The owner of Palo Alto's only trailer park home must go back to the drawing board in his quest to redevelop the site after the city determined that the application he submitted is incomplete.
In a letter to Toufic Jisser, whose family owns the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park off El Camino Real, city officials pointed to several flaws in the conversion application for the project, a hiccup that could delay the planned conversion of the Barron Park trailer park to a luxury-apartment complex. Specifically, the letter from the city argues that the owner provided "insufficient information" about the cost of relocating Buena Vista's residents.
The application is an early step in the city's process for converting the trailer park, a project that has galvanized the Barron Park neighborhood and the school community to save residents from being displaced from one of the few sections of town where rent is still affordable. The Jisser family completed a report that estimated the cost of relocating the residents last month. Once reviewed by the city, this report is scheduled to go to Craig Labadie, a hearing officer who will determine whether the mitigation measures proposed in the report are sufficient.
But in the June 6 letter, Senior City Attorney Grant Kolling indicated that the report isn't ready for a hearing just yet. The owner has failed, among other things, to gather the questionnaires from all park residents, as required by law. The questionnaire binder includes responses from residents of 71 of the 98 mobile homes. The letter notes that while Jisser "generally describes its efforts to procure completion of the questionnaires, he "has not provided any objective information (such as the records, files, logs, etc. maintained by the owner) to demonstrate that substantial efforts were made to attempt to procure the completed questionnaires from all affected residents and tenants."
Kolling also alluded to a recent letter from Buena Vista's attorneys in the Public Interest Law Firm, which asserted that many of the residents reported a "lack of understanding about the purpose and intent of the questionnaires." Some residents tried to contact the relocation specialist, Autotemp, to schedule appointments and get more information but "were unsuccessful in making those appointments," according to Kolling. The City recommends that "the Owner should secure and file completed Questionnaires for all of the tenants."
The city also determined that the information in the application about the purchase price of mobile homes is incomplete because it includes no information about financing or outstanding loan payments for the mobile homes. It also faults the application for considering only the "in-place" value of the mobile homes rather than considering their setting in Palo Alto, which has some of the highest property values in the nation. This effectively lowers the value of what the residents would be offered. In the application, the Jissers offered a minimum of $20,000 per mobile home and $11,000 in moving expenses for each household. The city agrees with the residents' attorneys that this sum is insufficient for compensating displaced residents.
"With the relatively low relocation assistance being proposed, the residents and tenants might contemplate only affordable rental housing in Palo Alto or nearby communities for a limited period of time if they prefer to remain in Palo Alto, which customarily offers amenities that few nearby communities provide," Kolling wrote.
The Jisser family filed a development-review application with the city in November 2012. The owners of Buena Vista has formed an agreement with developer Prometheus, which would purchase the property and build up to 180 high-end apartments for technology workers.
The city's determination that the application is incomplete means that the hearing on the proposed conversion will not take place this month, as planned.
In light of the flaws identified, the city "cannot and will not proceed to set a hearing on the Conversion Application or inform Mr. Labadie that the City has provided him with sufficient information to permit him to proceed to consider the Owner's proposed mitigation measures and ultimately approve the Conversion Application subject to any additional conditions that he may impose," according to the letter.
Comments
Barron Park
on Jun 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Enough wtih Buena Park already. Close it down immediately. We are sick of it and have been for 20+ years. If this was located in Crescent Park where the City Council memebers live it would have been gone decades ago.
It is private property and the city should supportd Mr. Jisser to convert the area into upscale apartments to provide in town living space for Google, Facebook, and other high tech company employees. THEY PAY TAXES, GUYS. MONEY.
Just more of the classic left wing politics of Palo Alto.
Midtown
on Jun 11, 2013 at 2:56 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Why should they be paid anything to move? They have had a sweet deal for a very long time and now the situation is over. Is it standard practice to have to do this every time someone's lease is up and they have to move whether residential or commercial?
Barron Park
on Jun 11, 2013 at 3:26 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 3:26 pm
na Vista has always been a large piece of the amount of affordable Housing listed in the city"s master plan that is submitted to the state and securing millions of dollars of funds from the state. This is why the city created a task force twelve years Ago to create the exsisting Mobile Home Ordinance. The task force was made up with three council members,local housing advocates, the park owners and three park residents. I am the oñly resident left frim the task force.Everyone gave something up and agreed to the final draft of the ordinance. Residents agreed to a set rent increase a year, the city agreed to certain concessions to rezoning when the park was redeveloped and the Jissers agreed to keep the park open for at least ten years more and specific relocation funds for the residents when the park was redeveloped. That was twelve years ago, and now the Jissers are completely disregarding all the specific pieces that they agreed to. The fact is that Buena Vista is responsible for keeping the citys affordible housing unit amount high enough so that funds are recieved from the state That benefit all Palo Alto residents.
I am happy to see that the city is enforcing the law that the Jissers agreed to.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 11, 2013 at 3:57 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 3:57 pm
There are a few ironies here that we might reflect on.
I have always heard that the owners of this trailer park were pretty nice folks and helped a lot of people out. So it is ironic that the owners are now being criticized.
A second irony is that the good folks living in Buena Vista have had a pretty nice deal for decades. Low rents, low-to-nonexistent taxes, great schools, etc. There doesn't seem to be much gratitude to the owners, instead it is all about what they are losing and the need to compensate them for their "loss".
The city is in a very hypocritical position. City attorneys are asking the owners to jump through more bureaucratic hoops and comply with more regulations. But what is the city really willing to do about the lack of affordable housing? Not much. It is a just cheap shot to attack the owners.
Crescent Park
on Jun 11, 2013 at 5:20 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Before this debate blows up again. Please recognize that there is a California state law that mandates a compensation plan for the trailer-owners when it comes to closures of mobile home parks. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
So instead of debating whether anybody deserves anything, who is nice or not, who is creating hurdles or etc. ... How about people concentrate on what the state requires and getting to that solution as soon as possible.
Downtown North
on Jun 11, 2013 at 5:23 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 5:23 pm
"Just more of the classic left wing politics of Palo Alto."
Uh-huh. Turn those old and unwealthy types out into the street and listen to our local right wingers whine about them being in the street.
Ventura
on Jun 11, 2013 at 5:55 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 5:55 pm
@curmudgeon
I get the impression that you'd be supportive of a solution that involved moving the trailer park into your backyard? Is that correct? If so, I applaud you.
Barron Park
on Jun 11, 2013 at 8:43 pm
on Jun 11, 2013 at 8:43 pm
The funny thing, how does Prometheus know that technology workers want to live here in Palo Alto? Most tech workers want to live in San Francisco, which has real entertainment and recreation beyond bars and restaurants. The tech workers I know seem very happy to commute to Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Menlo Park via company provided corporate bus transporation, and then go home to SF where they can have fun. Palo Alto is not fun, and putting in a pet grooming salon and movie theatre does not equate to fun for young technology workers. While Prometheus owns the Tan property on Arastradero, I don't think this is a if you build it, they will come situation. Palo Alto, the city itself would need to concentrate on creating more recreational opportunities within Palo Alto for this young group of workers. One can bike, walk in the park, and throw frisbees only for so long. In a nutshell, Palo Alto equals entrepreneurial by day, but boring by night and weekend.
Barron Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 8:22 am
on Jun 12, 2013 at 8:22 am
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Has Jisser begun paying property taxes again? After our "esteemed thinkers" on City Council gave him a 10-yr stay to please, please , pleeeease stay open for business so they can feel honkey-dorey about them selves but within hushed conversations with foriends moving into Barron Park Elementary territory warn them about low test scores and quality of their educational experience.
So sick of Jisser, equally sick of our City Council. If The place could be renovated from its decrepit condition, if he could relocate the 3 serious sexual offenders and handshake drug-dealers, control the dog population, and force residents to move their cars parked on Los Robles every 48 hours, I have no problem with BVTP staying open.
Downtown North
on Jun 12, 2013 at 9:35 am
on Jun 12, 2013 at 9:35 am
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm
on Jun 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm
If the compensation needs to include the "setting in Palo Alto", are the owners allowed to raise rents to Palo Alto land level values? That would result in most tenants moving out of the Buena Vista.
Barron Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 4:23 pm
on Jun 12, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Dear Staff,
Why on earth did u delete the portion of my previous comment which described my run-in with a young *UN*neutered male pit-bull, OFF leash, who stormed across Los Robles Ave to my property as my 9 yr old son and small terrier started off for a walk!??
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] I've lived directly across the street from them for 14 yrs. and know several residents.
And when this separate pit bull encounter occurred, I screamed for my son to run back indoors and instinctively let go of my dogs leash to -- god forbid --offer it to take my dog over my son. I never called the police, I gave terse words to the two kids who came running after to retrieve their dog (they never said a word to me). Their young male pit, fortunately, was as sweet as can be and just wanted to say "hi" to my dog. I did however call Animal Services to ask if here are any city ordinances banning certain breeds from high density housing. Answer: no of course not, but dog off lease is a taken very seriously.
[Portion removed.]
Palo Alto High School
on Jun 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm
on Jun 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Does Prometheus Really know what it wants? - whether the new apartments are filled with tech workers or (more likely) families looking to be part of Gunn, I don't think Prometheus is worried about renting them.