The Thousand Oaks City Council voted 4-0 at its meeting Sept. 8 to
approve the conversion of the Vallecito Mobile Estates from rental
spaces to owner occupied spaces.
Though the price of the land under the mobile homes has not been
revealed, mobile home owners who now rent those lots are going to be
given the opportunity to purchase them.
The vote overturned a decision by the city’s planning commission in June.
Dozens of homeowners, representing more than 95 percent of those who
rent space on 303 lots on 45 acres at the mobile home park, pleaded
with the council to protect them from the conversion, which will
ultimately raise rents substantially for those who don’t purchase their
lots.
But the majority on the council followed the advice of City Attorney
Amy Albano and City Manager Scott Mitnick in the city staff’s report
and granted the appeal. Councilmember Claudia Bill-de la Peña
abstained.
Robert Coldren, attorney for the mobile home park owner, spoke for
about two of his 15 minutes of allotted time. Will Constantine,
attorney for the park’s residents, spent his entire 15 minutes pleading
for his clients. Public speakers were allowed two minutes each.
Albano claimed that the legal liability of not approving the appeal to
allow the conversion could cost the city from $3 million to $20
million.
As a part of the agreement, the city was able to acquire from the
mobile home park owner 32 acres of open space that surrounds Vallecito
at 1251 Old Conejo Road in Newbury Park.
Former planning commissioner Janet Wall said she had a strong reaction
after she read the entire staff report and saw that the city took this
opportunity to add to its open space, which she called the “kiss of
death for the mobile home park.”
“I wanted to puke,” she said.
Then she begged the council to do what was right for the people who
live at the park, who are “only trying to exist.” She noted that “the
courts are wrong” and the “laws are wrong,” but the city can “do it
right.”
Vedder Community Management, the park’s owner, sued the city in the
Ventura County Superior Court, where several parts of Erickson’s Law—a
city ordinance that provided the city’s mobile home park’s homeowners
protection in cases of closure or conversion—were struck down.
An appellate court’s decision in another California mobile home case
that came after the planning commission’s June 29 decision also grabbed
the attention of Albano. She said the outcomes of those cases made the
planning commission’s decision no longer valid and “put the city at
great risk.” If the city did not approve the conversion, she stated, it
could face “very significant ramifications” in court.
In August, the 2nd District appellate court in Northern California
found that a legally required tenant survey showing a conversion wasn’t
what the majority of a park’s residents wanted was not a valid reason
for Sonoma to deny the conversion, Albano said.
Thousand Oaks mirrored its mobile home ordinance after Sonoma’s, she
said, and the ruling in the Sonoma case is evidence that state law
doesn’t protect those with low incomes, the disabled or seniors on a
fixed income from conversions even if they do not want or cannot afford
to live in the park after the conversion.
State law protects the rights of the property owners if they follow
four requirements, which the city staff said the owner of Vallecito
met.
Those requirements are: offer residents the option to purchase or
continue to rent the spaces under their homes, file a tenant impact
report, give a copy of the impact report to each tenant and conduct a
resident survey.
More than 100 comment cards were filled out by those who filled the
council’s chambers opposing the conversion. None of the comment cards
were in favor of the conversion. Many said they could not afford a rent
increase. One resident said he won’t be able to afford to eat if the
conversion goes through.
Others worry about how they’re going to be able to pay for medicine, said Elaine Morgan, a resident for more than 40 years.
“Some are scared. They don’t know where they’ll go,” HOA president Eric Herem said.
As soon as one lot is sold, rent control at the park will end. City
staff negotiated continued below market value rents for individuals with
income below $49,000 and for two-resident households with income below
$56,000 a year. For those whose income exceeds those amounts, rents
will slowly increase to market value in increments over the next eight
years, instead of the state-required four years.
If the City Council had chosen to not approve the conversion and lost
in court, the residents would have been worse off because the rent
protection agreements would not be in place, Mitnick said.
The city staff report refers to those living at the mobile home park as tenants.
“We’re not tenants, we’re homeowners,” Alyce Klussman said. She said
she’s invested $200,000 in her home and has planted roses and fruit
trees.
Gerry Marlette said if her lot sells for $200,000 and she’s able to
finance it at 8.5 percent interest on a 20year loan, her payments will
be $1,750, plus $500 for her coach. With property taxes and HOA fees,
she estimates her payments will be $2,600 a month. She also expects
those who buy the lots will be liable for redoing the streets of the
park that are in “terrible condition.”
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.