reasonable relocation benefits. That action was approved 4-1 and Storey volunteered for the committee with Councilman Kirby Nicol. Those guidelines are expected to be discussed at a special meeting Sept. 23.
More than 90 people packed City Hall as the City Council weighed the future of the park.
The owner wants to close the 73-space oceanview park, which has been in operation for more than 50 years.
Sacramento appraiser Tom Kerr, representing park owner Ron Reed, said he took into account the varying finances of the residents. Reed offered $28,000 to $46,000 to 15 very-low and extremely-low income households plus $2,000 to four elderly and disabled residents, and $3,000 to the others.
"It does take into account differing needs," said Kerr.
"With rent at $1,500 a month, people have to move out of the county," said Councilman Dennis Norton.
When Norton asked how many in the audience live at Surf and Sand, nearly every hand went up. At 8:35 p.m., after hearing from the attorneys for the park owner and the residents, the council took a short recess before calling on residents to speak.
Attorney Mark Alpert argued that the coastal development permit needed to close the park "must be granted," giving the low-income residents relocation benefits offered by the park owner.
Buying replacement housing for displaced residents would cost the park owner $14 million to $23 million "simply to get his property back," he said, asking the council to be specific on what relocation benefits they expect.
Councilman Sam Storey asked whether Kerr had information on if the mobile home park residents want to relocate.
The appraiser did not.
"You're asking us to approve something without having all the information in front of us on the impact," Storey said.
"That is not uncommon," Kerr said. "Nothing in the ordinance said that needed to be done. Interviewing everyone in advance doesn't accomplish anything. People are not ready to move. They make those decisions when the time comes."
"This is about the impact on real lives of people," Storey said.
Mobile home residents pay on average $300 a month for a space in the park, according to Alpert.
"The numbers just don't work," Alpert said. "It's going beyond reasonable costs of relocation. The problem exists because of rent control. People wildly overpaid for homes. The park owner for decades has been subsidizing rents. He ought to be the last to pay more."
Storey asked, "Is this an effort to defeat rent control?"
Will Constantine, the attorney representing mobile home owners, argued that the park owner's plan should be rejected because it did not comply with the Mello Act.
Storey pointed out that Mello Act requires replacement housing when housing occupied by low and moderate income residents in the coastal zone is slated for removal.
"The Coastal Commission agrees with your position," Alpert acknowledged.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Tenants Together is making this article available on our website in an effort to advance the understanding of tenant rights issues in California. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.