SR-112707-8A~~~
City of
Santa Monica
City Council Report
City Council
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community Development
Agenda Item:
~`®1~'
Subject: Discussion of Concept Plans for the Village Trailer Park site located at
2930 Colorado Avenue pursuant to a Development Agreement Proposal
(07 DEV-005). Applicant/Property Owner: Village Trailer Park, LLC.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:
1. Direct staff to pursue the Development Agreement negotiation and review
process with the applicant to determine if an appropriate project that satisfies the
removal requirements of City Charter §1803(t) can be identified and approved
upon execution of the attached Memorandum of Understanding; and;
2. Discuss the applicant's Development Agreement proposal and provide direction
regarding its potential public benefits and appropriateness for the. redevelopment
of the Village Trailer Park site and the consideration of alternatives.
Executive Summary
Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the city and an applicant,
adopted by ordinance, that specifies the design details and requirements of a private
development project. This hearing is part of the initial round of hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council to determine whether to process a Development
1
Agreement application. The subject property's RMH zone limits development to trailer
courts, mobile home parks and child care uses. A Development Agreement is needed
because the applicant wants to redevelop the property with uses that are not permitted
in the RMH District. While a Development Agreement is exempt from zoning standards,
it must comply with the General Plan. Because the City is actively engaged in
developing new General Plan policies and vision for this area of the City, a
Development Agreement for this project also needs to contemplate the LUCE vision so
that the project that ultimately returns to the City Council not only addresses community
concerns, but its design, uses, features and infrastructure will contribute to the
community.
On July 10, 2006, the applicant, Village Trailer Park, LLC, gave twelve months notice of
termination to tenants that the Village Trailer Park (VTP) would close for the purpose of
holding it as vacant land. In response, City and Rent Control Board representatives
notified the applicant that before giving notice of closure, it was first required to obtain a
removal permit from the Rent Control Board for the controlled units. in the park. In an
attempt to avoid litigation over the. park closure process, the applicant has requested
that the City process a Development Agreement application for a project that, among
other things, could qualify for a removal permit under the City Charter. To allow for
consideration of this request, the applicant has extended the noticed park closing date
to January 31, 2008, and has agreed to toll the closure notice period while a
Development Agreement application is being processed.
2
The negotiations between the applicant and the City should:
1) Achieve a design and uses that contemplates the LUCE vision while being
consistent with the adopted General Plan;
2) Negotiate relocation options and a consensus closure process that addresses
areas of concern identified by park tenant's legal representatives; and
3) Addresses Rent control Removal Permit requirements.
If the Development Agreement process is pursued, fiscal impacts to the City would be
identified during the negotiation process and addressed in the ultimate proposal to the
City Council
Background
As noted earlier, the Village Trailer Park ("VTP") owners gave notice to tenants that the
mobile home park would close on July 31, 2007. In response, Santa Monica Rent
Control Board representatives notified VTP that before giving notice of termination of
tenancies for the purpose of closing the park under the Mobilehome Residency Law
("MRL"), Civil Code §§ 798 et seq, the park owner was first required to obtain a removal
permit from the Rent Control Board for the controlled units in the park pursuant to City
Charter §1803(t). Subsection 1803(t)(2)(ii) authorizes a removal permit:
"If the permit is being sought so that the property may be developed with
multifamily dwelling units and the permit applicant agrees as a condition of
approval, that the units will not be exempt from the provisions of this
Article pursuant to Section 1801 (c) and that at least 15 percent of the
controlled rental units to be built on the site will be at rents affordable by
persons of low income."
3
The City Attorney's Office agreed with the Rent Control Board regarding the impropriety
of the closure notice. In letters dated July 27 and September 21, 2006, the City Attorney
informed VTP, among other things, that the twelve months closure notice process VTP
utilized was authorized under the MRL only if its proposed change of use required no
local governmental permits. Because a removal permit from the City's Rent Control
Board was required to change use, VTP was informed that separate procedures were
required by the MRL; i.e., VTP was first required to obtain approval of requisite local
governmental permits and then provide asix-month minimum notice of termination of
tenancy. (See Civil Code §798.56(g)(2).')
VTP's legal representatives disagreed with the City Attorney's assessment, asserted
that the removal permit requirement was inconsistent with and preempted by the MRL,
and threatened litigation over the closure process against both the City and Rent
Control Board. On the condition that the VTP owners extend the notice of closure, City
and Rent Control Board representatives entered into authorized discussions with VTP
regarding its claims and the feasibility of applying for a project that could comply with
City Charter section 1803(t)(2)(ii).
' Civil Code 798.56 allows mobilehome tenancies to be terminated only for one or more of the reasons provided in
that statute. Subsection (g) authorizes termination for a change of use of the park, which includes a park closure,
'...provided:
(1) The management gives the homeowners at least 15 days' written notice that the management will be appearing
before a local governmental board, commission, or body to request permits for a change of use of the mobilehome
park.
(2) After all required permits requesting a change of use have been approved by the local governmental board,
commission, or body, the management shall give the homeowners six months' or more written notice of termination of
tenancy.
If the change of use requires no local governmental permits, then notice shall be given 12 months or mare prior to the
management's determination that a change of use will occur. The management in the notice shall disclose and
describe in detail the nature of the change of use.
4
As a result of those discussions, VTP agreed to formally apply for and process an
application fora Development Agreement pursuant to the City's Guidelines for
considering Development Agreement Applications based on the following:
• The parties deferral of initiation of litigation over the validity of the pending Notice of
Closure and VTP's extension of the Closure Date to January 31, 2008, which
provides the time necessary for VTP to obtain Council direction on whether to
pursue formal review of a Development Agreement Application pursuant to SMMC
§g.48.
• If the City Council agrees to process a Development Agreement Application
pursuant to SMMC §9.48, VTP would enter an Agreement under which:
o the parties would reserve their positions regarding compliance with the
Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL);
o the time running on the pending Notice of Closure would be tolled as of the date
of Council agreement to process the Development Agreement Application;
o VTP could withdraw its Development Agreement project application and the
balance of the notice period for the park. closure would resume running upon 30
days written notice.
o The Development Agreement project review would require the preparation of an
EIR, which would review a reasonable range of alternatives including, but not
limited to, a resident owned mobile home park subdivision, and alternative
rezones and projects (including reduced scale projects that would avoid or
substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts as required by
CEQA).
Finally, in all meetings preceding this hearing it has been made clear that consideration
of any project application will be made without any representation concerning the City's
ultimate decision on the application and with full reservation of the City's police and
other powers. The Memorandum of Understanding contained in Attachment C includes
all of these terms.
5
Discussion
The VTP is zoned RMH (Residential Mobil Home Park) which limits new development to
trailer court, mobile home park and child care uses. Thus, a Development Agreement is
needed because the applicant desires to develop the property with uses that are not
permitted in the RMH District. In this particular case, the Development Agreement
process would provide the applicant and park residents a process by which trailer park
closure would be deferred while the applicant pursued entitlements to redevelop the
property. It also provides the City additional authority to negotiate relocation benefits for
the park residents and the opportunity to negotiate a project designed to reflect the
currently evolving land use vision of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
update for this area and address Rent Control Removal Permit requirements.
Site Context
6
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the Village Trailer Park site with a mixed
residential, studio commercial and neighborhood-serving commercial project that could
qualify for a removal permit and resolve the legal dispute. A Development Agreement
provides a great deal of flexibility in the design and use of the proposed buildings
provided the project is consistent with the General Plan. The property's Special Office
District land use designation is subject to Policy 1.8.4 of the General Plan's Land Use
Element, which is intended to preserve existing mobile home parks in the Special Office
District to the extent feasible, but permits their recycling to other uses in compliance
with the City's Rent Control Charter Amendment and state law governing the closure of
mobile home parks. The applicant's current proposal would require an amendment to
the General Plan for the height of one building.
At this early stage in the process, the proposed conceptual plans are extremely
schematic. The number of residential units and building scale presented in this
proposal is greater than the site's existing context or anything adjacent. As the City is
currently updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements, the applicant has indicated a
willingness to have the project EIR await development of LUCE principals for the area
and consider alternatives that are consistent with key land use policies of the LUCE
vision. Thus, comprehensive project alternatives can be developed during the
Development Agreement process based on direction from the Land Use and Circulation
Elements and the City Council pertaining to the project's size, scale, uses and public
benefits.
7
Applicant's Project Description
The applicant is proposing that the City consider a Development Agreement to
redevelop the VTP site with a mixed residential, studio commercial and neighborhood
commercial project. The attached concept plan proposes a 109-unit Rent Controlled,
affordable Single Room Occupancy (SRO) apartment building, 240 market-rate
condominiums, 40,030 square feet of studio commercial and 8,030 square feet of
neighborhood-serving retail floor area on the 3.85 acre (167,706 square foot) site. A
subterranean parking garage would provide 469 parking spaces plus 34 at-grade
spaces for a total of 503 parking spaces. The site is currently developed with a 109
space Rent Controlled mobile home park.
The applicant has suggested that the following list of project features will provide public
benefit:
• Extended stay for the existing mobile home park. residents (relocation of the
existing tenants will be delayed during Phase I construction of the rent controlled
apartment building);
• 109 Rent Control apartments;
• Additional housing stock;
• A mix of residential, studio and neighborhood serving commercial uses;
• Sustainable design/construction (LEED certified);
• Affordable condominium units with special condominium purchase incentives for
existing VTP residents and teachers, police officers and firefighters.
Attachment D contains the applicant's summary and concept plans.
General Plan Consistency
As discussed above, the City is actively engaged in developing new General Plan
policies and vision for this area of the City. Although the new policies may not be
8
adopted before this proposal is ready for final consideration, the evolving LUCE vision is
based on planning principals and community values and should shape any proposal for
this site. Accordingly, the Development Agreement for this project needs to
contemplate the LUCE vision so that the project that ultimately returns to the City
Council not only addresses community concerns, but its design, uses, features and
infrastructure will contribute to the community.
The RMH zoning was adopted to preserve and protect existing mobile home parks as
developments that offer alternative types of residential units and opportunities for
affordable housing (SMMC Section 9.04.08.42.010). While Policy 1.8.4 of the Land Use
Element seeks to preserve trailer parks, it also states that they may be recycled to other
uses as follows:
"Preserve the existing trailer parks in the Special Office District to the
extent feasible and permit their recycling to other uses consistent with the
development standards (height, density, and use) and urban design
standards for the District and in compliance with the City's Rent Control
Charter Amendment and applicable sections of the California Government
Code related to recycling of mobile home parks."
The subject property is located in the Special Office District of the General Plan Land
Use Element. Land Use Policy 1.8.7 allows a maximum height of three stories and 45
feet and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 in this district. However, Building 1 is
proposed to be 50 feet in height to accommodate higher ceiling heights for the ground
floor studio use. City density bonus incentives that permit additional height in certain
circumstances do not apply to this building because the additional height does not
accommodate affordable housing units. Accordingly, amending the General Plan Land
9
Use Element would be required to approve this five foot height increase. Although the
SRO apartment building would contain four stories and the General Plan specifies a
three-story limit, pursuant to General Plan Land. Use Policy 1.2.1 and Housing Element
Policies 1.2 and 2.8, Program 2.b and Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the City does not restrict
the number of stories of commercial buildings containing housing or affordable housing
projects provided the building does not exceed the zoning district's 45 foot height limit to
encourage the construction of housing in commercial districts. Because the City also
discounts the floor area dedicated to residential use in commercial districts pursuant to
General Plan Land Use Policy. 1.2.1 and Housing Element Policies 1.2 and 2.8,
Program 2.b and Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the total floor area of this proposal is also
consistent with the General Plan.
Design and Overall Size-Scale
The conceptual plans as presented are extremely schematic and primarily provide a
starting point for discussion. Comprehensive project plans will be developed during the
development agreement process based on direction from the City Council pertaining to
the project's size, scale, uses and public benefits. Because the City is actively studying
General Plan land uses policies for this area through the LUCE process, and will be
identifying key land use policies in the near future, staff recommends that the policies
and vision that emerge from this process be considered while evaluating and
developing the proposal that returns to the Planning Commission and City Council for
final consideration. The applicant has indicated a willingness to defer initiation of the
10
project EIR so that it may include consideration of alternatives that are consistent with
the pending LUCE vision for the surrounding area.
Neighborhood Context
The General Plan provides direction for the long term development of the City. Again,
the LUCE policies and vision that are currently evolving represent the key context for
evaluating neighborhood compatibility for this area. Pursuant to the LUCE, the project
needs to:
1) Create a neighborhood with appropriate scale;
2) Provide public services and amenities;
3) Address needed infrastructure and circulation; and
4) Reflect use or uses identified in the plan.
In addition to the General Plan, the type and scale of existing and future development
surrounding the project are used to evaluate the project's overall size and scale.
Properties on the north side and on the south side further to the east along Colorado
Avenue are primarily developed with one and two story apartments and condominiums.
Properties on the south side of Colorado Avenue, adjacent to the proposed project site
are generally developed with one-story industrial and commercial buildings that are
typically less than 25 feet high. Currently, two-story, 30 to 45 foot high
entertainment/media production studio, artist studio, SRO housing and private schools
represent typical projects that are either proposed or under construction in this district.
Accordingly, the number of residential units and building scale presented in this
proposal is greater than the site's surrounding context.
11
Trailer Park Closure Issues
The City Council is the legislative body responsible under state law for ensuring
compliance with the requirements of Government Code §65863.7 and §65863.8 for a
mobile home park conversion, closure, or cessation pursuant to the "change of use"
provisions of Civil Code §798.56(8). The City is responsible for enforcing state mobile
home closure law even in the absence of a local park closure ordinance. Under these
Government Code provisions, before a change of use may occur, VTP must file a report
on the impact of the closure or conversion on displaced residents, which must "address
the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation
costs." (Gov. Code §65863.7(a).) In addition, there are a number of integrated notice
and procedural requirements in the MRL and Government Code regarding the timing
and service of the impact report on park residents, VTP's compliance with which is in
dispute.
The City Council must review that impact report and, as a condition of the conversion or
closure, may require VTP to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the change on
the ability of displaced residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park.
However, under this statute, the mitigation measures ordered by the Council must not
exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. (Gov. Code §65863.7(e).)
The Development Agreement process provides the City additional authority to negotiate
mitigation measures for closure impacts on residents. This is especially the case here,
12
since a subdivision map will be required for this project, and the Subdivision Map Act
provides that in a conversion of a mobile home park to another use:
"The legislative body, or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance
to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map, may require the
subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the
ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a
mobilehome park;" and
"This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of
mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from
enacting more stringent measures."
Gov. Code §§66427.4(c) and (d). The Development Agreement process also provides
a means to comply with the integrated statutory notice and change of use procedural
requirements.
As part of its Development Agreement proposal, the applicant has already proposed to
delay closure of the mobile home park until after the 109-unit apartment building is
constructed. This would allow some of the existing tenants to move directly into the
new building if they wish. It also provides all of the tenants with an additional two to
three years to stay in the mobile home park.
This project is also unusual from most projects in the City because the tenants of the
mobile home park normally own the mobile homes that they live in and pay rent for the
space, or lot that it is parked on. Therefore closure of the park requires the relocation of
the .mobile homes. However, there is only a limited number of mobile home parks
available to move to in the sub-region, and a number of the mobile homes in this park
are of an age and construction type that do not meet State Codes to allow them to be
13
relocated. The Development Agreement process provides the opportunity to consider a
menu of options for residents, including relocation to the proposed on-site rent
controlled apartment building or condominiums, coach purchase and replacement
programs, and relocation to the City's Mountain View mobile home park, that go beyond
relocation cost limitations of the Government Code.
A key component of the proposal is that the SRO apartment building would
accommodate some of the existing VTM residents after the park is closed. All of the
SRO units would contain a full bathroom and small kitchen. Most of the units would
contain 250 square feet, with 22 units containing 325 square feet of floor area. While
the SRO units are similar in size, and in some cases larger than some of the mobile
homes, many of the mobile. homes contain separate bedrooms and there are some two-
bedroom units with open space and room for small gardens. As a result, the SRO floor
plan is not acceptable to some of the existing residents that would otherwise elect to
move into the apartment building. The applicant has indicated a willingness to include a
mix of one and two bedroom units. However, adding multiple bedroom units would
require either a larger building, which would complicate construction phasing and
consistency with its development context, or a reduction in the total number of Rent
Control units, which would require Rent Control findings of consistency with removal
permit requirements.
The studio and 2-bedroom condominium units proposed in Buildings 1 and 2 range in
size from 500 to 850 square feet. Most new condominiums are over twice the size of
14
this proposal. The sale price of the condominium units will be market-rate, but the
applicant believes that the modest sized units will make them more affordable because
unit size impacts their market price.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this proposal on August 15,
2007. Based on input from the applicant, 14 tenants, residents and community
representatives, the Planning Commission recommended the following to the City
Council:
• Begin Development Agreement negotiations;
• Simultaneously initiate discussions for a land swap and/or potential purchase of
the mobile home park by the City;
• Delay DA approval until the LUCE process has proceeded sufficiently to
understand the LUCE vision for this area.
• Include some one and two bedroom units among the proposed rent-controlled
units;
• Provide financial assistance to VTP residents to purchase condos;
• Provide amenities/assistance to residents moving from trailers to new units, such
as allowing pets, adding balconies, providing a concierge to assist elderly,
furniture replacement;
• Redesign to mix the location of SRO and condo units to avoid onsite "ghetto-
ization;"
• Identify appropriate methodology for valuing mobile homes being purchased from
tenants;
• Ensure minimum "SRO" unit size is 500 square feet;
• Examine project traffic impacts and negotiate appropriate mitigation measures;
• Undertake a "needs assessment" of residents to guide project redesign;
• Take into consideration the loss of existing garden area and open space and
compensate for loss in proposed project;
• Negotiate workforce housing partnerships with large employers;
• Attempt to tie housing needs to employment uses in City;
• Consider proximity to transit, pedestrian access to Expo line and encourage
pedestrian oriented modes of transportation;
• Provide for alternative transportation modes, such as transit passes for residents
and low-speed electric vehicles;
15
• Consider a different mix of on-site uses; and
• Provide low-income housing opportunities for residents.
A copy of the August 15, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report is contained in
Attachment A.
Alternatives
In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could continue the discussion
for analysis of additional options with agreement from the applicant.
Environmental Analysis
CEQA review is not required for the purpose of discussing the feasibility of a potential
project and whether to initiate the development agreement process (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15262). Environmental analysis will be completed prior to
considering approval if the Development Agreement process is engaged.
Public Outreach
Sign posting and mailed notices are not required by Code for this initial discussion
procedure; however, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and
residential and commercial tenants of property located within a (500 foot) .radius of the
project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar
days prior to the hearing.
16
The applicant presented the proposal at a general meeting of the Village Trailer Park
Homeowners Association on June 13, 2007 and met with smaller group of tenants on
July 5, 2007. The applicant also indicates that they have met with several residents
individually and met with neighboring community members.
A letter from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles on behalf of the VTP
Neighborhood Homeowners Association supporting the staff recommendation to,
engage the DA process, but identifying nine park closure .issues of concern, was
received by staff prior to the Planning Commission Hearing. A separate letter with
exhibits from the VTP Neighborhood Homeowners Association, 42 petitions and letters
from tenants generally opposed to closing the mobile home park and suggesting
alternatives also were received. Five letters from neighbors and organizations that
generally oppose the project also have been received. Correspondence received from
the tenants and public is contained in Attachment B.
Budget/Financial Impact
Staff costs for the development agreement process are paid from application fees. The
Planning Commission's recommendation that the City acquire and maintain the mobile
home park would have substantial budget impacts. If the City Council elects to consider
this option further, its fiscal impact will be determined prior to the development
agreement returning for City Council consideration.
17
Prepared by:
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Eif'een Fogarty
Director, Planning &
Development
Attachments:
A. August 15, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report
B. Public Notification & Comment Material (includes published notice, and
C. Correspondence) Memorandum of Understanding
D. Proposal Summary & Plans
18
Additional
attachments
available in City
Clerk's Office.