Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAtlanta Avenue Widening Relocation Plan and Grievances Proce Council/Agency Meeting Held: DeferreZontinued `kAppro ed ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied s S' ature Council Meeting Date: November 21, 2011 Department ID Number: ED 11-048 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager/ Economic Development Director Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Relocation Plan and Grievance Procedures Statement of Issue: The Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Relocation Plan ("Plan") is submitted for approval. This right-of-way project will trigger the relocation of residents; therefore, California Relocation Guidelines requires the City to approve a Plan in the event the proposed project is implemented. Included with the Plan is a procedure if grievances are filed by relocatees during the relocation process. Financial Impact: The projected total cost for relocation related payments for the Plan is estimated at $240,000 which is available from the MPAH Grant Fund, Account No. 96585001.82300, and the Prop 42 Fund, Account No. 21990002.82300. Recommended Action: Motion to: A) Approve the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Relocation Plan; and, B) Approve the Relocation Grievance Procedures for the City of Huntington Beach. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the proposed Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Relocation Plan and accompanying Grievance Procedures and provide staff with an alternative direction. Item 8. - I HB -100- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/21/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 11-48 Analysis: On September 6, 2011, the City Council approved the Capital Improvement Program which appropriated the funding for the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project (CC-1319). The proposed project will widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed street improvements would provide an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. In addition, the proposed project includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8- foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height (7-foot maximum) retaining wall, landscaping, reconstruction of a 26-foot wide on-site circulation road and emergency accesses within the adjacent Pacific Mobile Home Park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation. In the event the proposed project is implemented, the City would need to acquire a portion of one parcel located at 80 Huntington Street that is currently occupied by the Pacific Mobile Home Park. The proposed street widening project would require the relocation of the occupants of eight mobile homes located at the northern end of the park along Atlanta Avenue. The estimated cost to relocate these eight households is $240,000. The estimated relocation budget does not include any payments related to land acquisition, the acquisition of the mobile homes or fees related to relocation implementation services. In order to proceed with the relocation process, the city's relocation consultant, Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., prepared the attached Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Relocation Plan (Attachment #1). In conformance with State relocation guidelines, all residents that may be displaced by the proposed project received a notification letter and a copy of the Draft Plan on September 8, 2011. The notification letter indicated that the Draft Plan for the project was available for a 30-day public review and comment period. To date, two public comments were received and have been included along with the City's responses as Exhibit E of the Plan. The City may now decide whether to adopt the Plan and initiate relocation activities. The general purpose of the Plan is to describe the circumstances of the persons and families that would be directly affected in the event the proposed street widening project is implemented. The Plan also discusses the availability of replacement housing and programs to provide potential displacees with the required technical and financial assistance. To develop the Plan, each household was personally interviewed to gather information appropriate to the determination of the needs and preferences regarding replacement of existing accommodations and facilities. Prior to any displacement, displacees would be provided with referrals for comparable units and relocation benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations of the California Relocation Assistance Law. Every reasonable effort would be made to ensure that the relocation process occurs with minimal delay and hardship. During the interview process, seven of the eight households expressed a preference to remain in the Huntington Beach area, if not within the Pacific Mobile Home Park itself, in order to maintain current access to employment, medical facilities, family and the beach. HB -101- Item 8. - 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/21/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 11-48 One household has already relocated to northern California for continuing education, and their mobile home is currently vacant. Replacement housing needs, as expressed in the Plan, are defined by the total number of required replacement units and distribution of those units by bedroom size. In terms of the eight households that would be displaced by the proposed project, the Plan determined the replacement housing needs to be two (2) one-bedroom mobile homes, five (5) two-bedroom mobile homes, and one (1) four-bedroom mobile home. As a result of a survey of all mobile homes listed for sale and located in the City, it was determined that there were twelve (12) one-bedroom mobile homes, fifty-three (53) two-bedroom mobile homes, and eight (8) four- bedroom mobile homes available for sale at the time the survey was performed. Considering the availability of for sale replacement housing resources gathered over a two-week period, the Plan concludes that there are more than adequate replacement housing resources for any of the residential occupants that would be directly affected in the event the proposed project is implemented. If the Plan is approved by the Council, the City's relocation consultant would continue working with the eight mobile home owners by providing detailed information regarding relocation benefits. City staff, along with the consultant, would also begin the appraisal process and negotiations with the mobile home park owner, Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC regarding the partial land acquisition. The City Council is also being asked to approve the attached Relocation Grievance Procedures. The City has had these procedures in place since 2007; however a revision was necessary regarding the City Manager's title from Administrator to Manager. These procedures are in direct compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 25. Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 2009-001 was prepared for the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approved by the City Council on January 18, 2011. The Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Relocation Plan was prepared consistent with the mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with MND 2009-001 for the project. As the administrator of federal highway funds for this project, the State, as lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), has determined that the project is a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to Section 6005 of 23 U.W.C. 327 of NEPA. Strategic Plan Goal: Maintain, improve and obtain funding for infrastructure and equipment Attachment(s): 1. The Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Final Relocation Plan 2. Relocation Grievance Procedures 3. Site Map Item 8. - 3 xB -102- ATTACHMENT #1 xa -103- Fein 6. - 5 it#rafwti, J Atlanta Avenue Widening- Project RELOCATION PLAN Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 374-1529 By: Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. 20 Fairbanks, Suite 178 Irvine, California 92618 (949) 951-5263 November 21, 2011 Item 8. - 5 HB -104- TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 L PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 A. REGIONAL LOCATION 2 B. PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3 C. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC&HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 4 1I. ASSESSMENT OF RELOCATION NEEDS 5 A. SURVEY METHOD 5 B. FIELD SURVEY DATA 5 1. Current Occupants 5 2. Replacement Housing Needs 5 3. Income 5 4. Ethnicity/Language 6 5. Senior/Handicapped Households 6 6. Preferred Relocation Areas 6 III. RELOCATION RESOURCES 7 A. METHODOLOGY 7 B. REPLACEMENT HOUSING AVAILABILITY 7 1. Mobile Homes for Sale 7 2. Pad Space Rent 7 3. Summary 7 C. RELATED ISSUES 8 1. Concurrent Residential Displacement 8 2. Temporary Housing 8 IV. THE RELOCATION PROGRAM 9 A. ADVISORY ASSISTANCE 9 B. RELOCATION BENEFITS 11 1. Residential Moving Expense Payments 12 2. Purchase Assistance to Owners 13 3. Space Rent Differential Payment 14 4. Rental Assistance Option to Owners Who Choose to Rent 14 C. PROGRAM ASSURANCES AND STANDARDS 16 D. GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS 16 E. LAST RESORT HOUSING 17 F. IMMIGRATION STATUS 17 V. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 18 A. NOTICES 18 B. PRIVACY OF RECORDS 19 C. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 19 D. EVICTION POLICY 19 E. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 20 F. PROJECTED DATE OF DISPLACEMENT 20 G. ESTIMATED RELOCATION COSTS 20 HB -105- Item 8. - 6 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: 2010 Census Population—City of Huntington Beach&Impacted Tract 4 TABLE 2: 2010 Census Housing Units—City of Huntington Beach&Impacted Tract 4 TABLE 3: Availability and Cost of Replacement Housing For Sale 7 TABLE 4: Schedule of Fixed Moving Payments 12 TABLE 5: Example Computation of URA Rental Assistance Payments 15 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A: Residential Interview Form EXHIBIT B: General Infonnation Notice EXHIBIT C: HUD Income Levels—Orange County EXHIBIT D: Residential Infonnational Brochure EXHIBIT E: Public Comments and Responses Item 8. - 7 HB -106- INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach ("City") is in the process of creating a Relocation Plan to be used in the event a proposed street widening project, the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project ("Project"), is implemented. The proposed Project would widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed street improvements would provide an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. In addition, the proposed Project includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height (7-foot maximum) retaining wall, landscaping, reconstruction of a 26-foot wide on-site circulation road and emergency accesses within the adjacent Pacific Mobile Home Park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation. In the event the proposed Project is implemented, the City would need to acquire a portion of one parcel located at 80 Huntington Street in Huntington Beach, CA that is currently occupied by the Pacific Mobile Home Park. The partial acquisition would impact eight pads and mobile homes located at the northern end of the park along Atlanta Avenue. Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. ("OPC") has been selected to prepare a Relocation Plan ("Plan"). The Plan has been prepared to evaluate the present circumstances and replacement housing requirements of residents that may potentially be displaced from their current residence. The Plan generally addresses the needs and characteristics of the displacees and the City's program to provide assistance to each of the eight mobile home households that would be directly affected in the event the proposed Project is implemented. The City anticipates funding for the Project will be provided by Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant funds (federal), State Local Partnership Program (SLPP), Measure M2 Turnback(local) and Prop 42 funds (local). As such, this Plan is required to and does conform to the requirements of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("URA"), as amended, the California Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260, et seq. (Law) and the Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development and Title 25, California Code of Regulations Section 6000, et seq. (Guidelines). This Plan is organized in five sections: I. Project description(SECTION 1); 2. Assessment of the relocation needs of persons subject to displacement(SECTION II); 3. Assessment of available, comparable replacement housing units within the City of Huntington Beach(SECTION 111); 4. Description of the City's Relocation Program(SECTION IV); and 5. Description of the City's outreach efforts, Project timeline and budget(SECTION V). 1 HB -107- Item 8. - 8 Ie PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. REGIONAL LOCATION The Project is located in the City of Huntington Beach within Orange County. Huntington Beach is located in the western reach of Orange County, approximately 37 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, and is immediately accessible from Interstate 405 and the Pacific Coast Highway (Hwy 1). Adjacent communities include Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Westminster and Seal Beach. (See Figure 1: Regional Project Location) ".a Mlr'aga 90 orco YOrbaNSNR( i NiL Park e,Jn 1 RWE 91 LC AN �)� Of tr 71 ~e �01 OPi 91a ens ` 'aiienGar � -7 ' �— s 1itaSt nton IF Paris �� man 47 { r;� fir- : —�,.,� �: ii4V herifN Dept eae zz an - ar ndola Leta 261, SNG` ba 4` ! 1tt1 st'St # - Ana - kl ._ a Cleveland. '' N i Leslie J _ _ [ e�+fc stie' '. eal acb �' r Par Q R N � E. _.: alter ai Forest 39P&IIC —�` S18 y 241: i _anti p,F Peak y v U I1lG q `` x s t �� eolc ea P ere rc�� afit t'v �1 Ft[ 'Beac lTt, t{ �� � \ I a 1 133 v' bh0 Sanka INI 5 Lake,FoA Riawport l3eacl�r U � vi park 1�11 on V) o \ re s Park t as Arenas 11 t +' Park ` t free_(Park y t U £ tJ e� # t# 1 Ahsi)V1eJQ .: 74 .. a t ea n y Ce nM�aa P1'96'�201 U-Miu.,ort Co..oi�ro.andiad sw her�A�r��s res..rvetl;i `�; �i',?, �� r• Figure 1: Regional Project Location 2 Item 8. - 9 HB -108- B. PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is located on Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street. (See Figure 2: Project Site Location) The total area of the partial acquisition along the Atlanta Avenue frontage of the Pacific Mobile Home Park. is approximately 0.37 acres. The proposed acquisition of this area and the subsequent reconstruction of the on-site circulation road would directly affect eight existing mobile homes located within Pacific Mobile Home Park. As of the date of this Plan, all eight units are occupied by permanent residents. p = 8 t t '1 .. ,A_ AVENUE Figure 2: Project Site Location 3 HB -109- Item 8. - 10 C. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the population of Huntington Beach is 189,992, and the population of the impacted Census Tract 993.07/Block 1005 is 113 (see Table 1). Corresponding Census data concerning the housing mix is shown in Table 2. TABLE l: 2010 Census Po ulation-City of Huntington Beach & Impacted Tract Population Tract 993.07 % City % Block 1005 White 88 77.9% 113,250 59.6% Black or African American 0 0.0% 1,813 1.0% American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0% 992 0.5% Asian 5 4.4% 21,070 11.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 0 0.0% 635 0.3% Islander Some Other Race 0 0.0% 11,193 5.9% Two or More Races 5 4.4% 8628 4.5% Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race) 15 13.3 32,411 17.1% Total Population 113 100.0% 189,992 100.0% Source: U.S.Census Bureau,QT-PL.Race,Hispanic or Latino,and Age: 2010 TABLE 2: 2010 Census Housing Units -City of Huntingon Beach & Im acted Tract Type Tract 993.07 % City % yp Block 1005 Owner-Occupied 56 91.8% 44,914 60.5% Renter-Occupied 5 8.2% 29,371 39.5% Total Occupied Units 61 100.0% 741285 100.0% r \\0, .. <• , \; s Available for Sale Only (of Total Vacant 3 37.5% 522 14.0% Units Available for Rent-Full Time Occupancy 0 0.0% 1,694 45.6% (of Total Vacant Units Sold or Rented-Not Occupied 0 0.0% 236 6.4% Otherwise Not Available (e.g. seasonal, 5 62.5% 885 23.8% recreational, migratory, occasional use) Other Vacant 0 0.0% 381 10.2% Vacant Housing Units 8 100.0% 3,718 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau,QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics: 2010 4 Item 8. - 11 HB -110- II. ASSESSMENT OF RELOCATION NEEDS A. SURVEY METHOD In July and August 2011, OPC staff conducted personal interviews with all of the potentially displaced residents from the eight mobile homes that would be directly impacted in the event the proposed Project is implemented. As part of the interview process, OPC staff asked questions regarding household size and composition, income, monthly rent, length of occupancy, ethnicity, home language, physical disabilities, legal status in the U.S. and replacement housing preferences. A sample of the residential interview form used in the interview process is presented as Exhibit A. Additionally, the General Information Notice provided to all of the potentially displaced residents is included as Exhibit B of this Plan. D. FIELD SURVEY DATA 1. Current Occupants There are eight residential households that may be displaced in the event the proposed Project is implemented. At the time of the interviews, the households consisted of 14 adults and two children (17 years or younger). The households all currently own and occupy mobile homes within the Pacific Mobile Home Park. 2. Replacement Housing Needs One of the primary purposes of a Relocation Plan is to demonstrate the availability of comparable, affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing prior to the displacement of residential occupants. Replacement housing needs, as expressed in this Plan, are defined by the total number of required replacement units and distribution of those units by bedroom size. The projected number of required units by bedroom size is calculated by comparing survey data for household size with the City's replacement housing occupancy standards. These standards, generally, allow for up to three persons in a one-bedroom unit, five persons in a two- bedroom unit, seven persons in a three-bedroom unit, and nine or more persons in a four- bedroom unit. In addition, replacement housing needs must be based on current household members. Based on the occupancy standard stated above, the size of the displacement dwellings and the Legal members of the households, the replacement dwellings required for the Project occupants include: two one-bedroom mobile homes for sale, five two-bedroom mobile homes for sale, and one four-bedroom mobile home for sale. 3. Income Information regarding gross household income was provided by six of the eight households that would be directly affected in the event the proposed Project is implemented. According to income standards for the County of Orange (Exhibit C) adjusted for family size as published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), four households 5 HB -I I I- Item 8. - 12 qualify as Very Low Income (31% - 50% of area median income), one household qualifies as Moderate Income (81 - 120% of area median income), and one household qualifies as Above Moderate Income (above 120% of area median income.) Two households refused to provide data on gross household income, although one household stated they are Low Income, and the other household stated they are not Low Income. 4. Ethnicity/Language Seven of eight households reported "White" as their ethnicity; one household reported their ethnicity as "Mixed" (African American and White). All households stated English is their preferred language. 5. Senior/Handicapped Households Three households have senior members (62 years or older), and two households reported members with disabilities, although only one household reporting a physical disability will require a first-floor replacement unit as an accommodation for the disability. 6. Preferred Relocation Areas Seven of the eight households expressed a preference to remain in the Huntington Beach area, if not within the Pacific Mobile Home Park itself, in order to maintain current access to employment, medical facilities, family and the beach. One household will be relocating to northern California for continuing education. Although options are being explored to create and incorporate additional pad spaces within the existing mobile home park in order to accommodate the potentially displaced occupants of the eight mobile homes that would be directly affected by the proposed Project, these eight households may have to be permanently relocated from Pacific Mobile Home Park. 6 Item 8. - 13 HB -112- III. RELOCATION RESOURCES A. METHODOLOGY For residential housing, a resource survey was conducted to identify available mobile home units for sale in Huntington Beach. The following sources were utilized: -- Classified listings from local newspapers and For Sale publications -- Contacts with real estate/property management companies serving the community -- Internet sources, including the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) B. REPLACEMENT HOUSING AVAILABILITY 1. Mobile Homes for Sale All mobile homes listed for sale and located in the City of Huntington Beach were surveyed. Additional one-bedroom mobile homes for sale were identified in surrounding communities when the number of homes for sale in Huntington Beach alone was too few to determine a significant median price. The for-sale housing results are summarized in Table 3 below. TABLE 3; Availability and Cost of Replacement Housing For Sale Bedroom Size One Two Four #Found (# needed) 12 (2) 53 (5) 8 (l) List Price Range $17,000 - $48,000 $18,900 - $120,000 $49,999 - $147,500 Median Price $37,500 $51,000 $79,900 The survey data indicate that there are adequate numbers of replacement housing units to accommodate the eight mobile home households that may be displaced in the event the proposed Project is implemented. 2. Pad Space Rent While surveying for mobile homes for sale, pad rents were considered where available. The range of pad rents of available mobile homes for sale was between $624 and $1,750 with a median rent of$1,050. There is often a direct inverse relationship between the pad rent and the asking price of the mobile home—when pad rents are low, the cost of the mobile home is high. When pad rents are high, the cost of the mobile home is low. 3. Summary Considering the above described availability of for sale replacement housing resources gathered over a two-week period, it appears that there are more than adequate replacement housing resources for any of the residential occupants that would be directly affected in the event the proposed Project is implemented. While adequate replacement housing exists, based on survey results of available pad rents and the displacees' current rents, the displaced occupants may have an increase in monthly rent. Possible increases, if any, will be offset by 7 HB -1.13- Item 8. - 14 the City pursuant to the relocation regulations via a Rental Assistance Payment (discussed in section IV-B.3), including Last Resort Housing (LRH) requirements (see Section IV-E). C. RELATED ISSUES I. Concurrent Residential Displacement There are no current public projects causing residential displacements underway in Huntington Beach which would compete with the Project for needed housing resources. No residential displacee would be required to move without both adequate notice and access to available, affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing. 2. Temporary Housing The City does not anticipate a need for temporary housing of those tenants that may be displaced in the event the proposed Project is implemented. 8 Item 8. - 15 HB -114- IV. THE RELOCATION ION PROGFAM The City's Relocation Program will apply all regulatory criteria to formulate eligibility and benefit determinations to conform with all applicable requirements. The Relocation Program to be implemented by the City will conform with the standards and provisions of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("URA"). The City has retained OPC, a multi-lingual consulting firm, to administer the Relocation Program. City staff will monitor the performance of OPC and be responsible to approve or disapprove OPC's recommendations concerning eligibility and benefit determinations and interpretations of the City's policy. Eligible individuals, who may be required to permanently move from their existing home, would receive relocation assistance. The Relocation Program will consist of two principal components: advisory assistance and financial assistance (Relocation Benefits). A. ADVISORY ASSISTANCE Advisory assistance services are intended to: • inform displacees about the Relocation Program • help in the process of finding appropriate replacement accommodations • facilitate claims processing • maintain a communication link with the City • coordinate the involvement of outside service providers To assure that the City meets its obligations under the law, OPC staff will perform the following functions: 1. Distribute appropriate written information concerning the City's Relocation Program; 2. Inform eligible Project occupants of the nature of, and procedures for, obtaining available relocation assistance and benefits (See Exhibit D); 3. Determine the needs of each displacee eligible for assistance; 4. Provide residential displacees with at least'one, and preferably three, referrals to comparable replacement housing within a reasonable time prior to displacement. Generally, a comparable replacement dwelling must satisfy the following criteria: (a) The unit is decent, safe, and sanitary - electrical, plumbing and heating systems in good repair - no major, observable hazards or defects. The unit adequate in size and is comparable to the acquired dwelling with respect to number of rooms, habitable living space and type and quality of 9 HB -115- Item 8. - 16 construction, but not lesser in rooms or living space as necessary to accommodate the displaced person. The unit is functionally equivalent, including principle features. (b) The unit is located in an area not subjected to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions from either natural, or man-made sources, and not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities, transportation, public and commercial facilities, including schools and municipal services and reasonably accessible to the displaced person's place of employment. (c) The unit is available both on the private market and to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, marital status, religion or, national origin. 5. Maintain an updated database of available housing resources, and distribute referral information to displacees for the duration of the Project; 6. Provide transportation to the residential displacees, if necessary, to inspect replacement sites within the local area; 7. Inspect replacement housing to assure it meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards as described in the URA; 8. Supply information concerning federal and state programs and other governmental programs providing assistance to displaced persons; 9. Make benefit determinations and payments in accordance with applicable law and the City's adopted relocation guidelines; 10. Assist eligible occupants in the preparation and submission of relocation assistance claims; 11. Assure that no occupant would be required to move without a minimum of 90 days written notice to vacate; 12. Inform all persons subject to displacement of the City's policies with regard to eviction and property management; 13. Provide additional reasonable services necessary to successfully relocate occupants; 14. Establish and maintain a formal grievance procedure for use by displaced persons seeking administrative review of the City's decisions with respect to relocation assistance; and 15. Provide assistance that does not result in different or separate treatment based on or due to an individual's sex, marital status, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical handicap, sexual orientation, and domestic partnership status. 10 Item 8. - 17 xB -116- B. REL,OCATION BENEFITS Specific eligibility requirements and benefit plans will be detailed on an individual basis with all displacees. In the course of a personal interview and follow-up visits, each displacee would be counseled as to available options and the consequences of any choice with respect to financial assistance. Relocation benefits would be provided in accordance with the provisions of the federal guidelines, and City rules, regulations and procedures pertaining thereto. Benefits would be paid to eligible displaced persons upon submission of required claim forms and documentation in accordance with the City's normal administrative procedures. Specifically, federal RSTP and local Prop 42 funds would be used to pay relocation related payments in the event the proposed Project is implemented. The City would process advance payment requests to mitigate hardships for residents who do not have access to sufficient funds to pay move-in costs such as paying an escrow deposit. Approved requests would be processed expeditiously to help avoid the loss of desirable, appropriate replacement housing. At this point, the research indicates the mobile home owner-occupants would have four options with respect to relocation arrangements following the City's offer to purchase: • The owner may decline to sell his/her mobile home and elect to move and set up the unit in a new location, including any existing improvements, providing the total cost of moving the mobile home does not exceed the replacement cost of a comparable unit. It needs to be noted, however, that current zoning and building codes in California practically make it impossible for an older mobile home to be moved and reestablished at another location. Benefits would include the cost of moving and setting up the existing mobile home within 50 miles from the Project, and Rental Assistance for space rent, if applicable. • The owner may elect to sell the mobile home to the City for its appraised value-in-place, and purchase a comparable replacement mobile home in another location; Benefits would include Replacement Housing Payment, Residential Moving Expenses, and Rental Assistance for space rent, if applicable. • The owner may elect to sell the mobile home to the City for its appraised value-in-place and apply their entitlement toward the purchase of another type of residential dwelling, including the amount determined for Rental Assistance for space rent. Benefits would include Replacement Housing Payment, Residential Moving Expenses, and Rental Assistance, if applicable. • The owner may elect to sell the mobile home to the City for its appraised value-in-place and rent an alternate type of residential unit. 11 HB -117- Item 8. - 18 Benefits would include Residential Moving Expenses and Rental Assistance, if applicable. The owner would be entitled to utilize up to the total of the replacement housing eligibility in the form of rental assistance. Actual rental assistance eligibility would be determined by subtracting the difference between the economic rent of the mobile home residence from the market rent for an apartment unit of comparable size (e.g., number of bedrooms) multiplied by 42 months. 1. Residential Moving Expense Payments All residential occupants that may be permanently relocated would be eligible to receive a payment for moving expenses. Moving expense payments would be made based upon the actual cost of a professional move or a fixed payment based on a room-count schedule. a. Actual Cost (Professional Move) Displacees may elect to have a licensed professional mover perform the move. The actual cost of the moving services, based on at least two acceptable bids, would be compensated by the City in the form of a direct payment to the moving company upon presentation of an invoice. Transportation costs are limited to a distance of 50 miles in either case. In addition to the actual move, costs associated with utility re-connections (i.e., gas, water, electricity, telephone, and cable, if any), are eligible for reimbursement. b. Fixed Payment (based on Room Count Schedule) An occupant may elect to receive a fixed payment for moving expenses which is based on the number of rooms occupied in the displacement dwelling. In this case, the person to be relocated takes full responsibility for the move. The fixed payment would include all utility connections as described in (a), above. The current schedule for fixed moving payments is set forth in Table 4: TABLE 4: Schedule of Fixed Moving Payments Unfurnished Dwelling One room $625 Two rooms $800 Three rooms $1,000 Four rooms S 1,175 Five rooms $1,425 Six rooms $1,650 Seven rooms $1,900 Eight rooms $2,150 each additional room $225 Furnished Dwelling First Room $400 Each additional room $65 12 Item 8. - 19 HB -118- A displaced person's actual, reasonable and necessary moving expenses for moving personal property from a mobile home may be determined based on the cost of one, or a combination of the eligible actual moving expenses as described in Section IV-B.I of this Plan. The owner-occupant of a mobile home that is moved as personal property and used as a person's replacement dwelling, is also eligible for: (i) the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving, and reassembling any appurtenances attached to a mobile home, such as porches, decks, skirting, and awnings, which were not acquired, anchoring of the unit, and utility "hookup" charges; (ii) the reasonable cost of repairs and/or modifications so that a mobile home can be moved and/or made decent, safe, and sanitary; (ill) the cost of a nonrefundable mobile home park entrance fee, to the extent it does not exceed the fee at the comparable mobile home park, if the person is displaced from a mobile home park or the City determines that the payment of the fee is necessary to effect relocation. 2. Purchase Assistance to Homeowners Homeowners that may be displaced in the event the proposed Project is implemented would be eligible for relocation replacement housing payments, if the following conditions are met: (a) The displacee has owned and occupied their unit for not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiations, and (b) The displacee purchases and occupies a replacement unit within one year from: (i) the date the displaced person receives final payment for the displacement dwelling - or - (ii) the date at least one comparable replacement dwelling has been made available to the displacee, whichever is later. Homeowner households that may be displaced would receive assistance in locating a "comparable replacement" unit and may be eligible for the following benefits: Purchase Price Differential Payment - A displaced household may be eligible for a replacement housing payment as an owner-occupant. Once the fair market value of the dwelling being acquired by the City is determined, an analysis of the existing housing market is made to determine the costs of a comparable replacement dwelling. The difference, if any, between the payment received for the displacement dwelling and the purchase price of a comparable replacement dwelling results in the amount of a Purchase Price Differential ("PPD")payment. 13 HB -119- Item 8. - 20 Incidental Expense Payment - As a part of the cost associated with the purchase of a replacement dwelling, certain closing costs are generally incurred. These include, but are not limited to: appraisal fees, title and escrow fees, recording fees, loan processing fees, and cost for credit reports. These one-time non-recurring fees associated with purchasing a replacement dwelling would be reimbursable to the displaced household by the City as an Incidental Expense Payment. These expenses must be actually incurred and documented on a Final Closing Statement supplied by the escrow or title company. Recurring costs such as real estate taxes, insurance and association dues would not be eligible as reimbursable closing costs. Mortgage Interest Differential Payment - In some cases, an owner-occupant being displaced may find that current market interest rates or mortgage costs exceed their existing mortgage terms. A Mortgage Interest Differential Payment (MIDP) may be made to enable the displaced household to duplicate the amortization schedule for the displacement dwelling to that of the comparable replacement dwelling, as described in the Relocation Laws. The payment amount would cover the increased interest costs, if any,required to finance a replacement dwelling. Based upon the available data regarding Project displacees, the potentially displaced households may qualify for, and may be eligible to apply for, several of these relocation benefits under URA provisions. Except in the case of Last Resort Housing situations, the potential total payment to the households would be limited to a maximum of$22,500 as stated under URA guidelines. The Relocation Program is explained in detail in the informational brochure to be provided to each potentially displaced household (see Exhibit D). 3. Space Rent Differential Payment If comparable replacement housing available at the time of displacement includes space or pad rent and utilities that are higher than the displacee's current rent and utilities, the displacee would be entitled to a rental assistance payment, not to exceed$5,250 except in the case of Last Resort Housing. An actual rental assistance entitlement would be determined by subtracting the difference between the displacement rent and utilities of the displacement dwelling from the rent and estimated monthly utilities for the comparable dwelling multiplied by 42 months. 4. Rental Assistance Option to Owners Who Choose to Rent If a displaced homeowner household, which has purchased and occupied its current unit at least 180 days prior to the "initiation of negotiations," desires to rent instead of purchase a replacement unit, the household would be eligible for all the benefits and assistance that is available to tenant households. However, such replacement housing payments may not exceed the payments the household would have been entitled to if it had elected to purchase a replacement unit. To be eligible to receive the rental assistance benefits, the displaced household has to rent and occupy a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling within one year from the date they move from the displacement dwelling. 14 Item 8. - 21 HB -120- Rental Assistance payment amounts would be equal to 42 times the difference between the base monthly rent and the lesser of: (i) The monthly rent and estimated average monthly cost of utilities for a comparable replacement dwelling; or (ii) The monthly rent and estimated average monthly cost of utilities for the decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling actually occupied by the displaced person. The base monthly rent for the displacement dwelling would be: (i) The average monthly cost for rent and utilities at the displacement dwelling for a reasonable period prior to displacement, as determined by the City. For owner-occupants or households, fair market rent would be used as a substitute for actual rent. Table 5 portrays the rental assistance benefits determination under the URA: r < AN TABLE 5 _.Ex"afnp! mputa ion of URA Renfa Assistance PaymentsE, 1.Old Rent $650 Old Rent and Utilities(based on Fair Market Rent) Subtracted From: 2. Actual New Rent $750 Actual New Rent and Estimated Utilities or 3. Comparable Rent $775 Determined by City(includes estimated utilities) 4. Lesser of lines 2 or 3 $750 5. Yields Monthly Need: $100 Subtract line 1 from line 4 6 Rental"Assistance $4,200 Multiply line 5 by 42 months The City's Relocation Program is designed to minimize hardship, be responsive to unique Project circumstances, emphasize maintaining personal contact with all individuals directly affected by the Project, consistently apply all regulatory criteria to formulate eligibility and benefit determinations and conform to all applicable requirements, guidelines and laws. The City has retained OPC, a professional consulting firm, to administer the Relocation Program in the event the proposed Project is implemented and the occupants are required to vacate. Experienced City staff will monitor the performance of the consultants and be responsible to approve or disapprove consultant recommendations concerning eligibility and benefits determinations and interpretations of the City's policy. 15 HB -121- Item 8. - 22 C. PROGRAM ASSURANCES AND STANDARDS Adequate funds are available to relocate all households that would be displaced in the event the proposed Project is implemented. Relocation assistance services would be provided to ensure that displacement does not result in different or separate treatment of households based on race, nationality, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, disability or any other basis protected by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, and the Unruh Act, as well as any other arbitrary or unlawful discrimination. D. GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS Claims and supporting documentation for relocation benefits for tenants must be filed with the City no later than 18 months after the date of displacement. The procedure for the preparation and filing of claims and the processing and delivery of payments would be as follows: 1. Claimant(s) would provide all necessary documentation to substantiate eligibility for assistance; 2. City staff would review all necessary documentation including, but not limited to, scopes-of-service, contractor bids, invoices, lease documents and escrow material before reaching a determination as to which expenses are eligible for compensation; 3. Required claim forms would be prepared by OPC staff and presented to the claimant for review. Signed claims and supporting documentation would be returned to relocation staff and submitted to the City; 4. The City would review and approve claims for payment, or request additional information; 5. The City would issue benefit checks to claimants in the most secure, expeditious manner possible; 6. Final payments to residential displacee would be issued after confirmation that the Project premises have been completely vacated, and actual residency at the replacement unit has been verified; 7. Receipts of payment and all claim material would be maintained in the relocation case file. 16 Item 8. - 23 HB -122- E. LAST RESORT HOUSING Based on data derived from the surveys and analyses of the occupants in the Project area and costs of replacement housing resources as of the date of this Plan, it is anticipated that "comparable replacement housing" would be available. (For owner-occupants/homeowners, if there is not enough "comparable replacement housing" available, the displacing entity may pay whatever costs are necessary beyond the statutory cap of $22,500 to acquire a "comparable replacement"unit, including reasonable incidental expenses.) In the event the proposed Project is implemented, and if at the time of actual displacement there is not enough required replacement housing resources available within the statutory limit, the City would authorize sufficient funds to provide Last Resort Housing. Due to the demonstrated number of available replacement housing resources for all of the households, as shown in Section III-B.1 of this Plan, the need to develop additional replacement housing to produce a sufficient number of comparable replacement dwellings would not be necessary at this point. Rather, funds would be used to make payments in excess of the monetary limits specified in the statute; hence, satisfying the requirement that"comparable replacement housing" is available. E. IMMIGRATION STATUS Federal legislation (PL105-117) prohibits the payment of relocation assistance benefits under the URA to any alien not lawfully present in the United States unless such ineligibility would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child any of whom is a citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence. Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is defined as significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the health or safety, continued existence of the family unit, and any other impact determined by the City to negatively affect the alien's spouse, parent or child. In order to track and account for relocation assistance and benefit payments, City staff would be required to seek immigration status information from each displacee 18 years or older by having them self-certify as to their legal status. 17 HB -123- Item 8. - 24 V. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS ISIONS A. NOTICES Each notice, which the City is required to provide to a property owner or occupant, shall be personally delivered or sent by certified or registered first-class mail, return receipt requested and documented in the case file. Each notice would be written in plain, understandable language. Persons who are unable to read and understand any notice would be provided with appropriate translation and counseling. Each notice would indicate the name and telephone number of a person who may be contacted for answers to questions or other needed help. There are three principal notices: 1) the General Information Notice, 2) the Notice of Relocation Eligibility, and 3) the Ninety-Day Notice. The General Information Notice (GIN) is intended to provide potential relocatees with a general written description of the City's Relocation Program and basic information concerning benefits, conditions of eligibility, noticing requirements and appeal rights. (See Exhibit B) The GIN is issued as early as is feasible in the initial stages of a Project, preferably, the planning stage. In June 2011, GINS were mailed via regular and certified mail to the eight households that would be directly affected in the event the proposed Project is implemented. A Notice of Relocation Eligibility (NOE) would be distributed to each residential relocatee. The NOE to the relocatee contains a determination of eligibility for relocation assistance and a computation of a maximum entitlement based on information provided by the affected household and the analysis of comparable replacement properties undertaken by relocation staff. The NOE would be issued to any eligible permanent displacee once the Project has been approved and Project funding is in place. No lawful occupant would be required to move without having received at least 90 days advance written notice of the earliest date by which the move would be necessary. The 90-day notice would either state a specific date as the earliest date by which the occupant may be required to move or state that the occupant would receive a further notice indicating, at least 30 days in advance, the specific date of the required move. The 90-day notice would not be issued to any residential displacee before a comparable replacement dwelling has been made available. In addition to the three principal notices, City staff would issue timely written notification in the form of a Reminder Notice, which discusses the possible loss of rights and sets the expiration date for the loss of benefits to those persons who: 1) are eligible for monetary benefits, 2) have moved from the acquired property, and 3) have not filed a claim for benefits. 18 Item 8. - 25 xB -124- Reminder Notices would be issued periodically throughout the qualification period. An attempt would be made to make written contact with all non-responsive relocatees no later than within the last six months prior to the filing expiration date. B. PRIVACY OF RECORDS All information obtained from displacees is considered confidential and would not be shared without the consent of the displacee or the City unless otherwise required to be provided by law. City staff would comply with federal regulations concerning the safeguarding of relocation files and their contents. C. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES A person who is dissatisfied with a determination as to eligibility for benefits, a payment amount, the failure to provide comparable temporary housing, or the City's property management practices may file a Relocation Assistance Appeal Form or any other written form of appeal with the City. The City's appeal policies will follow the standards described in Article 5, Section 6150 et seq., Title 25, Chapter 6, State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development Program guidelines. Specific details for the City's appeals policy will be furnished upon request. D. EVICTION POLICY 1. Eviction will cause the forfeiture of a displacee's right to relocation assistance or benefits. Relocation records would be documented to reflect the specific circumstances surrounding any eviction action. 2. Eviction that may cause forfeiture include the following: (a) Failure to pay rent, except in those cases where the failure to pay is due to the owner's failure to keep the premises in habitable condition; is the result of harassment or retaliatory action; or, is the result of discontinuation, or a substantial interruption of services; (b) Performance of a dangerous, and/or illegal act in the unit; (c) A material breach of the rental agreement, and failure upon notification to correct said breach within 30 days of Notice; (d) Maintenance of a nuisance, and failure to abate such nuisance upon notification within a reasonable time following Notice; (e) Refusal to accept one of a reasonable number of offers of replacement dwellings; and/or, (f) A requirement under State, or local law or emergency circumstances that cannot be prevented by reasonable efforts on the part of the City. 19 HB -125- Item 8. - 26 E. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION As the process for considering the Project moves forward, the City will observe the following protocol: 1. Provide affected tenants with full and timely access to documents relevant to the City's Relocation Program; 2. Encourage meaningful participation in reviewing the Relocation Plan and monitoring the relocation assistance program; 3. Provide technical assistance necessary to interpret elements of the Relocation Plan and other pertinent materials; 4. Issue a general notice concerning the availability of the Plan for public review, as required, 30 days prior to its proposed approval; and 5. Include written or oral comments concerning the Plan as an attachment (Exhibit E) when it is forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. F. PROJECTED DATE OF DISPLACEMENT The City anticipates that Notices to Vacate will be issued no earlier than Spring 2012. G. ESTIMATED RELOCATION COSTS The total budget estimate for relocation-related payments for this Project, including a 10% contingency, is $240,000. The budget is based on the displaced owners selling their current mobile homes and purchasing replacement dwellings. The estimated relocation budget does not include any payments related to land acquisition or the acquisition of the mobile homes. In addition, the budget does not consider the cost of any services necessary to implement the Plan and complete the relocation element of the Project. In the event the proposed Project is implemented, and circumstances arise that should change either the number of residential occupants, or the nature of their activity, the City may need to authorize additional funds. The City Council approved the Capital Improvement Program on September 6, 2011, which appropriated the funding for this project necessary to meet the City's obligation under the relocation guidelines. 20 Item 8. - 27 xB -126- EXHIBIT A RESIDENTIAL INTERVIEW FORM xB -127- Item 8. - 28 c� x � '� Client/Project: Case ID: Site Address: Total occupants: Interview Date: ❑ Unoccupied City,St,ZIP: Interviewer: ❑ No Contact 60lfiidT�. ,��' ��It�l' 1.Name: lGender: F M Employer/School: Relationship(list 1): HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD ❑ ID verified Income srce(list 2): Income/empl.description: Hire/start date: Mo Income: Lawful presence(list 3): Date of birth: Phone/fax/email: Move-in date: Notes/special needs: 2.Name: ;Gender: F M Employer/School: Relationship(list 1): ❑ ID verified Income srce(list 2): Income/empl.description: Hirelstart date: Mo Income: Lawful presence(list 3): Date of birth: Phone/fax/email: Move-in date: j I Notes/special needs: 3.Name: ,Gender: F M Employer/School: Relationship(list 1): ❑ ID verified Income srce(list 2): Income/empl.description: Hire/start date: Mo Income: I Lawful presence(list 3): Date of birth: ...... - - Phone/fax/email: Move in date: Notes/special needs: 4.Name: :Gender: F M Employer/School: Relationship(list 1): ❑ ID verified Income srce(list 2): Income/empl.description: Hirelstart date: Mo Income: Lawful presence(list 3): Date of birth: Phone/fax/email: Move-in date: i Notes/special needs: 5.Name: Gender: F M Employer/School: Relationship(list 1): ❑ ID verified Income srce(list 2): Income/empl.description: Hire/start date: Mo Income: Lawful presence(list 3): Date of birth: Phone/fax/email: Move-in date: i Notes/special needs: 6.Name: !Gender: F M Employer/School: Relationship(list 1): ❑ ID verified Income srce(list 2): Income/empl.description: ';Hire/start date: IMo Income: Lawful presence(list 3): Date of birth: Phone/fax/email: Move-in date- Notes/special needs: rn anon Imno^ erland. Pacific&Cutler, Inc. (08/08) Page 1 Item 8. - 29 HB -128- Mailing Address: ❑ Primary residence of all occupants?(If not,explain in notes) city,St,ZIP: ❑ Can someone read/understand English?If not,language: Carbon Copy Address: Race/Ethnicity: ❑American Indian/Alaskan ❑Asian City,St,ZIP: ❑ Black/African-American ❑ Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Dwelling Type(list 4): ❑ Hispanic/Latino ❑White ❑ Other ❑ Mixed Bedrooms: ;Attic/Utility/Storage: Approx Sq Ft: jSuEbscribe ❑ Land phone ❑ TV service ❑ Internet Kitchen: ;Basement: Bathrooms: business?(describe in notes) Living/family rooms: Garage: Garage Spaces: ❑ Rent rooms in dwelling?(describe in notes) Dining room: 'Other/Extra: Carport Spaces: ❑On fixed income or public assistance?(describe in Occupants) Den/Office: Total physical and Parkin S i 9 aces:P ❑ Disabled occupants. (describe modifications/needs in Occupants) - content rooms to Total Rooms: move: Number of cars: Replacement site special needs(mark and describe in Notes) AirCond: ❑Central ❑Wall/Window ❑Heat Pump ❑Evap./Swamp ❑None ❑ Employment access ❑ Shopping Heating: ❑FAU ❑Radiant ❑Hot Water ❑Space Htr ❑Solar ❑Heat Pump ❑ Public transport ❑ Religious Dwelling Condition: ❑ Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor ❑ Medical facilities/services ❑ Social/Public services Neighborhood Condition: ❑ Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor ❑ School needs ❑ Relatives/Ethnic Amenities: ❑ Childcare ❑ Other special needs ❑All occupants to move to the same dwelling?(if not,explain in notes) 7 NA " ,. Replacement dwelling preference: ElRent ❑ Buy . Rent terms: ❑ Month-Month ❑ Lease,months left: Can relocate from: ❑ Neighborhood ❑ City ❑ County ❑ State ❑Rent reduced in exchange for service ❑ Unit furnished by tenant Preferred relocation areas: Monthly contract rent:$ Security deposit:$ ?�IEt3VVN'Ft Landlord/manager name/ph: Lot Size(sq ft): Date purchased: Age(yrs): ❑Written rental agreement available? ❑ Rent receipts available? ❑ Own clear with no mortgages/loans #of stories: ❑ Receiving Section 8 or other housing assistance? 1st Loan Information j 2nd Loan Information Caseworker name/ph: Lender: !Lender: Monthly tenant portion of rent: $ Loan Type(list 5): !Loan Type(list 5): Annual family/child care expenses to allow work: $ Current%Rate: i Current%Rate: Annual non-reimbursed medical expenses: $ Principal Balance:$ Principal Balance:$ Annual non-reimb.handicapped assistance expenses: $ Original Date: I,Original Date: Utilities paid by tenant: Pets: Remaining months: j Remaining months: ❑ Gas: $ Monthly P&I payment: Monthly P&I payment: ❑ Electric: $ Energy source: Gas Electr Oil Other I1\LE HE y 6 ` ❑Water: $ Cooking Stove: ❑ ❑ ` ❑ Pad space: ❑ Rent ❑ Own 'Coach: ❑ Rent ❑ Own ❑ Sewer: $ Water Heater: ❑ ❑ ❑ Pad rent:$. IMake/Model: ❑Trash: $ Space Heat: ❑ ❑ ❑ Coach length(ft): !,Year: ❑ NONE Air Conditioning: ❑ ❑ ❑ Coach width(ft): Decal#: @ 1980-2008 Overland, Pacific&Cutler, Inc. (08/08) HB -129- Item 8. — 30 R01-11 Im IIAIIERV1E �llQTIEcpa€ all VPica €iwel 1#tti [ci � ace..icrrrt>h acted }. �. 1.Relation: Spouse,Child,Foster Child,Parent, Partner,Sibling,Aunt/Uncle,Cousin,Grandparent,Parent In-Law,Sibling In-Law,Other Relative,Roommate 2.Income: Wages/Salaries,Social Security/Disab/Pension,Child Support/Alimony,Welfare/TANF/AFDC,Family Subsidy/Gift,Business Income, Interest/Dividends,Unempl./Workers Comp,AF pay,EITC,Cash Income,Rent Reduction,Other 3.Legal Status:Unknown,Citizen/National,Lawful Other,NOT Lawful,Decline to provide. 4.Dwelling: SFR,Duplex,3-Plex,4-Plex,Apartment,Condo/Townhome,Hotel/Motel,Mobile Home,RV,Other 5.Loans: Fixed Mortgage,Adjustable Mortgage,Interest Only,Fixed HELOC,Adjustable HELOC,Reverse Mortgage,Other S de be R:' enat�®ate d t ICI ®rma Ul Claimant Name: Date: Signature: aRn_�nnsz("verland, Pacific&Cutler, Inc. (08/08) Page 3 Item 8. - 31 xB -130- EXHIBIT B GENERAL INFORMATION NOTICE HB -131- Item 8. - 32 June 24, 2011 Dear Mr, and Ms. The City of Huntington Beach ("City")may be interested in acquiring a portion of the property you currently occupy at 80 Huntington Street, Space 102 in the event a street widening project, the "Atlanta Avenue Widening Project" (Project), moves forward. If it is necessary for the City to acquire your property in the form of a mobile home coach, and you are displaced, you will be eligible for relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), and California Relocation Assistance Law (Sec 7260 et. seq. of the CA Government Code). IN NO EVENT DOES THIS LETTER SUGGEST AND IT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED IN ANY WAY THAT THIS PROTECT IS GOING FORWARD OR THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO RELOCATE XF THIS TIME. This is not a notice to vacate the premises or a notice of relocation eligibility BUT IS NOTICE THAT THE CITY IS PREPARING A RELOCATION PLAN AND AS SUCH IS PROVIDING NOTICE THAT YOU MAY BE INTERVIEWER D . The City has retained the professional firm of Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (OPC) to represent and assist the City regarding this proposed project. In the event the project moves forward, the City is preparing a Relocation Plan in order to assess and better plan for the relocation needs in the event a household is displaced. In order to prepare this Relocation Plan, OPC staff would like to meet with you to assess your individual relocation needs. It is important that the City understands your individual housing needs and situation, to develop a proper Relocation Plan. OPC staff will be available to answer your immediate questions regarding any relocation process that may take place. Please call the relocation consultant identified below to make an appointment that is convenient for you. Laura Kane (800)901-5263 Again,this notice is preliminary and sent to you as a State and Federal legal requirement, If you pay rent, you should continue to pay your monthly rent. Failure to pay rent and meet your obligations as a tenant may be cause for eviction and loss of relocation assistance. Please contact us before you male any plans to sell or relocate, as such a decision may affect eligibility to receive relocation assistance in the event the project moves forward. 01980.2010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) �- Page 4 Item 8. - 33 HB -132- t JJ t If the project moves forward, and you arc eligible for relocation assistance,the City will provide you with additional assistance, including referrals to replacement housing and at least 90 days advance written notice of the date you will be required to move. You would also receive a payinent for moving expenses and may be eligible for financial assistance to help you rent or buy a replacement dwelling. Note that pursuant to Public Law 105-117, aliens not lawfully present in the United States are not eligible for relocation assistance, unless such ineligibility would result in exceptional hardship to a qualifying spouse,parent,or child. All persons seeking relocation assistance will be required to certify that they are a United States citizen or national,or an alien lawfully present in the United States, If you have any questions about this or any other relocation issues, please contact me at the address and the phone number below. Sincerely, Michele Folk,SR/WA,R/W-RAC Principal/Vice President Overland, Pacific,&Cutler,Inc. 20 Fairbanks, Suite 178 Irvine, CA 92618 (949)951-5263 Delivered on/by: / Received by X Posted on/by: / Recipient's Signature Mailed/receipt received on: Date 0 1 980-201 0 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03110) r Page 2 HB -133- Item 8. - 34 EXHIBIT C HUD INCOME LEVELS — ORANGE COUNT' The following figures are approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for use in the County of Orange to define and determine housing eligibility by income level. EPICYledt IIICO '. $8r , (DO 3 Family Size Extremely Low Very Low Lower 1 Person 19,400 32,350 51,700 2 Person 22,200 36,950 59,100 3 Person 24,950 41,550 66,500 WE 4-Person 27,700 46,150 73,850 5 Person 29,950 49,850 79,800 6 Person 32,150 53,550 85,700 7 Person 34,350 57,250 91,600 8 Person 36,600 60,950 97,500 Figures are per the Department of Housing and Urban Development (California), updated in 2011. Item 8. - 35 HB -134- EXHIBIT D RESIDENTIAL INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE HB -135- Item 8. - 36 IMF — fi � ,� Fd th a"nd 1 n�d ev dti (Federal) Displacing Agency: City of Huntington Beach Protect Name: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Displacing Agency Representative: Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. 20 Fairbanks, Suite 178 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 1-800/901-5263 Informational Statement Content: 1. General Information 2. Assistance In Locating A Replacement Dwelling 3. Moving Benefits 4. Replacement Housing Payment - Tenants And Certain Others 5. Section 8 Tenants 6. Replacement Housing Payment — Homeowners 7. Qualification For And Filing Of Relocation Claims 8. Last Resort Housing Assistance 9. Rental Agreement 10. Evictions 11. Appeal Procedures — Grievance 12. Tax Status of Relocation Benefits 13. Legal Presence Requirement 14. Non-Discrimination and Fair Housing 15. Additional Information And Assistance Available Spar h s ak{ eprisk des a riec stt s#a inf rn ci n en al, o r av r 1I ` ... ps vale: rake a su tr�sentate. .... n a99n-2010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) Page 1 Item 8. 37 Hs -136- off (Federal) 1. GENERAL INFORMATION The dwelling in which you now live is in a project area to be improved by, or financed through,the Displacing Agency using federal funds. If and when the project proceeds, and it is necessary for you to move from your dwelling,you may be eligible for certain benefits.You will be notified in a timely manner as to the date by which you must move. Please read this information, as it will be helpful to you in determining your eligibility and the amount of the relocation benefits you may receive under the federal law.You will need to provide adequate and timely information to determine your relocation benefits.The information is voluntary,but if you don't provide it, you may not receive the benefits or it may take longer to pay you. We suggest you save this informational statement for reference. The Displacing Agency has retained the professional firm of Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc.(OPC)to provide relocation assistance to you. The firm is available to explain the program and benefits. Their address and telephone number is listed on the cover. PLEASE DO NOT MOVE PREMATURELY. THIS IS NOT A NOTICE TO VACATE YOUR DWELLING. However,if you desire to move sooner than required,you must contact your representative with Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc.,so you will not jeopardize any benefits. This is a general informational brochure only,and is not intended to give a detailed description of either the law or regulations pertaining to the Displacing Agency's relocation assistance program. Please continue to pay your rent to your current landlord,otherwise you may be evicted and jeopardize the relocation benefits to which you may be entitled to receive. Once the Displacing Agency acquires the property, you will also be required to pay rent to the Displacing Agency. 2. ASSISTANCE IN LOCATING A REPLACEMENT DWELLING The Displacing Agency,through its representatives,will assist you in locating a comparable replacement dwelling by providing referrals to appropriate and available housing units. You are encouraged to actively seek such housing yourself. When a suitable replacement dwelling unit has been found,your relocation consultant will carry out an inspection and advise you as to whether the dwelling unit meets decent, safe and sanitary housing requirements. .A decent, safe and sanitary housing unit provides adequate space for its occupants, proper weatherproofing and sound heating, electrical and plumbing systems. Your new dwelling must pass inspection before relocation assistance payments can be authorized. 3. MOVING BENEFITS If you must move as a result of displacement by the Displacing Agency,you will receive a payment to assist in moving your personal property. The actual, reasonable and necessary expenses for moving your household belongings may be determined based on the following methods: • A Fixed Moving Payment based on the number of rooms you occupy (see below);or • A payment for your Actual Reasonable Moving and Related Expenses based on at least two written ©1980-2010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) Pao-2 HB -137- Item 8. - 38 estimates and receipted bills; or • A combination of both (in some cases). For example, you may choose a Self Move, receiving a payment based on the Fixed Residential Moving Cost Schedule shown below,plus contract with a professional mover to transport your grand piano and/or other items that require special handling. In this case, there may be an adjustment in the number of rooms which qualify under the Fixed Residential Moving Cost Schedule. A. Fixed Moving Payment (Self Move) I=1kgaVooing Schedule, A Fixed Moving Payment is based upon the number of rooms ALIT~C R 1A E' G ve 2i3(D$ you occupy and whether or not you own your own furniture. Occupant owns furniture: The payment is based upon a schedule approved by the 1 room $625 Displacing Agency,and ranges,for example,from$400.00 for 2 rooms $800 one furnished room to $2,150.00 for eight rooms in an 3 rooms $1,000 unfurnished dwelling. (For details see the table). Your 4 rooms $1,175 relocation representative will inform you of the amount you are 5 rooms $1,425 eligible to receive, if you choose this type of payment. 6 rooms $1,650 7 rooms $1,900 If you select a fixed payment, you will be responsible for 8 rooms $2,150 arranging for your own move, and the Displacing Agency will Each additional room $225 Occupant does NOT own furniture: assume no liability for any loss or damage of your personal 400 property. A fixed payment also includes utility hook-up,credit Each additional room 65 1 room $$65 check and other related moving fees. B. Actual Moving Expense (Commercial Move) If you wish to engage the services of a licensed commercial mover and have the Displacing Agency pay the bill, you may claim the ACTUAL cost of moving your personal property up to 50 miles. Your relocation representative will inform you of the number of competitive moving bids(if any)which may be required, and assist you in developing a"mover" scope of services for Displacing Agency approval. 4. MOBILEHOME TENANTS AND CERTAIN OTHERS - REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT You may be eligible for a payment up to $5,250.00 to assist in renting or purchasing a comparable replacement dwelling. In order to qualify,you must either be a tenant who has occupied the present dwelling for at least 90 days immediately prior to the initiation of negotiations or an owner who has occupied the present dwelling between 90 and 180 days immediately prior to the initiation of negotiations. A. Rental Assistance. If you wish to rent your replacement dwelling, your maximum rental assistance benefits will be based upon the difference over a forty-two(42)month period between the rent you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling and the lesser of your current rent or thirty percent(30%)of your monthly household income if your total gross income is classified as "low income" by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)Annual Survey of Income Limits for Public Housing and Section 8 Programs. You will be required to provide your relocation representative with monthly rent and household income verification prior to the determination of your eligibility for this payment. OR Down-payment Assistance.If you qualify,and wish to purchase a home as a replacement dwelling,you can apply up to the total amount of your rental assistance payment towards the down-payment and non- ()1490-2010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) Page 3 Item 8. - 39 HB -138- recurring incidental expenses.Your relocation representative will clarify procedures necessary to apply for this payment. 5. SECTION 8 TENANTS When you do move,you may be eligible to transfer your Section 8 eligibility to a replacement site. In such cases, a comparable replacement dwelling will be determined based on your family composition at the time of displacement and the current housing program criteria. This may not be the size of the unit you currently occupy. Your relocation representative will provide counseling and other advisory services along with moving benefits. 6. MOEILEHOME HOMEOWNERS - REPLACEMENT HOUSING & MOVING PAYMENTS A. Replacement Housing Option - If you own and occupy a mobilehome to be purchased by the Displacing Agency for at least 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiation, you may be eligible to receive a payment of up to $22,500.00 to assist you in purchasing a comparable replacement unit. This payment is intended to cover the following items: 1. Purchase Price Differential - An amount which, when added to the amount for which the Displacing Agency purchased your mobilehome, equals the lesser of the actual cost of your replacement dwelling; or the amount determined by the Displacing Agency as necessary to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling. Your relocation representative will explain both methods to you. 2. Mortgage Interest Differential- The amount which covers the increased interest costs, if any, required to finance a replacement dwelling.Your relocation representative will explain limiting conditions. 3. Incidental Expenses-Those one time incidental costs related to purchasing a replacement unit, such as escrow fees, recording fees, and credit report fees. Recurring expenses such as prepaid taxes and insurance premiums are not compensable. B. Rental Assistance Option - If you are an owner-occupant and choose to rent rather than purchase a replacement dwelling,you may be eligible for a rental assistance payment of up to the amount that you could have received under the Purchase Price Differential, explained above. The payment will be based on the difference between the fair market rent of the dwelling you occupy and the rent you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling. If you receive a rental assistance payment,as described above,and later decide to purchase a replacement dwelling,you may apply for a payment equal to the amount you would have received if you had initially purchased a comparable replacement dwelling, less the amount you have already received as a rental assistance payment. C. Space Rent Differential- If you decide to purchase another mobile home or move your mobile home, you may be eligible for additional assistance to cover any increased space rent at the facility to which you relocate.Your maximum rental assistance benefits will be based upon the difference over a forty-two(42) month period between the rent and estimated utilities you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling (as determined by the Displacing Agency) and the lesser of your current rent and average utilities or thirty percent(30%) of your gross monthly household income(if your household income is classified as"low income"by the U. S.Department of Housing and Urban Development's Annual Survey of Income Limits for the Public Housing and Section 8 Programs.) ©1980-2010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) Paned HB -139- Item 8. - 40 This space rent differential payment may be used to lease a replacement site; may be applied to the purchase price of a replacement site; or may be applied, with any replacement housing payment attributable to the mobile home, to the purchase of a replacement mobile home or conventional "decent, safe and sanitary" dwelling. D. Moving Option - If your coach is movable and you elect to have the Displacing_Agency move ,your coach to another park, the Displacing Agency will pay for the following: 1. Preparation of your coach for moving; 2. Transport of your coach to a new site (within 50 miles); 3. Set-up of your coach at the new location (including code required modifications such as earthquake strapping); 4. Reconstruction or reinstallation of all appurtenances such as porches, awnings and/or storage buildings; which are not acquired; 5. Payment of all fees for reinstallation; 6. Space Rent Differential, as described above; and 7. Other expenses which the Displacing Agency deems to be reasonable and necessary. NOTE: The cost of replacing landscaping and hardscape improvements is not covered. 7. QUALIFICATION FOR, AND FILING OF, RELOCATION CLAIMS To be eligible for a replacement housing payment described above, you must purchase or rent and occupy a decent, safe and sanitary replacement dwelling within 12 months from the later of the following dates: 1) the date the Displacing Agency has paid the Acquisition cost of your current dwelling, or 2) the date the first comparable replacement dwelling referral has been made available to you. You must also file all claims for replacement housing or moving payments within 18 months from the later of the following dates: 1) the date which you moved from your displacement dwelling, or 2)the date the Displacing Agency has paid the Acquisition cost of your current dwelling. Failure to occupy the replacement dwelling or to submit claims within the above time limits could result in loss of moving and/or replacement housing benefits. 8. LAST RESORT HOUSING ASSISTANCE If comparable replacement dwellings are not available when you are required to move,or if replacement housing is not available within the monetary limits described above, the Displacing Agency will provide Last Resort Housing assistance to enable you to rent or purchase a replacement dwelling on a timely basis. Last Resort Housing assistance is based on the individual circumstances of the displaced person. Your relocation representative will explain the process for determining whether or not you qualify for Last Resort assistance. n 1980-9010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) Page 5 Item 8. - 41 HB -140- If you are a tenant, and you choose to purchase rather than rent a comparable replacement dwelling, the entire amount of your rental assistance and Last Resort eligibility must be applied toward the down-payment and eligible incidental expenses of the home you intend to purchase. 9. RENTAL AGREEMENT As a result of the Displacing Agency's action to purchase the property where you live,you may become a tenant of the Displacing Agency. If this occurs, you will be asked to sign a rental agreement which will specify the monthly rent to be paid,when rent payments are due,where they are to be paid and other pertinent information. 10. EVICTIONS Eviction for cause must conform to applicable State and local law. Any person who occupies the real property and is not in unlawful occupancy on the date of initiation of negotiations,is presumed to be entitled to relocation benefits, unless the Displacing Agency determines that: e The person received an eviction notice prior to the initiation of negotiations and, as a result, was later evicted; or • The person is evicted after the initiation of negotiations for serious or repeated violation of material terms of the lease; and • The eviction was not undertaken for the purpose of evading relocation assistance regulations. Except for the causes of eviction set forth above,no person lawfully occupying property to be purchased by the Displacing Agency will be required to move without having been provided with at least 90 days written notice from the Displacing Agency. 11. APPEAL PROCEDURES - GRIEVANCE Any person aggrieved by a determination as to eligibility for, or the amount of, a payment authorized by the Displacing Agency's Relocation Assistance Program may have the appeal application reviewed by the Displacing Agency in accordance with its appeals procedure. Complete details on appeal procedures are available upon request from the Displacing Agency. 12. TAX STATUS OF RELOCATION BENEFITS California Government Code Section 7269 indicates no relocation payment received shall be considered as income for the purposes of the Personal Income Tax Law,Part 10(commencing with Section 170 01)of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or the Bank and Corporation Tax law,Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Furthermore, federal regulations (49 CFR Part 24, Section 24.209)also indicate that no payment received under this part(Part 24)shall be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,which has been redesignated as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The preceding statement is not tendered as legal advice in regard to tax consequences, and displacees should consult with their own tax advisor or legal counsel to determine the current status of such payments. (IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,for the purpose of(i)avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)promoting marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein) ©1980-2010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) Pnop 6 HB -141- Item 8. - 42 13. LAWFUL PRESENCE REQUIREMENT In order to be eligible to receive relocation benefits in federally-funded relocation projects, all members of the household to be displaced must provide information regarding their lawful presence in the United States. Any member of the household who is not lawfully present in the United States or declines to provide this information may be denied relocation benefits,unless such ineligibility would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, any of whom is a citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence.Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is defined as significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the health or safety,continued existence of the family unit,and any other impact determined by the Displacing Agency to negatively affect the alien's spouse,parent or child.Relocation benefits will be prorated to reflect the number of household members with certified lawful presence in the US. 14. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND FAIR HOUSING No person shall on the grounds of race,color,national origin or sex,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under the Displacing Agency's relocation assistance program pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and other applicable state and federal anti-discrimination and fair housing laws.You may file a complaint if you believe you have been subjected to discrimination. For details contact the Displacing Agency. 15. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE Those responsible for providing you with relocation assistance hope to assist you in every way possible to minimize the hardships involved in relocating to a new home. Your cooperation will be helpful and greatly appreciated. If you have any questions at any time during the process, please do not hesitate to contact your relocation representative at Overland, Pacific & Cutler. n 1980-2010 Overland,Pacific&Cutler,Inc. (03/10) Page 7 Item 8. - 43 xB -142- EXHIBIT E PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES HB -143- Item 8. - 44 OF, -41 Nk x, r� 24 - �• v r sk <g �� A" a a •; � -• , •�' a 41; , kn 'COMMENT LETTER' t y art, KingA Cold re Ir �P Received October 7, 201 ), . , iF \ r ' S � to IN qp S Jmto - 34 Al • _ 3f r Sm - e �b a A - ti - x # 5AA K 4. te Q, h HB l 4 f HK& C HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L.Hill bhill@hkciaw.com October 6, 2011 Our File Number:36608.005/4843-6821-8123v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS (714) 375-5087 � P Ms. Tina Krause, Real Property Agent ; - Economic Development Department �l`�1 �.) 2011 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 13t. 6 �.�r. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r�rr,s,,Rr "i''`'"uEiOi-WPtt4T Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project("Project") Comments on draft Relocation Plan ("Plan'2 Dear Ms. Krause: We represent the owners of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, whose residents would need to be relocated under the proposed Relocation Plan. This letter constitutes the Park Owners' comments on the City's Relocation Plan for the Project. The City should not act on the Plan or approve the Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Plan does not contain the City's promised CEQA review of the physical environmental effects of relocation of the Park residents. Page 6 of the draft Plan concedes that there likely will be physical relocation of residents-and of their homes under the Plan. The draft Plan does not specify replacement housing for those residents and does not study the environmental effects of removing existing homes and residents and of- providing such replacement housing. The displaced residents will include four very low income households. 2. Assuming that the City did include CEQA review of the Plan, that review would still be insufficient. The City should have conducted CEQA review of the entire Project and all of its components, including the Plan, at the time of the City's review of the Project Negative Declaration. Any City review of the environmental impacts of the Plan alone would result in piecemeal review of the Project's physical environmental impacts so that their cumulative effects are not considered. 3. The City's budget of $240,000 discussed on page 20 of the Relocation Plan is woefully inadequate to fund the purchase of eight replacement mobile homes at the replacement mobile home median prices listed on page 7 of the Plan. Furthermore, that budgeted amount fails to take into consideration additional benefits such as purchase price differential payments for higher home prices, rental assistance for higher rental rates, and moving costs that will be required under the Plan (see benefits discussion on pages 11-14). The Plan expressly concedes that the budget does not include the cost of any payments for the purchase of mobile homes or the costs of any services necessary to implement the Plan or complete the relocation element of the Project. Therefore, the budget is useless as a planning tool for the City. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.87001 www.hkclaw.com 1 Fx 714.546.7457 xB -145- •Item 8. - 46 HKL13cC HART, KING Sc GDLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project October 6, 2011 Page 2 Rather than hastily act on an inadequate Relocation Plan without an adequate budget and without adequate environmental review, the City should instead prepare a new Plan with a realistic budget, vacate its Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, and study the entire Project in a complete and focused EIR. Should the City approve the Plan at its November 7, 2011 meeting, the City risks that implementation of the Plan will be enjoined once the Court overturns the City's inadequate Mitigated Negative Declaration in December 2011. Sincerely, HART, KING & COLDREN BoyJL. !I 36608.005/4843-6821-8123v.1 Item 8. - 47 xB -146- Jr kr, r. r. Ix s. x. RESPONSE TO'COMMENTLETTER #1 eix Li r. rM ilp 0011 I Ai, AA HB =147 Item8. -`48 r RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER #1 Response to Paragraph No. 1, Sentence 1: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC ("Pacific") is the owner of Pacific Mobile Home Park (the "Park"). Pacific's attorney is Hart, King & Coldren ("HKC"). The HKC letter states that the Relocation Plan ("Plan") for the proposed Atlanta Avenue Widening Project ("Project") should not be acted on or approved as it "does not contain the City's promised CEQA review of the physical environmental effects of relocation of the Park residents." 1. The Plan does not propose or specify a relocation project. Therefore, there are no physical environmental effects to evaluate and no environmental review pursuant to CEQA would be necessary. On January 18, 2011, the Huntington Beach City Council approved MND No. 09-001 pursuant to CEQA for the Project. Response to Paragraph No. 1, Sentence 2: The HKC letter states that "Page 6 of the draft Plan concedes that there likely will be physical relocation of residents and of their homes under the Plan." 1. It is assumed that this comment refers to Section H--B.6, entitled `Preferred Relocation Areas, " of the Plan. This section states that the eight households directly affected by the proposed Project "may have to be permanently relocated from Pacific Mobile Home Park. " The Plan concludes, however, that "there are adequate numbers of replacement housing units to accommodate the eight mobile home households that may be displaced" (see Section III-B.1). Although the Plan provides several possible options for the relocation of the residents that would be directly affected in the event the proposed Project is implemented, Section IV-B, entitled "Relocation Benefits," of the Plan clearly states "that current zoning and building codes in California practically make it impossible for an older mobile home to be moved and reestablished at another location. " Furthermore, discussions with Pacific have made it clear to the City that it would be highly unlikely that the eight directly impacted mobile homes would be relocated to other locations within the Park. The comment is therefore inaccurate in stating that there will likely be physical relocation of homes under the Plan. Response to Paragraph No. 1, Sentence 3: The HKC letter states that "the draft Plan does not specify replacement housing for those residents and does not study the environmental effects of removing existing homes and residents and of providing such replacement housing." 1. As stated on Page 5 of the Plan, "one of the primary purposes of a Relocation Plan is to demonstrate the availability of comparable, affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing prior to the displacement of residential occupants. " Consequently, Section III-B, entitled "Replacement Housing Availability, " of the Plan provides a summary of the available replacement housing as of the date the survey was 1 Item 8. - 49 HB -148- performed by the City's relocation consultant. Replacement housing needs, as expressed in the Plan, are defined by the total number of required replacement units and distribution of those units by bedroom size. In terms of the eight households that would be displaced in the event the proposed Project is implemented, the Plan determined the replacement housing needs to be two (2) one-bedroom mobile homes, five (5) two-bedroom mobile homes, and one (1)four-bedroom mobile home. As a result of a survey of all mobile homes listed for sale and located in the City and its surrounding communities, it was determined that there were twelve (12) one- bedroom mobile homes, fifty-three (53) two-bedroom mobile homes, and eight (8) four-bedroom mobile homes available for sale at the time the survey was per formed. The environmental effects of removing existing homes and residents were analyzed in the approved MND No. 09-001 for the proposed road widening project. The MND ensured replacement housing with implementation of a mitigation measure requiring relocation in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act. Specifically, the approved AND No. 09-001 required that, "As soon as feasibly possible, the City shall commence with acquisition and relocation in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Act and other applicable laws. Notification to and discussions with the impacted property owner and residents shall occur as soon as feasibly possible pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act. The City shall ensure that a relocation plan is prepared prior to final project plans and relocation is implemented in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act. " The City is proceeding as required by the approved MND No. 09-001 as evidenced by the preparation of this Plan. In the event the Plan is approved and the proposed Project is implemented, the City would provide the owners of the eight mobile homes directly affected by the proposed improvements with detailed information regarding their relocation benefits. The City's relocation consultant would then proceed to work with these mobile home owners to determine which of the Plan's relocation options would best meet the needs of each household on a case by case basis. To the extent that any relocation option would result in a project with the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts, the City would conduct an assessment of such impacts pursuant to CEQA. Response to Paragraph No. 1, Sentence 4: The HKC letter states that "the displaced residents will include four very low income households." 1. Comment acknowledged; see Section II-B.3 of the Plan. Response to Paragraph No. 2: The HKC letter states, "assuming that the City did include CEQA review of the Plan, that review would still be insufficient. The City should have conducted CEQA review of the entire Project and all of its components, including the Plan, at the 2 HB -149- Item 8. - 50 time of the City's review of the Project Negative Declaration. Any City review of the environmental impacts of the Plan alone would result in piecemeal review of the Project's physical environmental impacts so that their cumulative effects are not considered." 1. The City did conduct a CEQA review of the entire Project and all of its components as described in the Project proposal and evidenced by the approved MND No. 09-001. Pacific and its attorney, HKC, have asserted the same claim of inadequate environmental review in Pacific's pending lawsuit regarding the MND, entitled Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2011-0044.9749. Whether Pacific is correct will be adjudicated in that case. Response to Paragraph No. 3: The HKC letter states, "the city's budget of$240,000 discussed on page 20 of the Relocation Plan is woefully inadequate to fund the purchase of eight replacement mobile homes at the replacement mobile home median prices listed on page 7 of the Plan." The remainder of the paragraph expands upon this point. 1. The City's estimated relocation budget of$240,000 excludes the cost to purchase the mobile homes, land acquisition costs, and any fees for appraisals or relocation implementation services. The estimated budget discussed on page 20 of the Plan assures the availability of the funds necessary to pay eligible relocation benefits to anyone displaced from the project site and a commitment by the City to allocate these funds to the relocation process in the event the proposed Project is implemented. 2. The relocation budget discussed in the Plan is limited to the estimated relocation benefits for which the displacees will be eligible. These include: moving expense payments to relocate personal property from the displacement site, purchase price differential payments, incidental expense payments (related to the purchase of a replacement dwelling), mortgage interest differential payments, and rental assistance payments (related to the space rent). 3. The City has separately estimated the fees for appraisal, land acquisition, and relocation services, the acquisition costs related to the purchase of the eight mobile homes directly affected by the proposed Project, and eligible real estate closing costs. This together with the estimated relocation budget, construction costs, etc., gives the City a total estimated Project budget. However, the Plan was not intended to provide the overall Project budget, but specifically those costs related to relocation benefits. 3 Item 8. - 51 HB -150- S „kb COMMENT LETTER #2," : vBy Ro&Stolk a tC ec,, ed Oe' tober 'l--,,,I, y All, k 'PAR ia- _:fryy„•< 7� {'p 7�[ 2 ,• 11� ��� mow.., .,. � ,... ('� -,.-- -,- ., - V3 -, Ili/ �•V. _.,5 s;. - '; .. `:~ RESPOSE TO DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN City of Huntington Beach Submitted by Rod Stolk and Jim Rock Pacific Mobile Home Park City of Huntington Beach Economic Development Attn: Tina Krause Tina, After review of the draft relocation plan for Atlanta widening, we need to point some issues / flaws that are inherent to the plan, and if implemented, would allow the city to greatly reduce the quality of our housing and lives as a result of a forced relocation. Section II, "Assesement of Relocation Needs". In this section, the basis for replacement housing is based on the following criteria: "Replacement housing needs, as express in this Plan, are defined by the total number of required replacement units and distribution of those units by bedroom size" Essentially, this states, we have 8 homes to replace, and they have between 1 and 3 bedrooms, we will replace with a home with the same amount of bedroom space. Of course, we need the same number of rooms we have now, however there is much more than MUST be considered on our relocation requirements. We strongly disagree with this premise as the sole / primary basis for replacement housing. If this is the primary criteria, it's absolutely 100% flawed, and is extremely unfair. In our case, the amenities of our homes, such as location in the City itself, the location in the park, our lot size, and the specific features of our homes that are directly related to the quality of our lives and housing, and must be considered in this relocation plan. For example, both the Stolk and Rock residences have oversized lots,(some of the largest in the park), that allow us to have substantial yard and patio space in our homes. In addition, this space allows us substantial storage space, basically, overall much more living space, and general higher quality of life than the vast majority of the homes in the park. This is not an accident, as both the Rocks and the Stolks made very specific purchase decisions based on these features and amenities, and they do provide for a substantially enhanced living experience for our life styles and families relative to the vast majority of homes Pacific Mobile Home Park. We will not agree that relocating us in any other home in our park or any other park that simply meets the "bedroom size" criteria is acceptable....it is not. We should not have to downgrade our living arrangements and lifestyle in order to provide the city our homes for an unnecessary project. Item 8. - 53 HB -152- Section III, Relocation Resources Bottom line summary in this section, simply states that there are many mobile homes available in Huntington Beach that are for sale, and meet the criteria for relocation, and there is "more than adequate housing available for any of the residential occupants" THIS 100%, ABSOLUTEY, POSITIVELY, MOT TRUE. Yes, there are mobile homes for sale in the the City of Huntington Beach, and yes, there are units available for sale in Pacific Mobile Home Park, HOWEVEFR according to our knowledge of what is currently available for sale in Pacific Mobile home park, the units are far substandard to our units from many perspectives. In addition, the location and rent discrepancies of the next closest mobile home park to PMHP are 100% not acceptable to us. It seems logical, that under the circumstances, the City needs to consider other housing, such as condominiums that are located just adjacent to Pacific Mobile home park, or replacing the units that are for sale in the park with new units, that would offer the same quality of housing, life and amenities we currently have. It is 100% unacceptable for the City to force us into housing and a lifestyle that is substandard to what we currently have. Please modify the relocation plan to include provisions that do not allow the City to downgrade our housing or lifestyle due to forced relocation. Rod Stolk & Jim Rock Pacific Mobile Home Park xB -153- Item 8. - 54 W11 Al .. ......... s. au 3, t 3—15 RE -ETTER #2 SPONSE 10 COMMENYL it J 49 4� t. "A INO 4 t Item 855, HB -Ise- - - ` , AIN- RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER #2 Response to Section 11, "Assessment of Relocation Needs": At the time a Relocation Plan is prepared, a market survey is conducted to identify dwellings available on the market for purchase that meet the basic definition of "comparable," which is "functional equivalence." Depending on how long it is between the time a Relocation Plan is prepared and when a project is authorized and moves forward resulting in actual displacements, market conditions and available housing can change. Therefore, at the time a Relocation Plan is prepared, a snapshot of available replacement housing matching the functional equivalence of the displacement dwellings is secured. The basis for replacement housing is comparable replacement housing (as defined in Section IV- A.4 on pages 9 and 10 of the Relocation Plan) at the time of actual displacement. Criteria considered when evaluating comparable housing include the requirements listed in the federal Uniform Relocation Act: (a) The unit is decent, safe, and sanitary - electrical, plumbing and heating systems in good repair - no major, observable hazards or defects. The unit is adequate in size and is comparable to the acquired dwelling with respect to number of rooms, habitable living space and type and quality of construction, but not lesser in rooms or living space as necessary to accommodate the displaced person. The unit is functionally equivalent, including principle features. (b) The unit is located in an area not subjected to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions from either natural, or man-made sources, and not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities, transportation, public and commercial facilities, including schools and municipal services and reasonably accessible to the displaced person's place of employment. (c) The unit is available both on the private market and to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, marital status, religion, or national origin. Comparable housing does not include consideration of"style of living," which was specifically removed from the definition of comparable housing by the federal agencies. A comparable dwelling also need not possess every feature of the displacement dwelling per the Uniform Relocation Act. With that being said, at the time of actual displacement, every reasonable effort will be made to identify comparable housing sharing as many attributes as the displacement dwelling as possible. 1 xB -155- Item 8. - 56 In addition, the appraised value of each of the displacement dwellings will reflect features, if applicable, such as unusually large lots, location to amenities, improvements and upgrades to the dwellings, etc., which should reflect a higher value. The money paid to an owner of a mobile home to acquire their home can be used by the owner to secure replacement housing of the owner's choice, including a conventional dwelling, with further assistance to be offered through relocation benefits. Response to Section III, "Relocation Resources": Please refer to the Response to Section II above. In addition, assistance will be offered to the mobile home owners by the City's relocation consultant to identify available comparable housing as close to the Project site as possible, which may or may not include units within Pacific Mobile Home Park depending on availability and comparability. Once a comparable dwelling meeting federal requirements has been identified, and a Replacement Housing Payment entitlement has been calculated based on the most comparable dwelling, a displacee may choose to ultimately move to any dwelling of his/her choice. However, relocation payments will be calculated based on the maximum eligibility established by the comparable dwelling. The desires of individual mobile home owners regarding the location and type of replacement housing will be taken into consideration within the parameters of federal relocation law. Rent "discrepancies" at an alternate mobile home park, if a comparable unit is identified within that park, will be handled via a rental assistance payment as described in Section IV-13.3 on page 14 of the Relocation Plan. 2 Item 8. - 57 HB -156- ATTACHMENT #2 He -157- Item B. - SR RELOCATION GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES I. Right of Review Any person who believes to be unfairly aggrieved by a determination as to relocation eligibility, the amount of payment, the failure of the City to provide comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing or the City's property management practices may, at their election, have their claim reviewed and reconsidered by the City or an authorized designee (other than the person who made the determination in question). II. Notification of Decision If the city denies or refuses to consider a claim, the City's notification to the claimant of its determination shall inform the claimant of its reasons and the applicable procedures for obtaining review of the decision. If necessary to provide the information in the language most easily understood by the recipient, such notification shall be printed in a language other than English. III. Stages of Review A. Request for Further Written Information A complainant may request the City to provide him/her with a full written explanation of its determination and the basis for such determination; if he/she feels that the explanation accompanying the payment of the claim or notice of the City's determination was incorrect or inadequate. The City shall provide such an explanation to the complainant within three (3) weeks of its receipt of their request. B. Informal Oral Presentation A complainant may request an informal oral presentation before seeking formal review and reconsideration. The right to formal review and reconsideration shall not be conditioned upon requesting an informal oral presentation. Within fifteen (15) days of the request the City shall afford the complainant the opportunity to make such presentation. The complainant may be represented by an attorney or other person of their choosing. This oral presentation shall enable the complainant to discuss the relocation claim with the City Manager or designee (designee must not be the person/relocation firm that made the initial determination) having authority to revise the initial determination on the relocation claim. The City shall make a summary of the matters discussed in the oral presentation to be included as part of its file. Page 1 of 5 Item 8.. - 59 HB -158- C. Formal Review and Reconsideration 1. Request for Review At any time within the period described in [Section IV herein], a complainant may file a written request for formal review and reconsideration by the City Manager or designee. The complainant may include in the request for review any statement of fact within the complainant's knowledge or belief or other material which may have a bearing on the appeal. If the complainant requests more time to gather and prepare additional material for consideration or review and demonstrates a reasonable basis for such request, the complainant may be granted additional time. The City Manager or designee shall consider every aggrieved person's complaint regardless of form, and shall, if necessary, provide assistance in preparing the written request for review. 2. Notice of Procedures When a complainant seeks review, the City Manager or designee shall inform him/her that he/she has the right to be represented by an attorney, to present their case by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of facts, and to seek judicial review once he/she has exhausted administrative appeal. 3. Review by City Manager or designee The City Manager or designee shall promptly hear all complaints brought by aggrieved persons relating to relocation and shall determine if the City has complied with the Relocation Assistance Law and Guidelines, these Rules and Regulations and where applicable, with federal law and regulations. The City Manager or designee shall, after public hearing, transmit his/her findings and recommendations to the City Council, including any recommendations for modifications of the City's initial determination. 4. Scope of Review The City Manager or designee shall review and consider the initial determination of the City in the complainant's case in light of: (a) All material upon which the City based its original determination, including all applicable rules and regulations, except that no evidence shall be relied upon where a complainant has been improperly denied an opportunity to controvert the evidence [or] cross-examine the witness; Page 2 of 5 HB -159- Item 8. - 60 (b) The reasons given by the complainant for requesting review and reconsideration of the claim; (c) Any additional written or relevant documentary material submitted by the complainant; (d) Any further information which the City Manager or designee in his/her discretion, obtains by request, investigation, or research, to ensure fair and full review of the claim. 5. Findings and Recommendations by City Manager or designee The findings and recommendations of the City Manager or designee shall include: (a) The determination of the City Manager or designee as to whether the City has complied with State law and where applicable with federal law, pertaining to the relocation; (b) The recommendations of the City Manager or designee, including any recommendations for modification of the City's initial determination; (c) The factual and legal basis upon which the findings and recommendations rest, including any pertinent explanation or rationale; (d) A statement to the complainant that the findings and recommendations of the City Manager or designee will be transmitted to the City Council for final administrative decision with respect to the claim. The findings and recommendations of the City Manager or designee shall be in writing and copies thereof shall be provided to the complainant and transmitted to the City Council. The City Manager or designee shall issue findings and recommendations as soon as possible, but no later than six (6)weeks from receipt of the last material submitted for consideration by the complainant or the date of the hearing, whichever is later. In the case of complaints recommended for dismissal due to untimely submittal or for any other reason not based on the merits of the claim, the time limit for issuing the findings and recommendations shall be reduced to ten (10) days. 6. Final Determination by City Council (a) Scope of Review After receipt of the written findings and recommendations of the City Manager or designee, the City Council shall review and reconsider the initial determination of the City on the claim. The Page 3 of 5 Item 8. - 61 HB -160- City Council may, but is not required to, conduct a hearing de novo with respect to the claim, as it deems necessary. The complainant shall be given at least ten (10) days written notice prior to the matter being heard. The City Council shall base its final decision on the claim upon the record compiled in connection with the proceedings of the City Manager or designee, and upon the record of the hearing'(if any) conducted by the Council. (b) Final Determination The final determination on review by the City Council shall include, but is not limited to: (1) The City Council's decision on reconsideration of the claim; (2) The factual and legal basis upon which the decision rests, including any pertinent explanation or rationale; (3) A Statement to the complainant that administrative remedies have been exhausted, if such is the case, and that judicial review may be sought. The final determination of the City Council shall be in writing and a copy thereof shall be provided to the complainant. The City Council shall issue its determination as soon as possible, but no later than three (3) weeks from receipt by the City Council of the written findings and recommendations of the City Manager or designee. In the case of complaints dismissed due to untimely submittal or for reason not based on the merits of the claim, the time limit for issuing such determination shall be reduced to ten (10) days. IV. Time Limit for Requesting Review Any request for[Informal Oral Presentation or Formal Review and Consideration] shall be filed in writing with the specified reviewing authority within thirty (30) days following the date the complainant receives notice of the decision being appealed. Such time limit may be extended for good cause by the City. V. Stay of Displacement Pending Final Determination If a complainant seeks to prevent displacement, the City shall not require the complainant to move until at least twenty (20) days after the City has made its final determination. In all cases the City shall notify the complainant in writing at least twenty (20) days prior to the proposed new date of displacement. Page 4 of 5 HB -161- Item 8. - 62 Any complaint seeking to prevent displacement must be brought within thirty (30) days of service by the City of the notice to vacate. Such notice to vacate must include notice that any complaint seeking to prevent displacement must be filed within thirty (30) days. VI. Joint Complainants Where more than one person is aggrieved by the failure of the City to refer them to comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing the complainants may join in filing a single written request for review. A determination shall be made as herein provided for each of the complainants. VI I. Right to Counsel Any aggrieved party has a right to representation by legal or other counsel at their expense at any and all stages of the proceedings. VIII. Review of Files by Claimant Except to the extent that confidentiality of material is protected by law or its disclosure is prohibited by law, the City shall permit the claimant to inspect all files and records bearing upon their claim or the prosecution of the claimant's grievance. The City may impose reasonable conditions on such right to inspect. If a claimant is improperly denied access to any relevant material bearing on the claim, such material may not be relied upon in reviewing the initial determination. IX. Recommendations by Third Party Upon agreement between the claimant and the City, a mutually acceptable third party or parties may review the claim and make advisory recommendations thereon to the City for its final determination. In reviewing the claim and making recommendations to the City, the third party or parties shall be guided by the City's Rules and Regulations. X. Effect of Determination on Other Persons The principles established in all determinations by the City shall be considered as precedent for all eligible persons in similar situations regardless of whether or not a person has filed a written request for review. All written determinations shall be kept on file and available for public review. XI. Judicial Review Nothing in these Rules and Regulations shall in any preclude or limit a claimant from seeking judicial review of the claim upon exhaustion of such administrative remedies. Page 5 of 5 MV I ( ) `{ Item 8. - 63 xB -162- ATTACHMENT #3 Hd -163- Item 8. . 64 r+ 00 ATLANTA "ENUE WIDENING PROJECT (HUNTINGTON ST. DELAWARE ST.) \6 --- �_ L \ % PROJECT AREA CRT ws, u: r \ / i� PACIFIC ��.. N\ PACIFIC r:r MOB //q9ME 1 :ra a% / \ 1 O fC PARK AVE, \y OCEAN AVE, �. h VICINITY MAP -LOCATION ,4 Esparza, Patty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 2:19 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Council Agenda Item#4 Johanna Stephenson I Executive Assistant I City of Huntington Beach O:714.536.5575 1 johanna.stephenson@surfcity-hb.org SUPPLEMENTAL From: Tim Geddes [mailto:timgeddes3@gmail.com] COMMUNICATION Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 1:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL f � ' Cc: Mary Jo Baretich /21Z Subject: Council Agenda Item #4 Agenft Item No. Dear City Council Members, I am requesting that you pull and postpone Item#4 (the Atlanta Avenue Street Widening Project Relocation Plan and Grievance Procedures) from tonight's Consent Calendar for several reasons. I first believe that there has been inadequate public discussion of the Relocation options afforded the displaced mobile home owners. It is important that ALL mobile home owners have input into this process since it may provide precedents for the handling of mobile home relocation issues in the future. Second, I believe the data provided by the consultant(Overland,Pacific & Cutler, Inc., an out-of-town outfit) does not accurately reflect the mobile home relocation picture unique to Huntington Beach. While it correctly states that the value of the mobile home is inverse to its space rent, it does not take into consideration the current policy of some mobile home park owners of rapaciously increasing space rent in an arbitrary manner that would leave incoming displaced mobile home owners totally unprotected against enjoying their previous quality of life and their previous economic security. Because of the uncertain space rent policies prevailing in Huntington Beach, there can be no guarantee of ANY of the property values of available mobile homes currently for sale in the city. The consultant data referred to values of mobile homes currently on the market, but it does not (and cannot) establish values with the important component of space rent in an unstabilized state. The only way a currently displaced mobile home resident would be equitably relocated to another mobile home park in the city would be if the resident received an iron-clad lease of some adequate duration insuring that they would not be subjected to the current practice of space rent spiking that has ruined the current mobile home market in Huntington Beach. As we have seen in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and elsewhere in the city, dozens of home owners have been forced out of their manufactured housing by space rents that have escalated beyond the ability of many to afford. This,while mobile home parks, by all accounts, have remained highly profitable investments providing an excellent rate of return for park owners. Council members must be reminded that the vast majority of mobile home parks in the city have had their land costs paid off for many years. Increases in space rents that follow reasonable formulas (tied to indices such as the Consumer Price Index or the rate of inflation), and that can be anticipated by mobile home owners, are, of course, fair and necessary for park owners to maintain their investments. Such reasonable practices help stabilize mobile home values (and pricing) and preserve the economic viability of this form of housing stock in the city. i It is the uncertainty created by current space rent abuses that prevents displaced residents from Pacific.. Mobile Home Park from considering certain mobile home parks in which to relocate. It is also this uncertainty that prevents the City from accurately ascertaining the true value of any mobile home on the market(given the inverse relationship of value to space rent alluded to by the consultant). This uncertainty also affects the Grievance Procedures outlined by the consultants. ALL displaced mobile home residents would have just grievances against the City if their future investment in any other local mobile home park was not protected from the predatory space rent policies of park owners who may promise one thing and do another as soon as they can get away with it. The majority of the displaced home owners front'PacifiMHP have indicated a desire to remain in the area (to be near work, relatives, friends, medical, educational, and worship opportunities, and to be part of the community they have enjoyed for many years). 'This""'necessitates the City coming up with a Relocation Plan that adequately addresses all of the concerns and rights that home owners relocated against their will should have in recovering from:this.foeeeddisplacement. Clearly, the Relocation Plan and-GrieVh.dce Procedures being proposed tonight do not adequately anticipate or deal with the current market realities of our mobile home community. This plan should be tabled for now until all of the issues raised by mobile home resident concerns are properly addressed. The City should not move forward with plans that may seriously underestimate the unintended consequences of the proposed actions. Now is the time to insist on "getting it right" in the beginning rather than having to make costly corrections in the future. I urge you to pull this necessary but premature and inadequate plan tonight, and to reintroduce it once the concerns raised are addressed and resolved. Sincerely, Tim Geddes 21802 Windsong Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2 Esparza, Patty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 2:48 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: ATLANTA STREET WIDENING PROJECT RELOCATION PLAN Johanna Stephenson I Executive Assistant I City of Huntington Beach I O:714.536.5575 Johanna.sephenson@surfcity-hb.org From: MI Baretich [mailto:mjbaretich@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 2:48 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: ATLANTA STREET WIDENING PROJECT RELOCATION PLAN Dear City Council Members, I am requesting that you pull and postpone Item 4, the Atlanta Avenue Street Widening Project Relocation Plan and Grievance Procedures, from tonight's Consent Calendar. Because this Project Relocation Plan and Grievance Procedure, as it is presented, is a first for Huntington Beach, I do believe that without adequate public discussion of the Relocation options afforded the displaced mobile home owners, the City may be prematurely setting a precedence in the way they handle relocation of mobilehome homeowners. Our existing Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance may be impacted by this precedence as far as the relocation process. Now that I have viewed the Project, I and my fellow Huntington Beach homeowners would like to review and comment on its content, prior to its submittal for a Vote by the City Council. I have issues with the data provided by the consultant, Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. There are many considerations that the data does not address related to an accurate assessment of the fluctuating rents and values of mobilehomes in Huntington Beach, especially in the parks in as close proximity to the beach as Pacific Mobile Home Park. I agree with many portions of the plan, but would like to have more time to review in depth, the effects on the displaced residents and our Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance. Please, I ask you again to pull and postpone a vote on Item 4 on the November 21, 2011 City Council Agenda . Thank you, SUPPLEMENTAL Mary Jo Baretich COMMUNICATION 21752 Pacific Coast Highway SP 23A Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Date. mibaretich(a�hotmail.com -•T (714) 960-9507 L Agenda hem No.- i SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION—CONSENT#4\ i Claudio, Jonathan From: rogersavoie@verizon.net Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:30 PM To: Claudio, Jonathan Subject: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Hello City Council Members, I live in one of the spaces that you may be taking to widen Atlanta. If this project is not already a done deal, I ask you not to do this. In a world where all of the governments are overspending,why don't you be the reasonable one that realizes what a waste of money this project is. I am a federal civil servant with over 32 years of experience.At the federal level,we are trying to find ways to save money. Why are you still wasting valuable resources on such a needless project? Respectfully, Roger Savoie Space#502 I i i 1 ~~-'~ UPPLEM NTAL COMMUNICATION—CONSENT#4 Claudio, Jonathan From: [)|mom Tony Sent November 21. 2O114:41 PM To: Claudio, Jonathan Subject: Fw: DRAFT email to 0oik From: Rod Sto|k[nnai|ho:nsto|k@fedena|edge.00rn] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2O11O3:S1PM To: 0mos,Tony Subject: RE: DRAFT email to Sto|k Hi Tony, Please submit this correspondence into the records, and to the City Council for review in the meeting today. Thanks for the response...ifs the first communication I've received from the City since this whole thing started that bnot based on politics or legal,formal procedures or policies,and I sincerely appreciate it. The City Council literally isexercising the most extreme power possible with this decision, and is choosing to make some very deliberate and unwanted changes to the lives or outstanding individuals and citizens. I feel the City really needs to be fair, and really listen to our input as to how the proceed with this forced, serious event. | realize that our requests may cost the City a little more money, however this needs to be factored into the budget for the overall project, and quite honestly,there are only 2 individuals ( myself and Mr. Rock)that have housing and issues that reflect my requests. I believe the other homeowners are quite content with any other type of replacement housing in the park, however they do not have the lifestyle or homes that Mr. Rock and myself have. |n the big scope and big picture of the Ot/s budget and revenue, our needs are insignificant, and pose no inconvenience on the City. In my particular instance... our home is very much comparable to many traditional residential homes. (t has more square footage oftraditional construction than mobile home.We painstakingly restored our home to it's original mid-century classic presence,while updating it as much as possible to meet current building standards for safety and efficiency. |nnnany respects, it's superior to many surrounding traditional residences, because of the security,yard space, amenities (pool, clubhouse, etc..) parking,with a quiet and secure neighborhood, isolated from the crowds traffic, and intense density and parking issues of living in the downtown area. Yes..our homes are indeed one of the best kept secrets in the City of Huntington Beach, and my home is indeed more like a "real" home than a mobile home. Removing it from usis indeed amore substantial event than 9SY6of the homes in the park. We are only asking for fairness, and,Jim and I are very reasonable, level headed individuals... it's quite disappointing, especially in all 8 of the homeowners instances, and in particular for Jim Rock and myself that federal guidelines do not incorporate ^|ifesty|e" into the definition. The fact that we chose to live where we do is EXTREMELY influenced by"lifestyle" choices we have made for ourselves. Thanks again for the message...all we ask is you are fair with us,and not force us to end up with inferior housing, or somehow be "cheated"through this process. Regards, Rod &CindnaSto|h Pacific Mobile Home Park,#30I 951-312'2610 OfOce:9S1-683-SO24 From: Olmos, Tony [mailto:Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:09 PM To: Rod Stolk Cc: Claudio, Jonathan Subject: RE: DRAFT email to Stolk Mr.Stolk, I just spoke to Jo Claudio about your voicemail and email and wanted to respond to you to assure you of our intent to closely work with you to minimize the impacts our project will have on you. We have received your comment letter and prepared the attached response,which became part of the Final Relocation Plan to be reviewed by City Council at the 4pm Study Session in Room B-8 today. You will have opportunities at both the 4:OOpm Study Session (in Room B-8) and the 6:OOpm Council meeting (in the Council chambers)to add any other comments that you had on the proposed Relocation Plan. If you are unable to attend,you may email your comments to me directly and I will have them submitted to the Council as supplemental communication. I do not have Mr. Rock's email, so please feel free to forward this information to him as well. As you can see from our response to your comment letter, we have every intention of taking into consideration any special features of your property that may improve its value. We'll work with you through this process to come to an amicable and fair deal. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you, Tony Olmos City Engineer (714) 375-5077 2 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 10050 Entered on: 12/17/2011 4:11 PM Customer Information Name:Roger Savoie Phone:(714)960-9063 Address:80 Huntington St. Sp#502 Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Email:rogersavoie@verizon.net Request Classification Topic:City Council-Comment on an Agenda Request type:Question Item Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Johanna Stephenson Entered Via:Web City Council: Description Hello City Council Members, I live in one of the homes that you are considering destroying too widen Atlanta.The Park owner's lawyers have brought to my attention that you only have$240K in the budget to move 8 families.That's ridiculous!That will only cover about 2 family's relocation.The budget is based on the displaced owners selling their current homes. How stupid is that! How am I suppose to sell something that is going to get torn down?My place may be partially a mobile home but it is not in any way shape or form mobile. I have no plans to accept any money from the city for my home. If you want my space 502,you must buy me a comparable home in this Park. My place is the 4 bedrooms. I think my demands are very reasonable.You want to take my sweet corner lot home,then replace it. Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council.A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item.Again, thank you for taking the time to make your views known. Date Expect Closed: 01/09/2012 Date Closed: 12/19/2011 08:33 AM By: Johanna Stephenson Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: SUPPLEMENTAL Date: COMMUNICATION 6,4ftitlflg Date: Apr>Ida Item No.,—I--.. http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=794609&type=0 12/19/2011 PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. CdhAak Sp.#& Sign .# &Sign Sp.#& Sign�' p. Sign Sp.#& Sig �lD ��� Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign ,�Z-Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign qn it R. Sinn Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign ski =iwfMD FROM - AS PUBLIC RE�CORO�R C0 CiL ME Sp.#& Sign OF_ ' `- al- CITY CLERK OFFICE Sp.#& Sign XAN L FLYNN,CITY CLERIC Sp.# & Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign All Oavyw ? Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign e Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign 02/06/12 01 : 33PM PST '7029914179' -> 17149698775 Pg 2/2 j',MIP„ :MOSILE F;IQIME PARK TITION TQ Rg6FFIRM P RlgHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 "cis[ meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Parts Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City'a Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City ImmWelely dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed"trespass"on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental acid social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City.staff'approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permar*M and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental quality Act for the Project. and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Projeers physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not Involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. !r' Sp.#&Sig $ Sign t Sp.#&Sig _ Sign Sp.#&Signz)a d Sp.#&Sign p#R Sign 210 Si or g Sp:#&Sign, /�_ , Igin Sp.#&Sign Sp.#$ Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.0&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Signer ._........ Sp.#&Sign ...__ Sp-0&Sign _....__. SP.#&Sign____ Sp.#&Sign Sp_#& Sign ..._ Sp.#& Sign .._ _.,... ._. ,Sip.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign T Sp,#&Sign ..__ Sp.#&Sign ...,....... 02/06/12 01 :33PM PST '7029914179' —> 17149698775 Pg 1/2 The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: PETITION012.tif Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to.halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway o resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign %,,- a6L�\\Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PART{ RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. fThe purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign '� �� Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign q q; Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign_ 16 Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign o- �� Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign - ` Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign r : PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents: The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign l Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,. has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the reside s to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign ZZ Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed 'trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and d issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Q'Lality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. . Sp.#& ign V� La rn4va10 1 & Sign Sp.# & SigV14r:-1J)a(1d &Sign Sp.# & Sin Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Signabg ahl(/ Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign ( Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign S .#& Sign Sp.# & Sign p Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City'Council members, and, Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just.rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign 2/8 l%,� Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign q0H P, Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign V Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign ( Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign q o --��� Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign IEJ Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK( PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK( RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign'*/,ZO7 ` �� Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable_pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign (19q a Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign ) Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sigrr>2/ Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. r/ Sp.# & Signs ' Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign qPP : PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. (� K, 64W Sp.# & Signi 0 . V p.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign a Eit, Z�' 1" �+� I / Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign# Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign s PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. pc�- _6 S,--d tg Sp.# & Sign-'�� Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign /lCr74 - `^ Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign, Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign •. cam. Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have, lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign e=,,,�Sp. .# &Sign Sp.# & Sig p 4 A p.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign ZJ�_— h7�ivf.0�T�'�' i�jr�: Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Signg/ c�� Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#-& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PART{ PETITION TO REAFFIRM PART{ RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. _ Sp.#& Sign 4 <— �'--�--� Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign. - -S . &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. �r r . Sp.#& Sig�kD�c Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at thePark Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. . The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park-residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect--the°interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable athway to re ve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. r, Sp.#& Sig I Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue at does` not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign &Sign_ z!:2 Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sig o� i' l`l'rV4, (� C' Ci1`i� Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign.go Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resole the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. �'•, Sp.#& Sign ' Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#�8, Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp:#:& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.##'& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp:# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign - Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit'seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign 4 Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sig/n p.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning.the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington.Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. S .# & Si9 p 9 n / .# Si/' r & n p Sp.#& Sign f � Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#`& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way.' The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. g Sp.# & Sign �l Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign r PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PART( PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Signf`s � Sp.# & Sign --r- Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign U Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous,actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. S .# & Sign 1/ ( I Sp.# & Sign p Sp.#& Sign 0 ( Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign �� 1 Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign 1� Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign 3 - Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign 0 Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign S 3 S NOV- fJ°�- Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK ' PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign f 4 ' Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign .0-// 9 ki- 64dkae) Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign 1 PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sig n p.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,. has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK( RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with'-.Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and .the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking.to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have: lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to'discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& SignItz— , Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign