City Council - Regular Meeting

or volume. Can the volume be Let me speak. Is that better?

All right. Good morning, everyone. My name is the hearing officer. It's 9:00 a.m. in the beautiful city of Calama. Before I make the announcements, formerly introduce myself. Let's start with our pledge of allegiance. All right, thank you everyone. Um, it looks like there's some work being done here in the building, so you'll have to bear with that, but sounds pretty good. I've been to some locations where they were really working on the roof and it was very loud in the building. So, we're doing well here. Um, before we go forward, let me make some announcements again. My name IO Palasio is the hearing officer. I'm an independent hearing officer retained by the city to hear this case as a neutral party. We have here present staff uh for the city, Darling Getta, city clerk, rent administrator Will uh Kobo, uh city manager Amy Grayson, assistant city attorney. We also have representatives for the mobile home park owner and we have uh community resident uh representatives. We'll introduce them in a moment. This is a public hearing for California mobile home estates capital improvement petition and temporary rent increase petition. I do remind everyone that the rules of the quorum apply the same as for city council meetings, boards and commissions of the city. So be aware of that. Uh we will go in the order listed here in the agenda starting with number one and going through until our adjournment. Uh it is an informal process. There is some flexibility in the process. So the hearing officer myself will have some discretion but for the most part we'll follow this process uh and we'll proceed

that way. The city I understand has a recording through the system. Is it okay? So it's being recorded. I have a separate audio recorder that I'll start here in a minute for myself and let's see and we're on here. All right. So that's operating. Let me start with the resident uh the community residents. If you could introduce yourselves, please [applause] thank you, Miss Johnson. And I do advise those who will be giving public comment when you come up to the lecture and make sure the microphone is switched on and you speak directly into the microphone. Let's get introductions on the petitioner side.

Uh good morning. Microphone's red or is it on? It's on green. I turned it on. Thank you. Yeah, I heard you. Okay. Uh my name is Mark Alpbert. I represent the park owner. I'm here with Peter Wong who is a park owner representative.

Thank you both. All right. Let's go ahead and uh watch our rules of decorum. Thank you. Uh so let's go ahead and proceed. Uh open the public hearing. We're open. We're on the record. Uh administer to all all witnesses. If you're providing testimony as a witness, meaning you've been called by either Miss Johnson or Mr. Albert as a witness, please raise your right hand. This is not for public comments. This is for witnesses that are being called. That means you'll be called to witness at the lectern and have questions after you've testified. Uh Mr. Albert may provide uh may have questions. Miss Johnson may have questions. I may have questions. So there'll be three parties that will be posing questions. So if you're providing testimony under penalty of perjury, raise your right hand. Do you each promise and affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence you provide today will represent the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Right. We have affirmative response from all witnesses. If you're providing testimony today, you'll be doing so under penalty of perjury. So, let's move forward with our agenda. Uh, oath has been administered to the witnesses. Presentation of staff report. Let's start with the presentation of the staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Hearing Officer. Okay. What I'm going to provide is a summary of this processing, the processing of this capital improvement rent increase petition and temporary rent increase petition. So, it might be a little lengthy, so bear with me, but we want to make sure we get all the information out there. On April 8th, 2025, Peter Wang or Wong, is it Wong? Wong. Wong. Okay. um of Wisman Management LLC submitted a capital improvement rent increase petition on behalf of the current park owner, the California Mobile Estates Calamea Limited Partnership under section 9.05.090 of our ordinance. A copy of the April 8th, 2025 capital improvement rent increase petition is enclosed um in the packet as exhibit number three. Mr. Mr. Wink's submitt also included a temporary rent increase petition on behalf of the petitioner requesting a $2.37 cent per month over 5-year period to recover the petitioner's cost incurred in preparing the capital improvement rent increase petition and attending the public hearing. A complete copy of that is also in exhibit 3. So the following provides a summary of the processing of the petition for capital improvement rent increase and temporary rent increase petition. The city manager's office reviewed the capital improvement ren petition and temporary rent increase petition in accordance with our ordinance which is included as exhibit one and the rules as exhibit 2. The ordinance and rules require submitt of a completed capital improvement rent increase petition including all documents demonstrating that the resident meeting and the resident vote took place for each claimed capital improvement including but not not limited to the notice of resident meeting proof of service of the notice of resident meeting on all residents. the ballot submitted to the residents and the election results. Rec required documentation also includes all documents supporting each claimed capital improvement including but not limited to all invoices, billings,

checks, code violation notices or citations, governmental approvals, documents demonstrating the health and safety reasons for the work if management contends the improvement was necessary for health and safety reasons and all other records demonstrating the need for the work. the specific work performed and the cost for and the cost for such work. As explained earlier, park management must upon request of the city manager or hearing officer show to city staff or the hearing officer the original document form which any photocopy was made and all documents, papers or written Miranda which support or are photo or are evidence of claimed expenses of any nature. City staff also reviewed all information and documentation submitted in support of the proposed temporary rent increase. As a result of the city's review of the petitions, the city notified the petitioner by letter on May 8th, 2025 that the petitions were incomplete due to the lack of supporting complete information or documentation that supports the proposed four capital improvement rent increases or temporary increases in accordance with the requirements of the ordinance and the rules. On June 30th, the petitioner submitted additional documents totaling 90 pages. The city manager's office reviewed the new submittal and determined that the petition was still incomplete. On July 30th, 2025, the city notified the petitioner of the need to submit additional information and documentation, and that was included in exhibit 6. On August 11th, 2025, Mr. Albert forwarded a letter to the city responding to the city's request for additional information and documentation, which is included in exhibit 7. On September 4th, 2025, the city notified the petitioner's attorney, Mark Albert, that the capital improvement rent increase petition and temporary rent increase petition were complete. The city's letter informed Mr. Albert that the hearing officer scheduled the public hearing for November 10th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. and requested confirmation from Mr. Albert that the public hearing date of November 10th, 2025 would be an available date. Mr. Albert sub subsequently informed

city staff that the petitioner's owner representatives would be available on November 10th, 2025. Upon the city's determination that petitions were complete on September 4th, 2025, the city manager's office also sent doc notices of der determination of complete petition to the park residents. That is in exhibit 9. On September 29th, 2025, the city received an email from Donna Johnson in which she advised that the city advised the city that she sent a request letter to Peter Wang seeking financial documentation in conjunction with a capital improvement rent increase petition. Miss Johnson also sent a the city a copy of the email that she sent to Mr. Wang the same day and that is also in exhibit 16. On September 30th, 2025, Mr. Albert as attorney for the petitioner emailed the city a copy of an email and letter he sent to Miss Johnson in response to her request for documents. Mr. Alpert did not provide any documents to Miss Johnson or the city in response to Miss Johnson's document request. On October 1st, 2025, the city received an opposition to the capital improvement rent increase petition filed on behalf of the park residents, that is exhibit 12. The city also received emails in opposition filed by various park residents which are included in exhibit 13. On October 1st, 2025, the city forwarded a notice of public hearing to Mr. Albert as the petitioner's representative, to the park residents, to Donna Johnson as park resident representative, and to the hearing officer, confirming the scheduled November 10th public hearing for all participants. Following the scheduling of the November 10th, 2025 public hearing, an administrative error was found regarding ordinance number 410, which amended the municipal code pertaining to the implementation of a hearing officer process and repeal the mobile home rent stabilization board. Due to the administrative error, it was necessary to have a new second reading of ordinance number 410, which then required the scheduled public hearing to be rescheduled. On October 21st, 2025, resident representative Donna Johnson submitted a second request for documents via email to Mr. Wayne, in which she requested full and complete financial

disclosure in connection with the upcoming rent stabilization hearing. On October 23rd, 2025, Mr. Albert, attorney for the petitioner, provided a letter of response to Donna Johnson's second request for documents. Mr. Mr. Alpert did not submit any documents to Miss Johnson or the city in response to her records request. On October 28th, 2025, the city forwarded a notice of rescheduled public hearing to Mr. Albert as a petitioner's representative, to the park residents, to Donna Johnson as a park resident representative, and to hearing officer Palasios of the rescheduled date of December 9th, 2025 public hearing, and that is exhibit 11. A request was sent to Mr. Albert on behalf of the petitioner on November 6th requesting that the petitioner submit a deposit toward the estimated cost of the public hearing in the amount of $22,854.15. Do no later than November 24th, 2025 as required by section 9.05.09 of the ordinance. That section of the ordinance provides that management shall pay any additional cost of the public hearing not later than 15 days prior to the scheduled public hearing, which such cost shall be based upon an estimate prepared by the city manager and as established and amended by resolution of the city council. A breakdown of the city's estimated costs as determined by the city manager's office is enclosed with a staff report. On November 26, 2025, Mr. Mr. Albert forwarded the city a modified temporary rent increase petition to the city by email based on the addition of the city's estimated hearing deposit and Mr. Albert's additional estimated legal fees. Pursuant to the modified temporary rent increase petition, the petitioner seeks a temporary rent increase of $7.23 per month per space for 5 years based on a total petitioning hearing cost of $45,795.50 advertised over 5 years at 8.5% interest. On November 26, 2025, the city provided park resident representative Donna Johnson with a copy of Mr. Albert's email and modified temporary rent increase petition by email. Miss Johnson

responded to the city by email dated November 26, 2025. Okay. Sorry, but I need a drink. [laughter] As indicated, a written protest of the capital improvement rent increase petition and temporary rent increase petition was filed by Donna Johnson as representative of the park residents on October 1st, 2025 in which the residents object to any increases requested by the petitioner. Again, this is exhibit 12. In summary, the protest states the petition is not complete, that many documents are missing or are not legible or reproducible, photographs are not dated, and residents do not have access to all amenities. The protest further states that the residents already pay a yearly rent increase, and that is difficult enough for those on fixed incomes. The protest agrees that the streets were in very bad shape and in need of major repairs, but contend that the repairs are the responsibility of Mr. Wong, according to Title 25, section 1116. The protest further agrees that there was insufficient lighting in the park, but contend that Mr. Wong Wong is required by title 25 section 11108 to provide sufficient lighting. The protest contends that the pool and spa are already amenities that the residents pay for in their base rent. The protest contends that the clubhouse roof was not maintained as required by 20 title 25 and that Mr. Wong is not in compliance with the ADA for the office. The protest states that the remodel of the office took out the game room, lounge, piano, and library areas. The protest contends that the improvements made are not improvements that are not improvements. They are a failure to maintain his property and the residents refuse to pay for them. The protest contends that the improvements are legally the petitioner's responsibility as the park owner and the residents should not have to pay for them. The protest further states that the residents did not vote in favor of the improvements. The protest also contends that the clubhouse roof and improvements were

completed by the prior park owner and the residents will not pay for those improvements, adding that the petitioner received the cost of the roof roof replacement when he purchased the park, which includes improvements and fixtures. The protest contends that there is no need for immediate monetary compensation to Mr. Wong, adding that future annual rent adjustments are adequate under the rent regulation process. The protest states that in summation, the residents do not agree to the capital improvement pass through. The protest contends that Mr. Wang has not submitted an operating budget, and that he has lied consistently through his application, that he has not submitted proper documentation, and that none of the pictures are dated, and that and he already received value for the things that were included in the sale price. The protest further contends that Mr. Wong is not in compliance with the MRL, which is the mobile home residency law, nor title 25 codes on numerous levels. Issues for consideration by the hearing officer. The hearing officer may wish to consider the following issues in reaching a decision on the capital improvement rent increase petition and the temporary rent increase petition on the capital improvement rent increase petition. The ordinance requires that in order to approve a capital improvement rent increase, the hearing officer must determine that the petitioner met his burden of proof and the hearing officer must make all of the findings set forth in the Calam Municipal Code section 9.05090 for each alleged capital improvement. Therefore, the city recommends that the hearing officer consider whether each of the following findings may be made for each claimed capital improvement. Street project, solar park lighting project, pool and spa project, clubhouse, and roof project. Finding number one, does each project satisfy the definition of capital improvement set forth in the municipal code 9.05.030 and the administrative rules. In considering this finding in connection with the clubhouse and roof of project, one issue the hearing officer may consider is whether the petitioner entitled to a capital whether the petitioner entitled to a capital improvement rent increase for work

performed by the part prior park owner California Mobile Estates LLC before the petitioner's purchase of the park. Is the petitioner entitled to a capital capital improvement rent increase under se under CMC section 905.090 090 on the grounds that the cost of the clubhouse and roof work were included in the purchase price of the park or should that type of claim be raised through a special rent increase petition which is not before the hearing officer. [clears throat] Finding number two, did 51% of the occupied spaces in the park with one vote per space consent to each claimed capital improvement? In considering this finding, did the petitioner submit documentation reflecting that it complied with all of the ordinance provisions relating to the vote and submitted all documentation showing that at least 51% of the spaces consented to each claimed capital improvement. Also, also with respect to the clubhouse and roof project, the hearing officer may consider whether the petitioner was required to and did submit documentation reflecting that the park owner complied with all of the ordinance provisions relating to the vote, including all documentation showing that at least 51% of the spaces consented to the clubhouse and roof project prior to the prior park owner carrying out for the work. Finding number three, have any prior rent increases been charged based upon or include the cost of each claimed capital improvement? In considering this finding, did the petitioner submit documentation establishing that the petitioner did not impose any rent increases to recover the costs of each claimed capital improvement for the clubhouse and roof repair which were performed by the prior park owner California Mobile Estates LLC. Did the petitioner also submit any documentation demonstrating whether the prior park owner charged any rent increases for the costs of the clubhouse and roof repairs? Finding number four. Is the petitioner currently registered and current on payment of the required monthly registration fees as required by Calam Munipal Code section 9.05.060.

Finding number five. Has the petitioner provided all documentation and other information required by chapter 9.05 5 and the administrative rules pertinent to each requested capital improvement rent increase. For example, did the petitioner submit complete competent competent information documentation to reflect who carried out each project, that each project was performed as claimed, that the costs for each project were incurred as claimed, and that only those costs that constituted capital improvement were included in each calculation of the proposed capital improvement rent increase. Finding number six. For any claimed capital improvement that was not consented to by 51% of the occupied spaces, was that specific capital improvement necessary to protect the health and safety of the park, its residents, or neighbors as determined in accordance with CMC section 9.05.090 and the administrative rules. In considerating in considering this finding, did the petitioner submit competent documentation or testimony to support its contention that each alleged capital improvement was necessary for the health and safety of the park, its residents or neighbors for the clubhouse and roof part roof project. Did the petitioner submit competent evidence to to establish that the prior park owner perform the work due or due to health and safety concerns? Finding number seven. For any project that the hearing officer finds falls within the definition of a capital improvement under the ordinance, did the petitioner use the correct interest rate and amortization period under the ordinance and administrative rules in calculating each proposed capital improvement rent increase? Finding number eight. For each project that the hearing officer finds falls within the definition of a capital improvement, did the petitioner correctly determine the monthly capital improvement rent increase by dividing the total cost of the capital improvement as adjusted by the applicable interest rate and the relevant amortization period and then divided by 12 months and then divided by

all 130 spaces in the park. on the temporary rent increase petition. If the hearing officer decides that the California mobile home estates is entitled to a capital improvement rent increase, the hearing officer should also determine whether the California mobile home estates is entitled to a temporary rent increase to reimburse the petitioner for the petition and the hearing costs. The petitioner is not eligible for temporary rent increase if the request for capital improvement special rent increase is denied. The ordinance requires that in in order to approve a temporary rent increase, the hearing officer must determine that the petitioner met his burden of proof that the petitioner is entitled to a temporary rent increase. The hearing officer must make all of the findings set forth in the Cal Mesa Municipal Code section 9.05.140. And therefore, the city recommends that the hearing officer consider whether each of the following findings may be made for the requested temporary rent increase. Finding number one is the petitioner the prevailing party on the petition for capital improvement rent increase. Finding finding number two do the professional services costs claimed by the petitioner in its temporary rent increase petition fall within the definition of recoverable fees costs and other expenses for professional services as set forth in the calama municipal code section 9.05.150 and administrative rules rule dot rules 11.4A 4 A and D. Finding three, did the petitioner actually incur the claimed professional services costs that form the basis of its proposed temporary rent increase? Finding number four, did the petitioner establish the reasonleness of its claimed costs for professional services in support of its proposed temporary rent increase based on the factors set out in rule 11.6D? Finding number five. Has the petitioner provided all documentation and other information required by the Calam Municipal Code and rule 11.6E pertinent to the professional services and related

costs allegedly incurred to justify the requested temporary rent increase. Finding number six, did the petitioner establish the amount of the temporary rent increase it is entitled to under the ordinance and rules? And if so, what is the amount? And finding number seven is the petitioner currently registered and current on payment of the required monthly registration fee as required by CMC section 9.05.060G. General provisions regarding findings. The petitioner bears burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to a capital improvement rent increase and temporary rent increase. Rule 8.6 provides quantum of proof and evidentiary standard. The petitioner shall have the burden of proving entitlement to the rent increase sought. The decision of the hearing officer shall be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record of the proceedings. Evidence is substantial when it is relevant, credible, and reliable and provides enough information together with the reasonable inferences from that information to support a conclusion even though other conclusions might also be reached. No decision may be supported solely by hearsay evidence. In addition, with regard to hearsay evidence, rule 86C4 also provides the hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant and credible evidence as defined in these administrative rules shall be admitted by the hearing officer if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. Regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence of objection in civil actions, hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but shall not be the purpose of sub excuse me but shall not be sufficient and in of itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objections and civil actions. The rules of privilege shall be

effective to the ex extent that they are otherwise required by statute to be recognized at the hearing and irrevant and unduly repetitious. Evidence shall be excluded. The evidence received shall be relevant to the specific rental crease which is the subject of the petition as provided in subsections 5 through 11. Okay. options for the hearing officer regarding the capital improvement rent increase petition. Based upon staff's review and an and an analysis of the petition, including the supporting documents and the opposition filed by or on behalf of the park residents, staff provides the following options that may be available to the hearing officer with respect to the capital improvement rent increase petition and the related temporary rent increase petition. Option one, approve a capital improvement rent increase in the amount of $495 per month per space for 15 years based on a project cost of 646,453 pursuant to section 9.05.090 for street work as requested by the California Mobile Home Estates LP in its April 8th, 2025 petition. Option two be to deny that same capital improvement rate increase in the amount of 4905. Option three, approve a capital improvement rent increase in the amount of $244 per month per space for 15 years based on a project cost of $57,16059 pursuant to section 9005090 for solar park lighting as requested by the California Mobile Home Estates in its April 8th, 2025 petition. Option four would be to deny that same capital improvement rent increase at the $244 per month. Option five, approve a capital improvement rent increase in the amount of $4.80 per month per space for 15 years based on a project cost of $112,3742 for pool and spa modifications as requested by the California mobile home

estates in its April 8th, 2025 petition. Option six would be to deny that same capital improvement rent increase in the amount of $4.80 per month. Option seven, approve a capital improvement rent increase in the amount of $4.38 per month per space for 20 years based on a partial project cost of $136,736 for clubhouse and roof moda modifications by the prior park owner California Mobile Estates LLC prior to the pet petitioner's purchase of the park as requested by the California Mobile Home Estates in its April 8th, 2025 petition. Option eight would be to deny that same uh capital improvement increase in the amount of 438 per month and option nine take such other action as determined to be appropriate by the hearing officer. Conditions for any capital improvement rent increase granted. Staff recommends that the following conditions be imposed on any capital improvement rent increase granted by the hearing officer in his written decision. Number one, each capital improvement rent increase shall not be included in the space rent and must be separately itemized on the monthly rent statement. Each capital improvement rent increase shall not be included in determining any future rent increase, including any annual permissive rent increase or any other capital improvement rent increase or any other special rent increase. Number three, the decision granting any capital improvement rent increase shall not be effective until the occurrence of the earlier of the following. A final decision of the hearing officer on the capital improvement rent increase petition when no timely appeal to the city council of the hearing officer's decision on the capital improvement rent increase petition is filed or a final decision issued by the city council on a timely appeal of the hearing officer's decision on the capital improvement rent increase petition four each capital improvement rent increase shall cease once the designated amortization period ends with the expiration date set forth in the decision number five nothing in the decision

shall authorize any increase or change in any rent or other charge imposed on the park residence not in compliance with the ordinance and or state law, including but not limited to any 90-day notice of rent increase required by state law. The hearing officer's decision shall be final upon the date of mailing of the of the decision by the city clerk by first class mail, postage prepaid to the petition and to to the petitioner and to each park resident along with an affidavit of mailing. Seven. Either party may and prior to commencing any action in a court of competent jurisdiction shall appeal any final decision or order of the hearing officer to the city council by filing written notice of the appeal with the city manager not later than 15 days after the date of deposit in the mail of the decision of the hearing officer to the petitioner and affected residents. Appeals shall be filed and processed and heard in accordance with the Calamy Municipal Code section 9.05.110 5.1110 and the administrative rules options based available based on temporary rent increase petition as out as outlined um earlier. Only a park owner who prevails on a capital improvement rent increase petition is entitled to receive a temporary rent increase to reimburse a park owner for the reasonable preparation and public hearing costs associated with the petition. Consequently, if the hearing officer decides that the petitioner is entitled to a capital improvement rent increase, the hearing officer should also determine whether the the petitioner is also entitled to a temporary rent increase to re reimburse the petitionary petitioner for the petition and hearing costs findings. Based upon staff's review and analysis of the temporary rent increase petition, including the supporting documents and the opposition filed by or on behalf of the park residents, staff provides the following options that may be available to the hearing officer with respect to the temporary rent increase petition. If the hearing officer does not approve a capital improvement rent increase, then option number one would be to deny a

temporary temporary rent increase in any amount of on the basis the petitioner is not eligible for temporary rent increase because the petitioner is not a prevailing park owner with the with the meaning of section 9.05.150140 of the ordinance. If the hearing officer grants any capital improvement rent increase, option two would be to approve a temporary rent increase in the amount of $228 cents per month per space for 5 years based on fees, costs, and other expenses totaling 14,991 as advertised over 5 years at 7% interest pursuant to section 9.05.140 submitted in the April 8th, 2025 temporary rent increase petition and corrected to use 7% interest rate. Option three, approve a temporary rent increase in the amount of $6.97 per month per space for five years based on fees, costs, and other expenses totaling 45,795.50 as advertised over over five years at 7% interest pursuant to section 9.05.140 submitted as modified in the November 26, 2025 temporary rent increase petition and corrected to use the 7% interest rate. Option four, take such other action as determined to be appropriate by the hearing officer. Conditions for any temporary rent increase granted. Staff recommends that the following conditions be imposed on any temporary rent increase granted by the hearing officer in his written decision. One, the temporary rent increase shall not be included in the space rent and must be separate separately itemized on the monthly rent statement. Two, the temporary rent increase shall not be included in determining any future rent increase, including any annual permissive rent increase, capital improvement rent increase, or special rent increase. Three, the decision granting any temporary rent increase shall not be effective until the occurrence of earlier of the following. A a final decision of the hearing officer on the capital improvement rent increase petition when no timely appeal

to the city council of the hearing officer's decision on the capital improvement rent increase petition is filed or B a final decision issued by the city council on a timely appeal of the hearing officer's decision on the capital improvement rent increase petition four the temporary renre shall not be implemented except in compliance with the notice provisions required by the civil code section number [snorts] five the temporary renree shall cease Once the 5-year amortization period ends with the expiration date set forth in the decision. Six, the residents of each space have the option of paying the full temporary rent increase for their space in one lump sum and thereby avoid having to pay any interest. The lumpsum payment shall be made no later than 30 days following the final decision of the city. The amount of the lumpsum payment and the deadline for payment shall be set forth in the decision. Upon payment by a resident of the full lump sum, the resident shall be deemed to have fully paid the temporary rent increase, and the temporary rent increase shall not thereafter appear on the resident's monthly rent statement. Number seven, nothing in the decision shall authorize any increase or change in any rent or other charge imposed on the park residents not in compliance with the ordinance and/or state law, including but not limited to any 90-day notice of the rent increase required by state law. Number eight, the hearing officer's decision shall be final upon the date of mailing of the resol of the decision by the city clerk by first class mail postage prepaid to the petition and to each park resident along with an affidavit of mailing. Number nine, either party may and prior to commencing any action in a court of competent jurisdiction shall appeal any final decision or order of the hearing officer to the city council by filing written notice of the appeal with the city manager not later than 15 days after the date of the deposit in the mail of the decision of the hearing officer to the petitioner and affected residents. Appeals shall be filed processed and heard in accordance with the Calam City Municipal Code section 9.05.110

and the administrative rules. Hearing officer decision. Following the public hearing and completion of the hearing officer's deliberation, the hearing officer hearing officer shall issue a written decision or determination concerning the petition which shall include findings of fact and conclusions based upon those findings of fact. The decision shall include the determination of the maximum allowable rent for each affected mobile home space mobile home and such other terms and conditions deemed necessary by the hearing officer to implement its decision. No decision shall be deemed final by the hearing officer until issuance and service of its written decision or determination by the city. Upon issuance of the hearing officer's witness decision, the Ren administrator shall serve by first class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the hearing officer's decision along with an affidavit of mailing on the petitioner, the petitioner's designated representative, the designated park resident representative, and all affected residents along with an affidavit of mailing. Service shall be completed upon deposit of the written decision in the US mail. Okay. Next we have an analysis of and response to park owner's capital improvement rent increase petition and the resident's opposition. A claimed capital improvement street project. Allegations of the petition regarding street project as outlined. The California mobile home estate seeks capital seeks a capital improvement rent increase under section 9.05.090 of the Cal Mesa Municipal Code for a street project. The petition does not include any documentation establishing that at least 51% of the occupied spaces consented to the street project work prior to the project being carried out. The petition states that the street project was necessary for health and safety to prevent injury and damage to the property of the park, its residents, and its neighbors. Staff's opinion regarding the street project. Staff listed several options for the hearing officer's consideration at the beginning of this report. And the hearing officer should consider all of

the information and documentation submitted in support of the petition and requested capital improvement rate increases as well as all the information and documentation submitted in opposition to the petition and then decide whether the petitioner has met his burden of proof and that is entitled to a capital improvement rent increase under the section of the ordinance for the street project. The hearing officer should determine whether substantial evidence supports findings that the street project was necessary for health and safety reasons and satisfies all other factors to qualify as a capital improvement under the ordinance. I need park solar lighting allegations of the petition regarding park solar lighting. As outlined, the California mobile home estates seeks a capital improvement rent increase under the section 9.05090 of the Calamacian municipal code for park solar lighting along the park's internal streets. The petition does not include any documentation establishing that at least 51% of the occupied spaces consented to the solar street lighting work prior to the project being carried out. The petition states that adequate street lights are needed for safety, security, and to prevent damage. Staff's recommendations regarding the park solar street lighting. Staff listed several options for the hearing officer's consideration. At the beginning of this report, the hearing officer should consider all of the information and documentation submitted in support of the petition and request a capital improvement rate increases as well as all of the information and documentation submitted in opposition to the petition and then decide whether the petitioner has met his burden of proof that is entitled to a capital improvement rent increase under section 9.05.090 090 of the ordinance for the solar street lighting. The hearing officer should determine whether substantial evidence supports findings that the park solar street lighting project was necessary for health and safety reasons and that the project satisfies all other factors to qualify as a capital improvement under the

ordinance. C claimed capital improvement pool and spa project. The California mobile home estates seeks a capital improvement rent increase under section 9.05.090 090 for a pool and spa project. The petition does not include any documentation establishing that at least 51% of the occupied spaces consented to the pool and spa project prior to the work being carried out. The petition contends the pool and spa project was necessary to meet health and safety standards. The petitioner contends that the spa was 50 years old, deck was cracked and uneven, and there was a leak and as such replacement was necessary. Staff listed several options for the hearing officer's consideration. The hearing officer should consider all the information and documentation supported in support of the petition and requested capital improvement rent increases as well as all the information and documentation submitted in opposition to the petition and then decide whether the petitioner has met the burden of proof that isn't entitled to a capital improvement rent increase. Hearing officer should determine whether substantial evidence supports findings that the pool and spa project was necessary for health and safety reasons and satisfies all other factors to qualify as capital improvement under the ordinance. D. Claimed capital improvement clubhouse and roof project. The California mobile home estates seeks a capital improvement rent increase under section 905.090 for remodeling the clubhouse and modifying the roof. The petitioner did not carry out this work. The petition states this work was completed by the prior owner immediately before the park was sold to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the clubhouse and the roof project were effectively paid for by the petitioner because the park's purchase price reflected the fact that the clubhouse and roof project had been completed. The petition does not include any documentation establishing that at least 51% of the occupied spaces consented to the clubhouse and roof project prior to the work being carried out by the prior park owner. The petition contends the pool and spa project was necessary to meet health and safety standards. No documentation or information was

provided indicating that the prior park owner carried out the work based on health and safety concerns. The total cost allegedly incurred by the park owner was 234,27710. The petitioner seeks recovery of only 136,736 of that total. City staff requested an explanation of how the petitioner determines to seek to recover only 136 736 in the cost, but the information documentation provided by the petitioner does not include any such explanation. Staff recommendations regarding the clubhouse and roof project. Staff listed several options earlier in this report to the hearing officer. The hearing officer should consider all of the information and documentation submitted in support of the petition and requested capital improvement rent increases as well as all of the information and documentation submitted in opposition to the petition and then decide whether the petitioner has met his burden of proof that is entitled to a capital improvement rent increase under the section 905090 for the clubhouse and roof project performed by the prior park owner. The hearing officer should determine whether substantial evidence supports findings that the clubhouse and roof project was necessary for health and safety reasons and satisfies all other factors to qualify as a quality as a capital improvement under the ordinance. In explaining its justification for including the clubhouse and roof project in its petition, the petitioner contends that it is entitled for to approval of a capital improvement rent increase based on the cost of the clubhouse and roof project even though the project was performed by the prior park owner and it was the prior park owner who expended the funds to carry out the capital improvement. The petitioner contends that it is paid for and it is paid for those improvements through the park's purchase price and that the petitioner is entitled to a fair return on its investment in these capital improvements. However, the issue of whether a proposed capital improvement is necessary to provide a fair return is not relevant in a capital improvement rent adjustment, which simply allows a park owner to recover the costs incurred by the current park owner in carrying out a capital improvement as allocated over the useful life of that capital improvement, including any financing

costs and interest over the repayment period and spread among all spaces in the park. Consideration of whether a park owner is earning a fair return in its park may be sought under the special rent increase positions special rent adjustment provisions contained in section 9.05.10 and 9.05.110 of the ordinance, but the petitioner has stated it is not seeking a special rent increase under the ordinance. Staff notes that the special rent adjustment provisions allow a park owner to demonstrate that it is entitled to a rent increase based on maintenance of net operating income, a requested base year NOI and or a fair return of the park as a whole. Under the special rent adjustment provisions, a park owner may submit evidence on a myriad of factors to demonstrate that they are not earning a fair return on the entire park operation which may include which may include capital improvements or other capital expenses carried out in a mobile home park. Further, under case law, a fair return is not limited to an isolated capital improvement or a single element of a mobile home park. The fair return standard is concerned with the financial integrity of the business as a whole, not the ability to obtain a return on a discrete portion of its business, such as a particular capital improvement. The California Supreme Court has emphasized that determining fair return requires an examination of the enterprise as a whole, not merely one part, such as one capital improvement. [clears throat] So long as rates as a whole afford the regulated from just compensation for its all over services to the public, they are not confis confisatory that a particular rate may not cover the cost of particular good and services does not work compensation in and itself. In other words, confiscation is judged with is judged with an eye toward the regulated firm as an enterprise. Thus, due process only requires a fair return on the mobile park as a whole, not a fair return on each discrete aspect of the park, such as the Petrol Mart investment. Whether or not expressly stated in the ordinance, the purpose of the capital improvement provisions of the ordinance are to allow a current park owner, such as the petitioner, to apply for a rent

increase based on costs incurred by that park owner for capital improvements made by that park owner, not by a prior owner. And the ordinance provisions are consistent with the conclusion. The city notes that all of the required findings support the determination that the capital improvement must have been made by the current park owner, the petitioner, to be eligible for capital improvement rent increase. For example, the ordinance requires that the petitioning park owner is registered and up to date on its registration fees. The ordinance requires the capital improvement be consented to by at least 51% of the occupied spaces and requires proof that the resident election was held before the capital improvements were carried out. This means that anytime a park owner petitions for a capital improvement rent increase based on improvements made by the prior park owner, evidence would have have to be submitted from the prior park owner whose records or testimony may not be available or such evidence would be hearsay. That by itself would be insufficient to grant the rent increase. Further, if 51% resident consent cannot be established, the petitioning park owner must introduce evidence that the prior park owner carried out the improvements for health and safety reasons. And as with election, testimony or other evidence from the prior park owner may not be available, or any testimony as to the prior park owner's reasoning would be hearsay. All of these provisions require direct personal knowledge of the petitioner as to when, why, and how the capital improvement was carried out. Whether at least 51% of the residents voted to approve the capital improvement, or whether the current park owner concluded the capital improvement was necessary for health and safety reasons. In light of the purpose of the capital improvement rent increase provisions, it is reasonable to interpret the ordinance to require that the petitioner must have carried out the requested capital improvement rather than based on a contention that the petitioner may have indirectly paid for that capital improvement through a greater purchase price. Further, the city is not required to provide for a fair return on a capital improvement under its capital improvement rent increase provisions, particularly when the alleged capital improvement was not carried out by the petitioner. If the petitioner were seeking a fair return on its investment, it would have to submit

evidence required by section 9.05.10 and 9.05.1100 regarding the park's income and expenses and other factors listed in the ordinance to justify a special rent increase. The petitioner has not submitted any any evidence of the park's return on investment, whether related to the clubhouse and roof project by itself or for the park as a whole. Staff notes that Miss Johnson, the park resident representative, requested several times for financial information and documentation related to the park, including by email dated September 29th, 2025, and by email and letter dated October 21st, 2025. In declining to provide the requested documentation, Mr. Albert stated the petitioner was not seeking a fair return. For all of these reasons, it is staff's position that under the ordinance, the petitioner is not eligible to seek a capital improvement increase based on the clubhouse and roof project because the project was carried out by the prior park owner. I'm almost done. Bear with me. Temporary rent increase to recover petition and hearing costs. A temporary rent increase if awarded to Preellian Park owner is determined based on the reasonable cost of the experts and other costs incurred in pro in processing the capital improvement rent increase petition and appearing at the hearing. The rules provide that fees, costs, and other expenses, including hourly rates, lumpsum charges based on specific tasks or projects, and duplication costs, but do not include cost to recover documents from storage, cost to compile domics from computer records or other electronic records, costs incurred to develop software programs, printing costs from computers or other electronic devices. If the hearing officer grants a temporary rent increase, the written decision should include the total amount of eligible fees, costs, and other expenses, the amount of interest determined for the 5-year period, and the specific monthly temporary rent increase approved. The petitioner contends that the appropriate interest rate to be used in determining the temporary rent increase is 8.5% per year compounded monthly. In addition, as listed above, the written decision should include the following provisions. that the temporary rent increase cannot be included as part of the space rent, but must be itemized as

a separate charge on the monthly rent statement or a separate statement. That the temporary rent increase must be removed from the bill at the end of the 5-year period. And that the park residents may pay the full amount of the temporary rent increase in a lump sum so as to avoid having to pay interest. As outlined above, the original temporary rent increase petition requested a temporary rent increase of $2.37 per month for 5 years, which includes 8.5% interest as submitted by the petitioner. This proposed increase was based on $14,991 and in costs plus $3,462.80 in interest calculated at the rate of 8.5%. According to the temporary rent increase petition, these costs were incurred by the petitioner's legal council, Mr. Alpert. By letter dated November 26, 2025 from the petitioner's attorney, the petitioner modified the original proposal to also include the city's requested public hearing deposit of 22,85415 plus an additional 15 hours of time incurred by the petitioner's attorney of $7,950.50 or an additional amount of $30,84.50. According to the petitioner, these additional amounts result in a revised total petition and hearing cost of 45,79550 and that sum amortized over five years at 8.5% interest, resulting in a total temporary rent increase of 56,37389 over 5 years. The petitioner thus requests a modified temporary rent increase of $723 per month per space for five years. And then um as you saw in the report, we completed um a chart that showed their um their original um costs, their modified costs, and then uh the city also um put the cost for the 7%. Um the ordinance section 9.05.140, which talks about the temporary rent increase, requires only allows for 7%

interest. um even though it's in our rules, it states a different amount um the ordinance actually prevails over the rules and there's a discrepancy in the rules and that amount. So the 7% is where um the city has put those costs in the table. [sighs and gasps] And I think that concludes my report at this time. Amy had anything else she wanted to add? Thank you so much for the report. We'll give you a minute to catch your breath. Yes. Thank you.

So what I'll tell Miss Johnson, Mr. Albert, I'll give you an opportunity to ask questions of of our city clerk. We'll start with Mr. Albert and then we'll go with Miss Johnson. Any questions? And these questions are focused and limited to what she reported. So keep that in mind. Mr. Albert, do you have questions for Miss Gertis? I have no questions. No questions. Miss Johnson, do you have questions about the report?

I think you're Yeah, there you go. I looked at the packet and I didn't see that there was 51% of the votes. Are was that based on a 127 spaces or 130 spaces? And so if you could rephrase your question, I want to make sure I'm clear on that. Then we'll have the answer in a minute. Okay. You did not see that there was 51% approval, right? It's not my understanding from looking at the evidence that there was 51% of the approval. Did the report state that there was? Yes, the report does. It did state there was 51% approval in the report.

I I didn't catch that. Miss Gertis, did the report anywhere state that there was 51% approval? No, it said that there was not 51% approval. Right. Right. Okay. That's my question.

Okay, great. I have a quick question. And the last part under the clubhouse roof uh discussion in the analysis, I believe this might have been a typo, but I want to make sure we're clear on the record. You made a mention of the pool and spa being for public safety, and I think you're referring that the petitioner had alleged that was for public safety reasons that worked. And I think you meant to say the clubhouse and roof and that's under this analysis discussion for the clubhouse. You mentioned the 51% not being uh in not receiving 51% and that instead the petitioner was claiming it as a safety. [snorts]

Yeah, we did not receive 51. They did not receive 51% for any of the petitions. But then later I think it was a typo that you read it. You mentioned the pool and spa instead of the clubhouse. Oh, okay. Yeah, I think our attorney, city attorney has a comment on that. Um, our understanding, staff's understanding from the petition

is that the park owner contends all of the improvements, the street, the solar lighting, the pool and and spa, and the clubhouse and roof were due to health and safety reasons. And staff also noted in the report there is no documentation on the 51% approval for any of the claimed improvements.

Right. And and I understood that but in the report reading there was I think it was a typo that mentioned out of uh in the clubhouse discussion referencing the pool and spa and it's just a a nit I'm picking. Uh Mr. Albert is the Miss Grayson's uh summary of the petition correct in your view? Regarding the 51% not being included and the reasoning being public safety, yes, for all four categories of improvements, we don't we did not get approval of the vote and we're proceeding on the basis of the health and safety exception. Very well. Thank you, Miss Johnson. Anything you'd like to add on this point before we move on? I'm fine.

All right. Thank you. Let's moving moving right along. Thank you to all parties. Questions to staff u by hearing officer completed. [snorts] petitioner representative presentation including sworn witnesses. Go ahead, Mr. Albert. [clears throat]

Uh, thank you, hearing officer. Thank you, Miss Gertis, for I don't know, maybe you got the short straw. You had to read that whole [laughter] thing. Uh, I want to start out with kind of a preliminary a preliminary discussion or uh request. We have a representative for the residents and we have a bunch of residents here. I know many of them want to speak. Uh there really should be two sides and I and I'm hoping that the two sides can have equal time. Uh so what I would propose is that we have an agreement, we can finish our side in 90 minutes and that the residents, whether it be through their public comments or through their representatives, they be rep uh limited to 90 minutes. uh for the reasons that I'm going to get into that should be more than sufficient time to address the merits of what's actually to be decided. I'll give Miss Johnson an opportunity to respond on that. Before that, my question is, and I I understand what you just said, is there anything in the ordinance that requires that? Uh, equal time I would sub submit as kind of a due process issue. As far as it being limited to 90 minutes, no, there's nothing specific in the ordinance.

And so, Miss Johnson, response, then I'll

I'm not in agreement with that because we have a lot of uh persons here that would like to speak and have valuable uh information. So, I'm not sure that we could do this in 90 minutes. So, I'm inclined to agree with Miss Johnson. And the reason is this. Um, here we have a room full of what I believe are the residents of this park. And we have Mr. Wong who's the owner representative. And just by nature, it it's just a different amount of people that are participating. We do have an equal due process component here that is very much important to me. And we have public comment. And the public comment we are giving it's under the ordinance to give each person an amount of time. And so we're going to comply with that. Make sure everyone gets their who submitted their speaker card gets their allotted amount of time. Give each side an opportunity to present their case and their witnesses. Uh and we'll just go with that.

All right. Right. Mr. Albert, go ahead. First, I want to just cover some some of the ground Miss Curtis did because there's a couple of of corrections that I think are necessary. Uh, first of all, are you hearing me clearly here?

I am. Okay, great. Uh, there are four aspects to our capital improvement rent increase. It's based on section 9.05090 of the ordinance. You've had those criteria read to you. First is the roads and that is indeed requested as $49.95 for 15 years. Uh the lighting we actually corrected that number. The number is not uh uh 244. The correct number is $1.77 for 15 years. In our our letter of August 11th, which you can find in exhibit 7 of the the package at page 498, we corrected that the total cost of the project was $23,340. If you advertise that over 15 years with interest at 8.5%, you get a total figure of $41,370.88. You divide that by 180 months and 130 spaces, you get a $1.77 rounded. Um, the pool and jacuzzi, uh, we I think they used the figure of $4.80 a month for 15 years, and that's correct. On the clubhouse remodel, that number though, they said the city staff report said $4.38 for 20 years. Um, that calculation is not correct. Uh uh as we explained, the city said we didn't explain where our figure came from. The total project cost was $234,2772 that we had documented. Um, we chose, uh, the park owner chose to try to pass through 60% of that cost, which is where the figure of 136,736

comes from. There's nothing magical about the 60%. It's just this feeling that, you know, this is the prior owner, so we'll we'll reduce the the amount by that amount. uh uh and anyway, if you take that figure and you plug it into an amortization calculator, applying an 8.5% interest rate over 20 years, you get total payments of $284,790. And then if you divide that by uh 240 months, which is 20 years, and again by 130 spaces, you get the rounded figure of $9.13. So that's the correct figure. Could you repeat the last? Um,

you want me to give you all the numbers? Just how you got the total amortised overtime.

Okay. Well, we used the $136,736 figure, which isn't correct in the staff report. And we just plugged that into an amortization calculator using the 8.5% interest rate and that got us to 284,790. And you know I'm a ma I'm a lawyer so I had to redo my math and check it because I you know I'm not far far from perfect. But you divide that by 240 for 24 for 20 years, two 240 months and then again by 130 spaces and that that gets you to $9.13 or it should. I don't think there's any disagreement on the 136736 being the basic number we're requesting. Anybody else can just plug it into an amortization calculator and confirm whether that's right or not. Uh so uh as I think we'll we'll we'll explain here. I think in the in the documents you have you already actually have everything you need to decide uh this this case or this this petition. Uh there are really there are the only these five factors that the city staff has gone over uh to consider. And then there's this one extra factor because we didn't get the 51% vote and that extra factor is is this health and safety. So the the five factors are um is this does [snorts] this work satisfy definition of capital improvement as defined in section 9.050.030. And if you look at that that ordinance, it's in se it's in exhibit one of the package. Uh all of these um improvements meet that. Uh then there's the 51% requirement which we're not going to

meet. Uh number three, no prior rent increases. Actually, the main purpose here is I want to talk about the scope and and make a quick motion here. So number three is no prior rent increases. Uh number four is uh park owner being currently registered and current on payment of the required monthly registration. And number five, all the documentation required by this chapter pertinent to the requested rent increase has been provided by the park owner. So that would be the documentation that supports the capital improvement application. And then there's the second issue uh of or the sixth issue in this case of [laughter] uh are these health and safety matters. Those are the things that you you need to decide in this case and and I don't think city staff really disagrees with that. Uh and so yeah, subsection C of the ordinance. It says, "A petition which meets all of the requirements of subsection A of this section but has not been consented to by 51% of the occupied spaces may be granted when the capital improvement is necessary to protect the health and safety of the park, its residents, or its neighbors. Uh I'm not getting into the merits here, but it doesn't say anything about the state of mind of the park owner, which is kind of something that was raised in the staff report. it's whether the improvements are necessary for health and safety for the park or the residents. Now, um you've indicated you're not willing to do equal time, but what I am hoping is at least we can have um a pres a presentation that is addressed to the merits or we're going to be here all day. Um

I'm sorry, repeat that last part.

Presentation that is addressed to the actual merits of what you have to decide in section 8.6 six of the administrative rules and though that's exhibit two and this is at page 111 section 8.6 C5A specifies a relevancy requirement for the evidence. It says the evidence presented must be relevant and a lot of what you have in your package and a lot of what's been discussed by the residents in their opposition isn't relevant. Uh, and there are several categories of of irrelevancy. And what I'd like to do is go over those categories and asks ask for your ruling in advance um on the relevance and admissibility of this testimony. One category would be earnings of the park owner. Uh, as staff said, we're not presenting a fair return application and that includes as to the as to the uh clubhouse project. It's not based on fair return. There is a procedure in the ordinance where the relevance there is the park owner's earnings is relevant. That's not this procedure. Um, so the earnings of the park owner or lack thereof uh are not relevant. Number two, the condition of the park. Again, the condition of the park is not one of those six items that that uh that um were discussed in the ordinance that is relevant. There's a ton of testimony about it and uh if if we have to go through it, there's a lot we can say about it, but it's not relevant. We're just going to be wasting time. If we talk about the conditions of the park, you're going to be hearing evidence from

both sides, probably hours of evidence on issues that have nothing to do with the decision. It's not one of the factors. Just a quick quick note. Thank you, Mr. Albert. I'll give Miss Johnson an opportunity to respond in a moment, but let's hear Mr. Albert out. Go ahead.

Third, um, alleged violations of the MRL. Uh, there are I haven't really seen much by way. There's a few references to the MRO, the mobile residency law, but again, it's not relevant to this application. And and four, the ability of the residents to pay. Now, I had did not see much of that in the uh in the opposition, but it's something that is very common that you hear at these rent control hearing. The ability to pay is not relevant. So, what I'd like to what I would like to do is get a obviously Miss Johnson hasn't entitled to be heard on this, but I'd like to get a ruling on that on that on those issues of whether we can limit the evidence today.

Right. Thank you, Mr. Alper. Miss Johnson, any response? I don't agree. Um, we submitted evidence that was relevant relevant. The only portion that would not be relevant would be the um fair return, but the rest of it is very relevant.

The condition of the park and immoral law and [sighs] there's so much in there that we submitted that is truly relevant. And just so everyone's clear, especially our folks here that are waiting and I thank you for your attendance. Um, relevance in the law is a interesting concept. It it means does it relate to is it you know needed to allow the decision to be made that's before me in this case. And so that's relevance. And then there's importance. importance and the condition of your park is very important. You live there and I understand that and that's a very important thing. I I I understand uh the point Miss Johnson is making. Uh I also understand Mr. Albert's point about the relevance. Uh I have a limited authority here and in this proceeding to decide as you heard from staff report, as you heard from Mr. Alpert, Miss Johnson's making her point. uh this is a limited process that I have under the authority given to me through the ordinance and so as much as I would like to address all points on both sides that you have concerns about I can't get into everything but with that being said when we have our public comments each public commenter will have their three minutes and you can discuss anything that you feel is relevant and important for my consideration and whether I accept that as part of my decisionmaking It will be up to me to weigh the relevance and admissibility, but we do have a narrow motion, I'll call it that, from Mr. Albert concerning these points. I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Alpert. Uh, and I'm not saying these other points are not important, but I do want to hear from public comments on anything they

feel is important and relevant. As far as the testimony, the evidence, I agree that I will decide if something's not relevant or not, but I'm not going to make a specific motion or decision on here on whether this particular item is not relevant. I'll decide that during my deliberation, decision-m uh both sides can argue. You can object if there's a witness or item of evidence that's raised. Same with this side. you can object on relevance that whatever they're bringing in is not relevant and then I'll decide, but I'm not going to make an admissibility ruling here. And I know you're you're you're you're crinkling your nose and all that. But um and I understand we'll just walk through it and then as things come up, you can let me know if you have an objection on any relevance item.

Well, the issue is what we're going to have to present uh as our side uh because we go first,

right? And uh uh the other thing is I mean frankly I was at this I was at the park yesterday. Um if you want to know what the park's condition is, it's a mile away from here. Let's on a break visit the park. You can see for yourself what the condition of this park is. It'll speak more to any testimony that you hear. Place is in great condition and a lot of these complaints are complaints about the prior condition. So, I'm sure Miss Johnson would have no objection to you and and us taking the time to actually go to the park to see it and to see what condition it is in.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Albert. We're not going to take a field trip. Anything else, Miss Johnson? I believe that everything that has been submitted and everything that uh our residents have to say is relevant. The park is not um fully maintained and just Thursday we had to have HCD out uh to take care of the picnic area. We had a resident fall because the bricks on the ground tripped him and he hurt his ankle. There are many things in the park yet to be taken care of and his obligations to be fulfilled, Mr. uh Wong, and the lighting is still very poor. So I I think what we have to say is relevant and I do not think a field trip is necessary.

No. And All right. So I will decide here on on I do agree Mr. Albert that the condition and again I emphasize to all our residents here. I'm not saying it's not important especially if you have someone that trip you know that's something very important I'm sure Mr. Wong wants to know about and take care of. Um but for my purposes again I'm not going to decide whether the condition because in the ordinance it doesn't provide for that consideration. So, we are going to exclude anything having to do with evidence as far as the testimony and evidence that's received by me. But again, for our public commenters, you can talk about that your experience, what you know about the park that you feel is relevant and that you feel is important to my consideration. So, I I will allow it in public comment, but as far as testimony listed and raised, we're not going to allow anything on the conditions. Anything else, Mr. Albert? Uh, no. I'm just proceed. I'm ready to proceed on the M.

Go ahead and proceed then we'll come back to this side.

Yeah. We can do Hold on. But that'll be for time and place. Okay. I'm I'm sorry. Uh, so we have our five categories of of findings u and plus our sixth one for health and safety. So I want to get into that. Uh so the question is does the work satisfy the definition of a capital improvement as set forth in CMC 9.050.030 and any rules and regulations. So if uh that that particular code section is set forth uh out on exhibit one and page 34 of your record. Oh yes, here it is. where it has the definition of a capital improvement. One moment, please. Mr. Albert, Miss Grayson, you had

Sorry, this mic is challenging me. Um, I just have a question. For each presentation by the park owner and the residents, will each side be presenting witnesses? Because what I'm I understand Mr. Alpert wants to make an opening statement, but will he be presenting testimony for Mr. Wong and will Miss Johnson be presenting testimony? because I have some questions for each side. So, I just want to understand the process.

Thank you, Miss Grayson. My understanding is yes, uh you have at least I saw Mr. Wong raise his hand take the oath. I believe there was a gentleman in the back that you were looking at taking the oath. And Miss Johnson, you have a couple witnesses that will be testifying under penalty. No, it would just be public comment on your behalf. one. All right. So, we have one, I think, two on this side as far as test testimony under uh penalty of perjury. And so, uh I'll make sure that you are given opportunity to uh question the witnesses when that comes up. Thank you, Mr. Albert. Go ahead.

We we also have the park manager here and I have no objection even if we're not calling a witness. If you've got questions about that, you know, we have no objection to bringing them up and having ask questions. Sure. It's your case uh and your case. So go ahead.

All right. So the definition of a capital improvement means the installation of new improvements and facilities andor the replacement or reconstruction of existing improvements and facilities which consist of more than ordinary maintenance and repairs and have a useful life of at least 5 years. Uh capital improvements include but are not limited to improvements which would qualify as capital improvements rather than ordinary repairs and maintenance pursuant to the applicable regulations of the IRS or California State Franchise Tax Board. If you look at all all four categories of our projects, they meet the the definition of capital improvement. These are not ordinary repairs. As part of our submission, uh, we've presented evidence of the useful life. In fact, we're advertising these things over 15 years and 20 years based on their actual useful life. Um, so I don't think there's any serious question that we as to all four categories we meet the definition of a capital improvement. Item two, uh, 51% of the occupied spaces in the park have have voted to consent. know we don't meet that requirement. What what I find is um interesting about uh about the situation, but it's kind of a human nature thing. Uh there are all kinds of complaints about the sit the things that were repaired like the roads and the uh and the lighting and yet almost nobody voted to approve a pass through for it. Now, one issue raised during the staff report was when does this vote take place? There's nothing in the ordinance that says that the vote has to take place before the project was constructed. That's not in there. So that's uh a provision that's basically being uh constructed out of

thin air. Now number three, no prior rent increases have been charged based upon or including the cost of the capital improvement. Uh that's should be easily met as to all four. I think in the staff report, the staff raised a question about uh about whether it's possible the the the residents are already paying a rent increase for the clubhouse and roof remodel. Well, that would be uh part of their rent right now. This was that was done [snorts] in 20 uh 23. I can I can address that issue really quickly with testimony from Mr. Mr. Mr. Wong.

Sure. Go ahead. Mr. Wong, I remind you you're providing testimony under penalty of perjury. First state your name for the record. Yes. Just are they are the residents paying First State your name for the record. Peter Wan WG. Thank you, Mr. Wang. Uh, go ahead, Mr. Albert. Just one question. Are the residents currently paying a rent increase for the clubhouse and roof remodel? No.

All right. So, so as to item three, [snorts] uh we meet all the requirements. Item four, uh as required by CMC 905060G, the park owner is currently registered and current on the payment payment of the required monthly registration fees. Uh uh there's no suggestion that the park owner has is not current and register is not current on these fees. I'm not sure. I think the staff report suggested this somehow supported the idea that the prior that that that that the rent increase can't be based on a prior owner uh owner's work. I'm not sure why. Park owner is currently registered. Basically, this says when you get your rent increase, you have to be currently registered and current on the payment of your fees. Number five, uh the documentation and other information required by this chapter uh pertinent to the requested rent increase has been provided by the park owner. Now, we have the uh if you look through the record, administrative record in this case, we have the application deemed complete that after an extensive back and forth process asking for documentation. Now, I'm not saying we have every every shred of paper as to that uh as to the remodel project, but we have a lot of solid evidence that's in the record showing how much was the 236,000 that was spent. So, [snorts] I think we meet number five. Uh, also, so the the real issue I guess that's that's also it's already part of the record is this health and safety requirement, whether or not all four of these items are necessary for health and safety. Uh, so let's go through the improvements in terms of the health and safety. And

here's where I think we might get a little testimony. Uh, first, um, uh, I would invite you to take a look at, um, page 55 of the rules. uh which are stamped 122 where it discusses the health and safety provisions and it lists some examples of health and safety matters under the ordinance 10.6. Um, one thing I will I will say about again this came up in the staff report this idea that for the purposes of this ordinance it matters whether the park owner had some mental intent to to to to serve the purposes of health and safety. That language isn't anywhere in the ordinance. If you look at the ordinance in section the here's the key section is um oh these ordinances uh 9.05.0 0 9 0 C. That's the key provision. If in your record, this is starting at sort of at the bottom of page 42, it says a petition which meets all requirements of subsection A, those are the five provisions, um, but has not been consented to by 51% of the occupied spaces may be granted when the capital when the capital improvement is necessary to protect the health and safety of the park, its residents or neighbors. ers as determined uh in accordance with the rules and regulations. There's no subjective, it's kind of silly when you think about it. There's no subjective requirement that the park owner subjectively believed

that uh it was for health and safety as the staff report suggests. The issue is does the improve is the improvement necessary for health and safety. Kind of went on a tangent there. So, as to the roads, if you look in section 10.6, six, it gives road replacement as an example of a health and safety type improvement that's uh under the ordinance. So, there really isn't any question that the road improvements were necessary for health and safety. If it's in the the staff report that says it's necessary, they completely replace the roads. Uh then then the second category is lighting. Inadequate lighting. Is there any real question here again that that having adequate lighting is necessary for health and safety?

Thank you. Uh if you could save your comments for public comment. Thank you. No, no. Uh I'm we need you to save for public comments. I appreciate uh I remind all our participants that we are here subject to the rules of the quorum that city observes for all its meetings. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Albert.

Sure. So, of course, lighting is necessary. It's a security issue uh for people who are walking. Uh they could be a trick trip and fall issue and you know a lot of the residents complaints are about health and safety concerns related to the lighting. So basically they made our case. Um the pool and jacuzzi uh as part of the record we have a citation from the department of health regarding the necessary repairs. It's located at page the AR page 481 uh 482. Um I'm going to have a contractor uh talk about some of this, but uh the pool at sites missing pool tiles which were replaced. There were citations. Um uh there were health and safety concerns relating to the need to replace pool tiles with slip resistant tiles. uh the addition of recirculation equipment, adding a new hand handrail, and replacing the flow meter. Regarding the spa, it was 50 years old, and the HCD inspector advised the park owner it needed to be uh replaced. Again, this stuff is in the record. Um uh now um regarding uh the Paul the clubhouse remodel. If you look at our letter of June 25th, 2025 um this is um exhibit 5. It starts at AR 405 to 406. It goes into the clubhouse remodel project in detail. Talks about all the health and safety issues. I'll just give you some highlights and then I'm I'm going to bring the contractor up to talk about this. Uh the roof repairs, the roof was coated to stop leaks. Obviously, a leaking roof is a health hazard. A damaged property to of the park also slip and fall. Uh the flooring was repaired again for safety.

Uh it's a tripping hazard plus the existing materials were asbestous past asbestous pa based, excuse me. [snorts] the bathroom and and other facility remodeling uh was done to comply with ADA requirements. Uh and if you look again at the administrative rules, it talks about one of the health and safety concerns that is relevant is is it necessary to comply with health and safety regulations. Uh so we had to uh make the bathroom and facility bathroom and related facilities comply with ADA requirements. Uh so that's rule 10.6A. It talks about the need to replace infrastructure to comply with ordinance and regulations. The walls were all repainted and the ceilings were repainted. They had lead paint. Uh so obviously that's a health issue. The office remodel um again was necessary to allow for wheelchair access and make the existing countertop ADA compliant. Um so I'd like to have on on this these health and safety issues. I'd like to have John up and just as a reminder for everyone here participating for Miss Johnson and Mr. Alpert. After each witness is called, we hear from the witness questions asked. Witnesses may testify in a narrative. Give Miss Johnson opportunity to ask questions of the witness if she has any. And I'll ask Miss Grayson if she has any questions for each witness as well. Go ahead, Mr. Albert.

And and uh state your name for the record. Uh my name is John Rhymer. And Mr. Rimer, I remind you that you're providing your testimony under penalty of perjury. Go ahead, Mr. Robert. Yes. Can you tell us uh about your history of employment at California Mobile Estate?

Um I've been a general contractor for 27 years. I am currently licensed and bonded um active license. I started work at um California Mobile Estates for the Valentine uh uh family, Watson family back in 1920 2019 doing remodels at four of their parks. one of them being the Californian. And uh about uh August of 2013, I found out the park was uh being taken over and sold to Peter Wang. So I introduced myself to him and I

You mean 2023? I think you said 2013. Oh, 2023. You're correct. Um introduced myself to him and I got a job being the maintenance manager in charge of the park. Um, so did you have a role in the clubhouse? Oh, well, first of all, the Valentine's were the prior owners. Is that right? Yes. Uh, Laura Balentine was the previous owner. She employed me to remodel the bathrooms uh remodel the clubhouse interior and uh remodel what would be the new office area that was handicap appropriate up to code.

All right. And so uh were you were directly involved in all aspects of that project? Um about 80% of it because there were other subcontractors that they hired for flooring and um I think most of the interior of everything all the all the uh the bathrooms I did everything in there. Uh flooring was done by somebody else. Um that's it. Yeah, I did pretty much everything. And were you working at the park when the roads were redone? Uh, yes I was. That was under when I was employed by Mr. Peter Wang. And were you working at the park when the lighting was redone?

Yeah. Yes, I was. I had just started at the park and the lighting was started I believe in October, November of 2023, right after I started. And were you employed uh by the park when the pool and jacuzzi work was done? Yes, I was. All right. if you can take us through um starting with the roads were do is it your opinion there were some health and safety concerns that made it necessary to replace the roads?

Uh the roads were severely damaged uh from years and years of use. Um to me they look like cobblestone. There was really no point in repairing them. We every time they were re-slurried they were only gluing them back together for a temporary amount of time. Um the uh electric and gas came through and they actually improved parts of the road because they repaved all their trenches that they put in. But uh the original roads were in pretty poor shape.

Can I can I break how how do you want us to do objections? I know we're not in court. I'll entertain objections as so long as they're uh legal objections. But yes, because we're not in court, rules of evidence are relaxed. Miss Johnson, you can also object, too. Uh what is your objection? Um Mr. Rhymer indicated he's a contractor. I would object to testifying to the condition of the roads unless he can explain what expertise he has. um because he seems to be testifying about the the roads.

And so what I heard Mr. Ramber tell us is he is employed by M Mr. Wong and Mr. Albert's just asking what he saw. But so I'm I'm inclined to allow it, but let me confirm with Mr. Albert. Is Mr. Rhyr testifying as a contractor expert or as a uh the employee of the owner who was there during these uh times? Well, he's a recipient witness. That's what what he's his primary testimony is. I'm not asking him as a contractor, but he also has an understanding of what was being attempted to achieve by the So, that's still recipient wetness. In other words, if he's trying to address health and safety.

So, I agree with Miss Grayson in that I did hear your question. what you asked them is tell us why these roads were a health and safety uh problem. I think that was the the way the question was coming out and you just said his recipient witness. So maybe what we need to hear from Mr. Rhyr is what he knows from his being there and seeing the roads the conditions he mentioned they look like cobblestones to him that the they were previously repaired but those repairs didn't hold. Those are the things that we want to know, things that he actually saw, but not drawing conclusions as to yes, this was health and safety in my expert opinion because of whatever facts he has. So, okay.

Do you understand that distinction there? I'll just to know what he knows. Okay.

Right. What he saw in experience. Johnson, would you like to uh say anything else on this point before we move on after the objection raised by Miss Grayson? It was my understanding that after the contractor was finished with putting all the gas and electric in that he was going to come back and repair the roads. We had a discussion with the meeting with Mr. Wong and it was brought up to him that we were supposed to move forward with trying to get the contractor to come back and repair the roads. And so, thank you for that. Um, but let's get to that in a little later point. We're, uh, listening and deciding on the objection raised by Miss Grayson, uh, assistant city attorney. Uh, I've made a decision that we're going to only allow the witness to testify by what he knows and not to provide testimony as an expert contractor.

He should have known that. He was at the meeting. Well, thank you. Um, go ahead, Mr. Albert. Okay. So I think I can ask you what was your understanding of the health and safety concerns that were being addressed by uh replacing the road. I think that's that's even more to the point of the objection. Uh we just need to know what he knows about what he saw. So first of all, city staff is telling me that the intent is arguing that the intent of the park owner to address health and safety concerns is irrelevant. And now somebody who was there who is going to talk about what health and safety concerns are being addressed, she's objecting to.

No, no, it's not that. She's objecting to the testimony of him saying this was a health and safety because of this. That's for you to do is argue the case of the facts elicited from the testimony. Can I I'm sorry, Miss Grace. Just a clarification also. If the question is going to a as we understand it, the work on the roads, pool and clubhouse and spa and lights were all done by the prior owner or at the direction not the lights

of the of the prior owner. Hold on. That's correct, Mr. Rhyr. I'm sorry. Sorry. The clubhouse and roof were done at the direction of the prior owner. Those two. Yes. Okay. Everything else was done during Mr. Wong's ownership. Correct. Correct. Okay. But to the extent the question is going to why Mr. Wong wanted to have it done. I think that's an objectionable question. That's hearsay. He can't testify to what Mr. Wong's reasoning was. That's something Mr. Wong needs to testify about unless he has personal knowledge.

That's part of the point I was

I agree with that. I think Mr. Albert agrees with that. But I didn't hear that being the question. He's just asking why did Mr. Rymer in his opinion believe it was a health and safety and I don't want to hear that. But I do want to hear what he saw. He already told us some of that. He saw the cobblestone looking roads uh and the conditions that were there. And that's for you to argue because of those conditions that are established in your view from your witness, therefore it was a health and safety concern. And then of course, if Mr. Wong wants to testify about why he made a decision uh of doing that because it was a health and safety concern, which you went into much detail telling me about those different projects, why they were each a health and safety concern. So, let's hear from Mr. Rhyr as far as what he knows, what he saw there. All right. Have you told us everything about the condition of the roads before they were replaced?

Um, there's uh one more thing. There was a flow line that was installed on the back street. I know from my personal experience that the without the flow line, the water used to clog up on the back street and it would get about 12 in deep in certain areas because of the unevenness of the roads which was clearly visible. So that's just my observation. And uh there was a lot of uneven roads around the park because the there was no base put down under the asphalt originally which was explained to me by JB Bostik, the person that did the roads, the company that did the roads. So there was a lot of winess. There was a lot of uh broken uh streets. That's

okay. Can you tell us about the lighting situation u before uh work was done?

Um the lighting situation before the work was done there was approximately five lights in the park that work. They were poorly maintained over the years. Um, there was also extreme electrical problems that I personally know about and have also heard about in the park because the electrical that was installed 50 years prior was not put in to conduits throughout the park. So, it was slowly deteriorating and [snorts] uh anybody who's been around the park for a while knew there was major outages. So to actually repair the existing lights in the park would be costreventative. So uh the um solar was an option that we went to and uh the contractor, I don't recall his name right now, came in and put in Quan, Mr. Quan, yes, very nice guy, uh came in and put in 25 lights throughout the park. And since then, uh, which was not added to this, uh, capital increase, I know I've added at least 21 other lights throughout the park. So, it's been an ongoing process to increase the lighting, but um, I think it looks a lot better than it ever did.

Personal opinion. Okay. the pool and jacuzzi repairs, what issues were addressed by that?

Oh, okay. From the day I started with uh Mr. Wong in October 1st uh 2023, uh every 2 to 3 days I had to uh add water to the jacuzzi. There was a bad really bad leak in the liner, which would be the concrete shell of the jacuzzi. uh water was uh slowly escaping daily through there. Um I found out later after we had been uh instructed by uh HCD that the uh the tile needed to be replaced and the plaster needed to be redone and we already had to jackhammer it. So we removed all the deck liner around it to get to the leak underneath the jacuzzi. Um, it was also uh faulty because it did not have two drains, which is a safety factor to keep people from being stuck to the bottom of the jacuzzi and drowning. Um, uh, what else? The handrail was replaced to come up to current uh, uh, ADA code with two handrails to enter and exit from the jacuzzi area. and the um the depth markers around the surface of the uh jacuzzi were installed and then the new deck was installed so the water would flow out of the building. It wasn't uh graded the right way when they originally did it so it would flood in there. Uh it didn't have proper deck drainage. What about the pool?

Oh, I'm sorry. Uh it also we added a um let me add one more thing for the jacuzzi. added a automated uh chlorine and uh chemical uh machine that added the chlorine automatically throughout the day. It was constantly monitored. There was no more guessing. There was no more checking it. There was it was constantly monitored. It's Bluetooth to the company that does our uh our pool service so they know when there's ever an imbalance in the chemicals. Now, on the pool, uh, while they were inspecting the jacuzzi for, uh, completion, they also inspected the pool, which they said they hadn't done in a long time, and they noticed that there was a pool liner installed that was fiberglass that was never permitted. Now, the problem with a pool liner that's fiberglass is it's just a flat coating that's put around the pool and it was never uh approved by the health department because it doesn't want to stick to the pool, which allows water to penetrate behind it, which creates bacteria that ultimately gets back into the pool. Uh, also, it did not have the dual drains at the bottom that prevent people from being stuck to the bottom of the pool. uh it didn't have the markers around the perimeter that gave the depth of the water. It did not have what's called a drop line. So when you're walking into the pool, it's 4 ft deep. And then at some point it starts dropping off into the deep end. So there's a black line across there. Now there's black lines on the pool steps. Those are those are drop lines. and a new handrail was installed that uh was put into the proper position so it wouldn't pinch uh people's legs against the step. It was too close to the step. There was a lot of a lot of violations. And then the uh handrail to get in and out of the deep end was not attached

properly, so a new one had to be installed. Okay. And the chemical system was also added to the pool at that time. What does that mean? And that means that uh there was no more guesswork on whether or not there was enough chlorine or acid in the pool to prevent bacteria buildup. It was constantly monitored by uh the pool company and they uh uh it's computerized basically. That's all I can say. I'm not an expert in that. They just explained how it worked.

All right, let's talk about the clubhouse remodel. Uh that's a a big project. So I just kind of want to go piece by piece. Uh were repairs done to the roof? Uh the repairs were done to the roof uh when I was not there. I was not employed by Mr. Wong at the time. So I'm not sure exactly what was done other than going over the report by the roofing company and seeing a visual inspection of the roof. So, I do know from my visual inspection the entire roof was coated and uh it it I don't know from Was the roof leaking? What? What?

I know the roof was leaking because I was there actually at the time when it was leaking into the the old office. They had problems leaking in there and they had problems with leaks throughout the building. Um, we actually hired some the same roofing company to come back and do some touchup because it's an old roof and it it does need some maintenance, but it needed a major overhaul. So, the entire roof was coated to address the entire roof was coated. Yeah. Very expensive. All right. Uh, the flooring was replaced. Is that right? Yeah. All the flooring throughout the uh clubhouse and the um the bathrooms was completely replaced. Yes. Can you tell us what was the the makeup of the old flooring?

The old flooring was what's called a vinyl composition tile. 8 by8 uh tiles I believe which were most likely I don't know if they ever tested them. This was done before Mr. uh Wong owned the park but in 1969 BCT tile was made with asbestous. So, the best thing to do, uh, I'm not an expert in asbestous removal, but, uh, the common practice is to not disturb it and to cover it up. And that's what they proceeded to do by covering the floor with a a flooring similar to what's in this room. What was the condition of the floor before it was covered up?

Uh, the floor was um it was in fair shape. It was a lot of cracking, a lot of uh peeling. Um some uneven areas. Uh like I said, it was over 50 years old. Uh was some work was some work done in the bathroom. Bathrooms. Can you tell us?

Bathrooms were were in pretty poor shape. The the urinals for the men were uh not uh code compliant. They were much too high. Um, the toilets again were the opposite. They were much too low. They had uh 1969 style toilets still in there that were only I don't know 15 in off the ground. We brought them up a little bit higher to more be more code compliant for people in wheelchairs. Um, the countertops were in poor condition. They were original um um I can't remember the name of the product they used, but it was a it was a cast product that was very absorbent. So the there was a problem with that absorbing bacteria and stuff, keeping it clean. And after years of scrubbing, of course, it had no shine left on it. That was pretty bad. And um cabinets all needed to be repainted. uh being as old as they were, they were very absorbent to chemicals and dirt and any kind time there was a water loss under the cabinet. It would soak into the wood. So they were treated, repainted, sealed and uh new knobs were added so that they would be easier to use them. And

were were the walls and the ceilings repainted? Everything was repainted. Uh we recoted everything to cover it up. Behind the urinals and behind the toilet areas, we put on a uh a laminate wall fiberglass covering to make cleaning much easier, sanitary to uh um prevent any germs or anything. Uh vinyl baseboard was installed. No more wood uh allowed throughout the build and bathrooms because that likes to absorb bacteria. So, that was all removed only on the cabinets that were sealed is the that's the only wood.

Was the existing pre pre-existing paint was that lead paint? Um, it was never tested, but uh throughout the years, I'm sure it was because it was pre prior to 1979 when it was built and probably repainted a couple of times before 1979 when lead paint was outlawed. So, it's all covered up and sealed now. All right. So, this clubhouse project also included work done for constructing a new office.

Yes. There was a building uh up in the front, a room up in the front that uh was used for storage by the previous owner and uh she hired me, Laura Ballentine, to uh close up two openings, make money, pass through window. Uh they were originally going to try to communicate with the public through there. It didn't work out too good. I assume we never use it. The other one is a door to a new office area that is clean and bright and uh handicap accessible. The other room was not handicap accessible. It was I think a 12x 12 room with a huge desk. Uh it was um kind of like a bar counter that prevented uh wheelchairs from even entering the room. So, uh, that room still exists as a file storage room, but the new office is ADA compliant. There's lots of room to come in with a wheelchair, spin around 360°.

And was a countertop added that that was uh at a more appropriate height? Uh, countertop is added because they can roll up to Cathy's desk and uh which is 32 in high, which is the required height for somebody in a wheelchair. Yeah. if they need to write a check or fill out any paperwork in the office. All right. Is there anything else you wanted to add about the various projects?

Um, other than the beautifification that that just kind of came with the necess necessity to uh make it code compliant, the beautifying the entire place uh I I think was was a benefit to the residents. It's a it's a really nice place. I live in a mobile home park. I wouldn't mind living there. That's not my park. All right. I have uh no no no further question. All right. Thank you, Miss Johnson. Do you have questions for this witness? Go ahead.

We have a letter from Laura Ballentine stating that the complete clubhouse renovation and building improvements, new signage coming, and looking now uh to having the gate uh up front, the security gate. But this is dated June 16th, 2023. I submit to you that most of the work that uh Mr. Rhymer has done was for Laura Valentine's. This is not a question. This is an objection. I agree with Mr. Albert. I'm asking. You're getting to the question. I'm getting to the question. Well, give her an opportunity to get to the question.

Yes, I'm getting to the question. Okay. And so when he speaks of the room that they destroyed in the front of the office, he calls it a storage room and nothing, but that was very important to to the residents and it had a piano, community board, library. So my question is, did you do the bulk of this work before Mr. Wong took possession of the park or were you continuing to do what Laura Ballentine had started? Um the clubhouse, the bathrooms, and the new office were completed for Laura Ballentine before um August of 2023. That's the that's when I stopped working for Laura. She said we uh she didn't have any work for me after that. So it was completed for her.

I can't read it. Okay. About the lights. Regarding the lights, the street lights. Yes, the street lights. Okay. Do you feel that there are enough street lights still? uh the the street lights weren't really brought uh up to sufficiency because there's still dark spots and people have fallen in the dark. Do you feel that uh the project that you worked on for the lights is sufficient?

Um I feel the lights are an ongoing project and I have not heard of anybody falling. Do you have any names of people that have fallen? Have they filed complaints? I can't disclose them at this point. Right here. Anonymous complaints don't get answered.

Okay. Okay. I have none. Okay. As far as the pool and spa are concerned, the spa was the spa uh were there any objections by HCD? Uh where the spa was concerned? Do you do you have anything here that uh that shows that uh HCD or uh a health and safety inspector uh came out and uh objected to it. Uh yes, that is on file somewhere. I don't know if that's in the book, but I don't have that on me because that is in the office. Yes.

So, we will need that. Okay. And as far as the pool is concerned, uh there were only about six things that that HCD wanted to be repaired. The county, sorry. So my question to you is do do you feel that most of this work regarding the uh pool and the spa were elective and not uh actually uh requested by violation? Uh, no. As a matter of fact, I know from experience that both the pool and the spa were not just for beautifification. The extent of the work they had to do required jackhammers to remove the half of the liner on the spa and on the pool. The entire liner had to be removed by a uh pressurized sand blasting machine that uh took it down to the original concrete. So, it could never be maintenance. It was it was pretty major.

Okay. So, is regarding the spa, was that elective or was it a violation? It was a violation. It was Let me see. Uh oh, no. As far as I know, it's a violation because we were written up by the HCD and we were given a limited amount of time to repair it. Okay. We have one HCD report and the violation is the title. Thank you. If you can state your appearance, tell us your name and who you're representing.

Heather Kurthers representing the park. I mean, uh, the residents of the park. Um, HCD violation has one violation. And it was title um

we going to are we going to have sorry title 102A I have pardon excuse me miss ks Mr. Robert, I there should only be one person conducting the exam. I'm going to allow this uh a little bit of flexibility on this side because uh they're not legal counsel and they're representing the residents, but I understand your point. You can raise that and but we'll continue on. Uh go ahead, Miss Kathers.

Okay. We have one inspection report from HCD with a finding of a violation on the Jacuzzi observed violation title 251102A. Do you have any other inspection reports that claim there's a leak or that the uh spa needed to be replaced? You claim in these documents that it needs to be replaced and there's a leak and I have zero reports. Do you have a report that's never your honor? There's no there's no found is he responsible for collecting these records? There's no foundation for this question. We submitted the records that we had and he's asking a contractor to to talk about what records the park owner has. So the question is

allow the question only because again we have lay people on this side but you can argue and ask I'll give you a chance to ask questions of your witness to uh respond to that. I'm also going to give Miss Grayson an opportunity to ask questions in a moment. Uh but Miss Kathers if you want to focus the question a little more. Sure. Then we'll give Mr. Rhyr an opportunity. Mr. Rhymer, I I remind you that you're here to answer your questions to the best of your recollection. Uh if you just don't know, you don't know. Or if you don't feel comfortable making a conclusion that you're being asked to make, you don't have to make a conclusion. It's just what we you know about the conditions there is what we're getting at. Go ahead, Mr. Kthers. Okay.

Okay. Well, Mr. Rhymer's claiming he repaired leaks. He had to go in there and put in water. Yet, we have no spa inspection report stating such. So my just question is what evidence did you go on to repair these things or that you you're claiming you you had to do all these things but what inspection reports or what did you base that off of? I didn't do any of the repairs. They were done by a professional pool company who in their report might be in the book. I'm not sure because I'm not in charge of that. So as much

we'll move on to the clubhouse. Did you uh you claimed there were ADA compliance issues, asbestous issues? Um did the Department of Justice come out and do an ADA compliance before you did any of this work? No, they didn't. We didn't need them. As a general contractor, I know what ADA compliance involves. Well, the regulatory board requires you to have it. If you want to claim that you use this for ADA, this wasn't complant. We have he is arguing with this witness statement to asbestous question. Did you get uh AQMD or EPA to come out regarding the asbestous?

No, I didn't handle that part of the project, so I know nothing about that. Do you have any regulatory inspections from the Department of Justice or from AQMD or the CAC regarding asbestous or ADA compliance with regards to the clubhouse and replacing all of these items? No, as far as I know, you can voluntarily do ADA compliance. All right. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Regarding the lighting, when you came on the property, how many working lights were there? I recall five.

Five. Thank you. And with regards to the streets, how much flooding was on the streets? How much lighting? Flooding. Flooding. At what time are you asking him? The entire time he's been there. During a major rainstorm. There was a good six inches on back road. Yes. On every road. Right. No. How long did that water stay there? I didn't time it. More than an hour. That's why we repaired the road. More than an hour. Did was there standing water in the roads for more than an hour?

Not sure. Thank you. No further. Nothing further. Right. Just can I do a redirect question? Well, well, in a moment I want to hear from Miss Grayson. Do you have questions for the witness? When you were working on the clubhouse, were you involved in buying any furniture, cabinetry, things to hang on the walls, machinery? No, everything was purchased by Laura Valentine.

Okay. So if there are invoices for things like coffee table, end tables, TV stand, bookcase, frame print, rug, uh living room set, desks. You had no involvement with those? No, I did not. No personal knowledge? No. Okay. And you mentioned I may have misunderstood you. You said there was some kind of computerized equipment installed to monitor the chlorine level.

Yeah, I'm not sure of the exact name of it, but yes, the chlorine and acid for the pool is constantly monitored. Is Is that something that's Where is that located? That's in the equipment area right next to the pool. It's where the filters are. Do you have any involvement with that? No, I don't. We have a a professional company. Uh I can't recall the name off hand. AP pools takes care of that for us. We contract with them and they are notified by Bluetooth text whenever there is a an anomaly in the chemicals.

Okay. Thank you. Um, and just for clarification, did you work do you have your own company or were you directly employed as an employee of the prior owner? I was a contractor. Rhymer Construction is the name of my company and self-employed for 25 years. Okay.

Well, you're asking about a particular time period during the I said be I was I think my question was before Mr. Wong took over before. Yes. General contractor self-employed. Want to clarify that because I think the status has changed. So the status changed when I became employed for the last two years. So now you currently work for Mr. Wong? Yes. Okay. Since October 1st, 2023. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Albert.

Uh regarding the street flooding, uh how did the uh roof repairs or not road repairs impact flooding on the streets? Um the road repairs actually everything was leveled to a better grade to allow the water to flow especially down the back row where we have a problem where I have to object if he can my position is he can testify to his not personal observations but as far as what was done on the roads he didn't do the work so I would object that he cannot testify as to that okay Mr. Rmmer uh Pat I'll agree uh tell us what you know

my personal opinion about the roads is they function uh much better actually what can you just tell us do you do you observe standing water the same the same only during severe storm uh there's a couple inches on the back road now closer to the drain we put in a flow line which directs the water right down the back road where there's a problem and is that different than it was before the road. They had no flow line and the road was uneven. Well, was the flooding different before then? Flooding was much deeper. Yes. All right. No further. No further. Miss Johnson. I have a picture of puddling water.

Objection. Let's hear what what's the question? The question is I have a picture that picture and evidence. Is it in the packet? It is not. It is not. I will not allow that. Okay. Uh only what we have already in the packet. Okay. You, Mr. Rhyr, you go around this park all the time. Did you not see this puddle of water between space uh spaces 95 and 90 uh 94 and 95 from where someone had used water and it ran into the street and it puddled and it it to

Well, let's hear the objection.

She is testifying regarding a condition of water that she says exists on that picture. uh and then asking this witness about not seeing it. If she has a specific question about did you see water at a particular place and time, fine. I I agree with your analysis there. However, uh again, because we have a lay person here, uh I will remind you, Miss Johnson, the point he's making, Mr. Albert is that uh you're basically testifying or or giving testimony in the form of a question which is generally in in court that would not be allowed. And so here I'm giving you a little latitude but uh wanting to know what Mr. Rhymer knows and if you could say oh there was a puddle on this date between these two spaces. Did you see that? That would be a good question. Uh, but if you just held up the photo and saying, "Oh, did you see this puddle?"

Then that's not a good question. Okay. Right. Okay. If you could rephrase, I'll rephrase. Okay. [snorts] Mr. Rhyr, did you see a puddle of water on December 6th at 1:28 p.m. puddled in the middle of the street? What year are we talking? Right. 25. 2025. just if not too long ago. No, I did not. I'm not even at work at that time.

Okay, Mr. Ry, you claim you um do you still see water after this huge rain? Did you still see water at the back row that's not draining? Well, you just you just testified that the back row still has flooding and it's still not draining, right? Yeah. When that still exists, right? Get wet. Yes. So, it's still flooding back there. Still standing water. Is that correct? Does it flood? Most of the streets in Calama do.

Not asking about most of the streets. I'm asking about that last back row. You just testified that there's still standing water when it rains heavily. that it's not draining. Flowing water. Did you see standing water after this last rain on that back row that's not draining? No. Right. Thank you. May I ask one more question? I apologize. Um the comment uh Miss Kurthers just made, is she talking about a back row of mobile homes?

Not sure. I I took it to mean is there standing water in the street? No, it eventually flows out. Is are I guess I would ask you to explain. I thought you initially said back road. Yes. Now in this part I heard back row. Back row. I was trying to get clarification. Are we talking about a number of mobile home spaces where there's a road in front of them? Yes, a street. Yes. And what are those space numbers?

Not sure. It would be considered street number four south. And in the past then it tell me if I'm stating your testimony correctly. In the past, before the streets were redone, you saw water pooling along that street number four south? Yes. And how long would the water generally last? Couple of hours. And did that only occur in big rains, drizzles? Usually only during a heavy rain.

Okay. And so we just had a big rain. You didn't see any water?

I didn't see any standing water. No. Um, what needs to be understood also, if I'd like, if I could say, that back row collects the water from California Street also, which has been a problem. We've had the city managers out there to look at it and try and help us with the situation. All the water on California Street flows down a small canal on the uh south side of the park into the park and down the back street to a large uh 36-in drain under the road and then back out to a uh uh open drainage area by County Line Road. So during heavy rains, we're picking up the water from all of California Street and the mobile home park above us. Which mobile home park is that?

The colonies, I believe it's called. They're on a slight hill. We're on a slight hill. Everything flows down to us. And are you still seeing pooling? Well, okay. Never mind. Thank you. No, anything else for the witness? No. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Rhymer. Thank you. Right. Next witness.

Okay. All right. Peter Peter Wong, if you could stand.

Mr. Wong, please state your name for the record. Peter Wang. Thank you, Mr. Wang. I remind you, you're providing testimony under penalty of perjury. Go ahead, Mr. Albert. Uh uh Mr. Wong, you were not uh the owner of the of the park during the time of the clubhouse remodel. Is that right? Correct. All right. Can you tell us about the road situation when you bought the park and how you attempted to address it?

Uh one of the major first thing that I visited the park is became the road in a pretty bad shape. Uh to me it's uh health is safety tripping hazard and also uh tripping for damaging vehicle tires all that you know all the road became one of the most conspicious thing that you I saw the first thing.

Okay. And how did you address that? Uh I asked of course the brokerage who introduced me to this uh transaction about whether they have done anything in the past or whether they have any uh estimate for uh obvious needed urgent project

and did you get some uh bids for the pro the road project? uh previous ownership have provided me at least I think three to four different estimate from different vendors. So I review then and then try to figure out what will be the best approach to to deal with this row uh issue and did you ultimately go with Bostic? Yes, I did.

Why did you choose Bostic to do it? uh those all the four estimate none of them say repair or sealer coating because that's just too um superficial. Uh there is a every one of estimate has to deal with redo the row including all the way to the base rock you know just the whole thing. Uh so uh I review there's one estimate who's cheaper cheapest of the uh four uh by like 50 $60,000. So I try to investigate their company and then I find out uh from the web and internet may not be a reliable. I don't think they have a fixed office. you know, maybe this subcontractor uh road to me is something you do, but you have to consider a very long-term hill because it may look the same, but five 10 years from now, uh the the real workmanship will have a very serious impact on the on the uh I guess the the life expectancy. uh the boss is been chosen because I have done I don't know maybe 10 different job with them in the past and they are reputable they're also if you check it out they are specialized in the mobile industry and I know them quite well so they became my second choice and the third and fourth choices on the estimate if I remember correctly are similar we talking about $30,000 all with a $650,000 project. So I think uh I'm not really looking at the um only the savings of dollar and cent but more I'm looking at what will be the longer term reliable solution so we so the park have a better road.

All right. Uh and did the work that Bostic did did it address the issues in the in the streets?

Yes I did. Uh I think um I talked to multiple time to their estimator and how we address the uh especially the last street that John mentioned because that street seems to be a low spot at the park where the water flow. So we we try to gutter you know different I guess option or uh to increase the uh livelihood the future of the road. So I think uh John helped me and we working together and then we keep coming up with maybe a different or upgraded solution. So you say John, you mean John Bostic? No, no, John. Oh, John. Okay.

Yeah. Because he's on the job. I'm not really on the job. So we we became like a team for discussion. So we try to make the road to be a long-term solution. All right. Uh can you tell us about the lighting situation when you bought the park?

Uh uh when I visited the park, I went to the uh evening time because I pay special attention to the street light street light overall when the park is over certain age. They all under under lighting under lit in general. So I look at it then I think I was informed that uh multiple lighting was not really working. If they have this park have 130 spaces, I bet there's a probably 18 acres of land. You have five walking line. I mean that's it's not under size is even not the right description. It's just total deficiency. Uh as a result I think triple fall safety you know crying all that thing animal all that can be you don't have lighting it can be a problem. So I really start addressing lighting. I sent my first crew over put on uh puts on the solar lighting and then thereafter uh uh the the feedback is there's not enough. So uh John Emmer did the second uh or second mean continuous lighting. So I think there's 40 plus lighting versus five.

So the the pass through that you're asking for for today was only for what 25 lights. Uh, I guess so. I Well, the the paperwork we submit to the city may not have enough time for us to catch the rest. I had to submit not only the the project, the invoice, but also the uh check payment. So, I think I did not include it due to the timing of the application. Okay. Uh now can you tell us whether whether the um added lights have helped this the health and safety issues?

I visit the park again at nighttime. Uh let's say 18 acre of a land. Uh I think it enhanced tremendously from the health safety from my perspective. Okay. uh and pool and jacuzzi. Can you tell us uh what situations you were trying to address with those that work?

Well, the obvious situation is the uh when I got a citation from ACD, we realized the uh spa can be a uh you know we try to evaluate whether is this fixing repairing or there's more to it. I guess I involved with um uh spa pool contractor we try to evaluate what's the option I think the option both and spa at the end has to be kind of re replaced what major thing for the spa to dig it out you know I guess jackhammer everything and whereas pool I believe we did some kind of surfacing you know and quite a bit of extra work and that include maybe decking as well and Then the new equipment such as um I guess the uh computerized generated um the um chemical response I think it's something I have been using other places and I' I had pretty good result with that because you see the um the all those upgrade equipment were able to correctly monitoring the pool whereas if you put in certain kind of chlorine at certain heated day evaporated quickly Uh so the pool again is half is governmentmandated. Uh the other half is obviously when you're doing certain thing uh with housing department with also housing community development you have to comply with a current standard whatever that may be. So uh we try to uh we we not only have to get a permit but we have to pass our inspection. So I don't think we are doing anything extra uh to to make a fancy pool whereas we have to meet at least minimum standard that will help us in the long run at the

meantime also provide a a health and safety environment for the people to to use that. All right. Uh no more questions. No more. All right. Thank you Mr. One. Miss Johnson, do you have question? Not yet. Um, Miss Johnson, do you have questions for Mr. Wang?

Yes, I do. I do. Mr. Wang, did you tell your [sighs and gasps] lender on page 652 of your loan documents 4.1.2 to that to your knowledge that the park this property is free from damage including but not limited to any construction defects or non-conforming work that would materially impair the use of the property. You signed this disclaimer, did you?

Uh I don't recall because how many pages we talking about? Is it one page you're looking at or there are multiple pages? Just answer the question. U just to answer the question, did you sign the disclaimer from your lender telling them that the property was free from damage, including but not limited to any construction defects or non-conforming work that would materially impair the value or the use of the property? I just cannot recall this page. That's the answer. Okay. All right. You're saying Mr. Wong Wang that the uh HCD came out for the spa.

Yes, they did. Okay. Okay. [gasps] Well, okay. Do you remember uh an activity uh report regarding that regarding uh HCD coming out? I recall the incident but I recall that is uh month maybe 6 months after ownership they did come out. I just can't recall the date but I did got informed the ACD came out. I think they they sent me a copy of citation.

Okay, Mr. Rang, is HCD a health and safety inspector?

Uh, I cannot define that. HD is is housing community development department that uh have jurisdiction over mobile home park or whether they are housing inspector I think they are. I I can't I'm not really HD personnel. Okay, Mr. Wang, at the time of the investigation, did HCD say the only violation was a dirty dusi T25cccr section 10002A? I did not recall the detail but I do recall that we need to work on the spot and their violation need to be addressed. That's all I can recall.

And you don't recall it only the only violation being a dirty jacuzzi? Uh I'm not sure what that mean. What is a dirty? You know, to me, uh, there's a chemical deficiency or there's a I really don't to me in my career, I don't know what 30 Duzi definition to be,

not clean. [snorts] I I I just I cannot recall that specific language because everything I think as soon as written is citation have is language in there. So I I will say that's their language. I did not put it in. Okay. So Miss Kathers for whoever might need the recording later on state your name. Hi Heather Kurthers. What violations did you receive regarding the jacuzzi? Are you regarding the spa? Spa. Jacuzzi. Correct.

Spa violation. There are some issue need to be addresses such including u I guess there are some kind of a deficiency in mechanism and then there are uh health and safety violation from their perspective. That's all I can remember. Okay. So, what you're saying is you are not aware of any other violations other than what was found dated February 22nd, 2024. Objection, Miss Dates's testimony.

Allow it only because she's referencing this document. Uh, but maybe make the question, Miss Kther, a little more specific. Okay. At the time, the findings from HCD says at the time of the investigation, a dirty jacuzzi was observed, violation T-25 CCR section 11102A. Are there any other inspections by the Riverside County Health Department, by Health and Safety, by any other agency that said anything other than this one violation? The you're referring to SPA, am I correct? Okay. I don't remember. I don't remember any other citation that I read.

Do you know what title 25 CCR section 11102 is? I cannot recall in detail. I know what title 25 is. I know all the section but there's no way I can remember the detail.

Would you agree that title 25 section 1102 basically says it's your responsibility to maintain these areas? I think it's a part uh title 25 specified the responsibility of operators responsibility to keep thing in a regulatory or like a building code situation. Uh I just don't know your definition responsible means are we responsible of course we're responsible but but what happened the violation is caused not by us is by a agent or you know anything age from day one on. So I I would qualify responsibility to be a um something we need to correct if it is found to be not in compliance. Right. Section 11 102A. The owner, operator, or designated agent for the park shall be responsible for the safe operation and maintenance of all common areas park- owned electrical, gas, and plumbing equipment and their installations and all parkowned permanent buildings or structures within the park. Would you agree that that's what title 25 CCR1102 says?

Mr. Pio, we're getting so so far a field here. Nobody's disputing that the park owner responsible to maintain the infrastructure. The question here is whether or not the criteria under the ordinance for replacing the material is met. Uh uh so so let me ask Mr. Albert, do you stipulate that yes, Mr. Wong as the uh Mr. Wang as the owner of the park was responsible for complying with all governing ordinances? Yes. And codes. All right. So that's stipulation, right? And but they're claiming he had to redo all of this because of HCD of violations. That was the only violation. So our stipulation is that um you can make that an argument. Okay, great.

It [clears throat] was health and safety concerns.

Well, that was not uh that was not noted by any government agency. Okay. Pool and spa. Do you have any other documents regarding the pool and the spa with regards to violations other than the six items that Riverside County Health came out and did? Uh everything I got is submitted in the package I believe or in the office. Did Riverside County Health tell you that um on September 4th, 2024, Inspector Gonzalez came out. Do you recall getting an email that you replastered without approval that it had missing tile work?

I do not. Is there any documentation that says there was a leak, structural failure or replacement was requested by any government agency? Are you referring to a particular Are you referring to the spa? Can you the pool or the spa? Either one. Spa. I think that we call the spa. Not the pole.

All right. With regards to lighting, you said when you bought this park, there was five working lights. Do you know that um title 251102 requires you to maintain a certain amount of lighting in the park? Not specifically, but intuitively I do know that. Are you aware the law requires a minimum of 0.2 foot candle illumination along the entire length of roads and walkways?

Uh that may apply to a brand new construction. I don't think it apply to every mobile park in the state of California. [snorts] Title 251108 clearly requires lighting of at least 0.2 foot candles along all roadways and walkways. Do you agree with that title? I have an objection.

It's asking for expert uh testimony from this witness. It's irrelevant. Again, the issue isn't whether the park owner is responsible for lighting. whether or not the the additional lighting was uh meets the requirements the the five requirements in the ordinance uh and serves the purposes of health and safety. And she's going to ask questions without any foundation as asking this witness as an expert witness. What exactly is required in the park?

Well, I don't think um that's necessarily how I see it that it's an expert witness. Um it's his part. He's the one that needs to comply with governing laws. But I agree that the questions are in my view a little off from what I need to look at here today because the questions are whether these are health and safety

and yes it may be that the code or governing ordinance somewhere requires the park owner to maintain at a certain level. I don't disagree with that. I don't think Mr. Albert disagrees with that. I don't think Mr. Wang disagrees with that. But the question I have before me is basically even with that, was it health and safety under the def definition here, this ordinance we're dealing with here at the city of Cal Mesa or not? And that's what these witnesses are are telling me one way or the other. And then your questions need to be working on that part of it.

Okay, I understand. All right. If someone gets hurt if there wasn't enough lighting, whose responsibility would that be? That's a judicial question I can't answer. Okay. Regarding the roadways, you saw the park before you bought it, right? Correct. Did you tell your lender on page 652 that the property was free from damage? Objection. Again, this is and was asked and answered. Okay.

I don't right. On page 653 in your loan documents, did you tell your lender that repair and maintenance of the property that you would keep it in good condition and repair and that you would not remove, demolish, alter, or make additions or construct any new structure on the property without the express written consent of the lender? And object, this is not conceivably related in any way to the to the subject matter of this petition. I agree. Go ahead. Next question. Is there still standing water to this day when it rains in on the roadways in our park?

Um, the answer to the question is this. Any heavy rain, there will be water standing on any roadway in the USA. How about in Canada? [laughter] I know what you mean. Thanks. See, we needed that moment, right? Go ahead, Miss K. Okay. Regarding the clubhouse, wasn't that fully remodeled before you bought the property? What's a fully remodel mean?

Mean meaning you got everything that's in that clubhouse in the purchase price. We we bought it with a purchase price with a understanding of the clubhouse has been upgraded. Yes. So you didn't pay for it. Objection. Miss D's testimony.

I I agree with the objection. He answered a question the first one. I think that gets you where you need to on that point. Uh, as far as what how we construe that, interpret that, conclusions we draw from that, that'll be for your argument. Okay. Mr. Wang, did you give the residents a letter regarding the uh shuffle boardroom on what date was that? on page 70 on page 790. Do you recall sending it sending out a letter telling uh the residents that you're not willing to reopen the the recreation room due to cost and assume the residents would not approve it? [snorts]

Uh I if you want me to say yes and no, you can show me the letter. It's on page 790. I I I need to read it. Okay. Again, objection. This is one of those issues that's relating to the condition of the park. We're not seeking a pass through for an improvement to the to the shuffleboard court. This is essentially some we could get into it factually, but it's not relevant. But it's they're asking questions about access to the shuffleboard court. How does that have anything Let me ask Miss Kthers. How does it have anything to do with

Hey, because he's requesting money for the roof and for opening it that had been kept closed. he bought the property and it was closed off to the residents. So, in this letter, he's he's basically telling us that if he if we wanted if we want our amenity reopened, that that cost would be well over $100,000. This for the clubhouse for Well, they're they're running the two together, the clubhouse and the shuffleboard room. So they've got things in here for both projects much like they've included the laundry room in with clubhouse stuff. So there's a lot of stuff in here where they're merging these things.

Start. There's one there's one roof over the building which the repairs are included in the application. Shuffleboard court which actually we can provide testimony has been opened up but we're not asking for a pass through for the the the cost of that. It's not part of that. The laundry room I think is part some of those expenses are in our our application. Um so I'm not sure what the point of this question is. Well, let me ask Mr. Albert then we'll come back. Your representation is that the roof is a single unitary roof that covers the shuffle board, the clubhouse and the laundry room. And I think

we had two two big room. One is shuffle office, the other excuse me, shuffleboard and the spa and then the other one building where two building second building is where the clubhouse and the office is located. Clubhouse and the office. Yes. And so is the petition that we're looking at today. Does that include costs for the shuffle board area? No. No. No, we did not include that.

All right. Because of that, we won't get into the shuffle board. Well, I do believe there is stuff in here where he says he wants cost return on the roof uh coding for the shuffleboard room and other things they did on the shuffleboard room. But again, there he's he's calling it a sec it's it's called many different things in here. A second clubhouse, a recreation room, a shuffleboard room. So, it's very um co-mingled in here. So, I would just ask you to look closely. I will. I will. Um All right. I appreciate that. What else? Clubhouse, pavement, clubhouse, lighting.

All right, I think that'll do us for now. All right. Thank you, Miss Grayson. Do you have questions for Mr. Wang? Yes. You purchased the park as of September 23, correct?

Okay. And did you attempt to get resident consent to the pool and spa, the roof and the club and the lights and the clubhouse through a vote process in October of 2023. Um I attempt a vote at like a meet and confer meeting in the clubhouse to describe the uh project that we may undertaking. I think 24 is uh 24 23 maybe it's been about almost a year 10 months has gone by. Let me uh I might need John or my manager to make sure that I say everything correctly because let me tell my I remember we talk about road we talk about street but at that time I don't think we talk about pool or spa because again spa news was happened uh three four months down the line in 2024. So the first meeting of confer was taking place in toward the end of uh maybe November of 2023. So the specific voting project uh I want to explain is really on the row on the um on the uh lighting because that's all I see at that time on the roof. I don't think so. Let me tell you what happened is I remember that uh we do the contract negotiation and then the roof was part of the project seller was willing to put up. That's all I remember. So I say okay that's what it

is. That's great because uh uh there's a you know mold issue or water issue. So I don't want to say I'm absolutely right. managers behind me, they can testify if needed. So the topic that I refer the vote and communication is only on the light and the street. Okay. What I'm looking at,

can I mention something here? I I've not heard there was any issue about voting in in this record already are all the the surveys and the ballots and the correspondence relating to all the votes that took place that have all the dates. I'm not not sure why you're asking him for his memory of when the votes were taken. Grayson, I'll get there. Right.

You get there. the park owner, your attorney, whoever. The packet submitted to the city on pages 413 to 422 includes what appears to be communications that were sent out to the residents about certain projects. And um if one reads those, they refer sorry um page 414 refers to the roads, refers to the street lights, refers to the clubhouse, and roof. Uh page 415. Um same thing. Um 417. Uh same thing. 419 refers to the pool and spa. Um, and 420 refers to the street repairs, new lighting project, clubhouse, and roof. Page 421 refers to the pool and spa. 422 refers to the uh pool and spa. One thing I think you may want to make sure the date I'm sure that many letter is not communicated in one given day.

It's probably spread out over a period of time. Uh remember I testified that I think spa is something happened in 2024 or later. So all the project is spread out over probably a good six months or even longer period of time. You can call the date if you can take. There are no dates on these documents. Okay. Well, let me testify then. There's definitely I was just going to ask you a spread over the question. She's getting ready.

So, I I take back what I said. There is a date on page 417 dated 1018203 dealing with the road, the street lights, and the clubhouse slashoff slash roof. Okay, the other pages do not have dates, but Katherine Diddy's signed a declar proof of service page 413 said she served the attached notice as exhibit A to all park residents on or about October 10, 2023. So, what I wanted you to clarify is when did you attempt to get consent for each of the improvements that you're now seeking the capital improvement rent increase? Because it appears the road and street lights and clubhouse were in October of 2023. That's what I gather from this. Is that correct?

That is correct. Okay. So when did you attempt to get the pool and spa? Uh way into uh 2024 because uh if you have a citation from the ACD on the spa, it should have a date on it because prior to that date, I wasn't even aware of the defects or the problem that we have. So that's happening something way down the line a little bit. That's all I remember. I

I have a relevance question. Can you cite us to where it says that the just hypothetically because these are spread out throughout. Where does it say in the ordinance or the the the uh rules that the vote has to take place for I'm not I'm not that's not my issue right now, Mr. Albert. I don't it's relevant because I'm trying to understand when he tried to get consent versus when he he's arguing these are health and safety. I'd like to know Mr. Wang. I you still have not to me I don't I don't answer your question Mr. Albert. That's argument.

Let's stop right here. So I'm going to let Miss Grayson continue then we'll come back. You could redirect on the way. Well the point is I'm making an objection. I can I not object to staff's questions? You can object. State your objection. My objection is there is no showing of relevance to the to the date of when this approval these approvals were taken place because the ordinance and the guideline the ordinance and the administrative rules don't require that the uh the vote take place before the improvements. She's essentially conceded that and said there's some I haven't cons I'm sorry. Please don't misstate what I said. I have not addressed that argument. I'm simply trying to pin down

relevance other than that. All right. So, let's do this. We're going to take a recess till 12:00 and then we'll continue on with Mr. Wang's testimony after we've concluded with Mr. Wang's testimony. We'll take a break and then continue on for the day. All right. Thank you. Do I more question? I'm done. I'm taking a break. We're taking a break.

And then they're going to take This is just a short 15inut finish. And then they're going to have lunch. And then they're going to probably Just bring in should stay. I think that was just I don't know ago.

What? No, no. I'm sorry. I I'm having back problems and sciatica and I just

clock. Go back on the record. We're back on the record. M regarding our public hearing for petition of California and mobile home estates capital improvement petition and temporary rent increase petition. Mr. Wang, if you could come back to May may I finish my questions? Okay. Yes. Okay.

All right. So, we were in the middle of questions of Mr. Wayne. Miss Grayson had a question and there was an objection. I'll I'll try to re ask a different question and maybe you won't object to that. So, you bought the park. At what point time-wise, datewise, did you decide you wanted to do the um street lights? Probably before I say, "What do I need to do to get this part in shape?"

Well, okay. Your documents that were submitted show a consent vote went out in October of 2023. So by that point in time, had you decided you wanted to carry out a street lighting project? Um I'm trying to follow the voting process that is being in the rent control ordinance because one thing is do a consultation meeting consult and vote but in order to get to that point I have to kind of show up and do a discussion or else you know nobody going to believe what I'm saying. So that's really the the the So when you say when do I want to do the uh street line improvement or street improvement I think before we even purchase a power we say those two item are very obviously are needed. So I kind of decided before even the deal is closed. So did you conclude in your opinion the streets needed to be improved as a health and safety issue even before you the purchase was finalized?

Yes. And is that also the case with the street lights? Yes. And is that also the case with the well the clubhouse and and other were already being done before you bought and then the pool and spa. When did you believe there was a health and safety reason that those had to be worked on?

Uh I might have to answer what I know. Plus, I might have to borrow my manager Kathy and she's intimate because she's the one who distributed the survey. So, do I do you mind I bring additional witness after I answer my part? Just just answer the question she asked. Oh, okay. Yeah. If you if you have somebody who might be able to answer that, I Yeah. The So, that's up to you and your attorney to figure that out and don't ask me or Miss Grayson. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. Albert, turn on your microphone. I I

if the if the question is about when the survey was done, that's what I'm going to bring up Kathy the manager on that as to the pool in the spa. If that's what the information you want, we can get that for you. Well, my question right now is when did Mr. Wong decide there was a health and safety reason to do the project involving the pool and spa?

Okay, let's start with spa first. the spa. I think we got a citation from ACD. Uh all citation is very important to me. I want to correct it ASAP. During the process, we have our both spa and pool are maintained by outside contractor. Okay. So the contractor got in uh they only not only doing the maintenance but chemical but also they do uh upgrade repair whatever is needed. So during the process I think the scope of spa became uh getting more complex or more lot more involved than just cleaning it or whatever minor issue. uh as they get into it, they study uh I guess uh my my manager John testify there are multiple multiple issue but those multiple issue was really not coming out in one set one visit is doing I think it take about month and a half as they get into A they found out B they get into B then there's C so it's a progressive development of discovery that we have to do So your question is when do I decide to do this big job? answer is probably a month two months a month more than one month probably two months after the u citation has been issued and then I think we doing there's a compliance time I think we even asked for extension to the uh uh visit of the inspector due to the um uh quite a bit unknown or procedure we work on uh the contractor of the spa may have to may also bring additional person to evaluate the process. So I would say

two months thereafter. Okay. Thank you. Um okay. In in um did you have any Oh strike that in your request for the capital improvement rent increase you have included 8 and a half% interest. Correct. Correct. Okay. In the voting documents that were circulated, we noted that the interests that you informed, when I say you, I mean the park owner, the park, right?

Informed the residents, the streets would be at 7 and 12% interest. Solar lighting seven sorry um seven and a half clubhouse seven and a half and the pool and spot five and a half why is that what was the residents were notified when they were asked to vote

okay yes uh you reading the document I'm not so answer is I was having a lower interest rate because during that time my Mr. Alpert was not engaged. I I'm basically discuss with the resident as uh communication. I'm not really in the hearing mode or process. So at that time the interest rate my personal feeling is is just use whatever my inspiration whatever that is. So answer is yes.

Okay. And for purposes of carrying out the projects other than the clubhouse and the the roof you used the funds that were used were you and your sisters correct? Uh yes. Uh do I have any uh are you saying there any other fund? I would say other working capital might have to contribute into it. It's not me and my sister only. There's other fund that we have reserved because we are talking about good $750,000 maybe.

Okay. But when one of the questions or series of questions that was asked during the pre uh hearing process was where were the funds obtained from and the response was it was funds from you and your sister. Yeah. Uh the problem is uh uh to answer that question correctly is for me and my sister but I did not really answer exactly the is that your saving account is a brokerage account I didn't get in there. Okay. Did you take out a loan?

No. However, uh some of the money was a loan taken from another property. So you see is a property to use refinance the proceed was there and the money was used to part of the I no I need to find out how much would it be toward the um uh capital improvement project there are some I just cannot I don't know the amount

okay it at the time each project was done do you know what the prime rate was Well, I I can't recall, but in 2024, the weight was lot higher than before. That's all I can remember. But the work refresh our memories because there's a lot of documents here. When were when was each project done? Uh you know the clubhouse and and yeah clubhouse were done in late 2023.

Yes clubhouse is done if I remember John testifying around prior to June 2023 but I do want to say it is a progressive process. You know the money is spent over a period of time maybe seven eight months. Uh the uh street was done in the uh I I would say probably a year or shortly uh before a year that was done. Street line was done also over a progressive period of time probably starting in beginning 2024. So there is a different uh when the project is done the the um street project is done in a very uh compact period of time because they bring a lot of equipment but the street uh street light because we use our own people it could take a three weeks uh even John can is doing his last part of the um street light uh installation. uh be if we to even include it in our petition because we haven't get that done yet. So it's really depend on uh I would say club houses prior uh I think the u roof was done almost two or three weeks before the close of escrow and then the uh street was done I would say about within a year after the closing which is 2024 and then uh spa and the pool was also progressively building because uh both project involve add-on uh in our you you saw this is the contract price then we need to amend it due to the u extra thing we discover or extra challenging we have.

Okay. Um the documents that were submitted to the city for the clubhouse and roof and office th where did those documents come from? Uh it came from original seller Laura. So what happened is um uh I ask her I say well you know this is how we make the deal should I explain I can deal hold on

you asked where she got the where you got the documents you got those from okay that's all I'm going to say you just need the answer to the question okay so so anything in here that has to do with the the clubhouse and the roof is from the prior owner prior owner

okay so in the prior sorry in those documents there are expenses for and I'm going to read a list of things and I will tell you these are pages um I'll just start reading and then I'll tell pages for Mr. Alpert so he knows what I'm and the hearing officer and the park residence. So there's a coffee table, two end tables, a TV stand, a bookcase. Those are pages 222 to 223. There's a TV on page 229. Uh, Wayfair expenses for a frame print, table lamp, area rug, canvas print, coffee table set. Page 230, another Wayfair expenditure for a three-piece living room set. Page 232, uh, throw pillows. Page 233, two desks with storage. Pages 234 to 235, folding chairs. 236, target mirror, page 237, kitchen. Um, that one's okay. All of those. Okay. Are all those in the clubhouse? As far as I know.

Okay. And do you consider all of those to be capital improvements? Is a throw pillow a capital improvement?

You know, you ask me a u uh accounting definition or issue. Let me let me tell best I can answer that. I think best I can answer that is um if we build a house we include everything including furniture or whatever. So that's just how we do it accounting wise. But when you ask me whether that including a capital improvement, I think it's a matter of opinion. My opinion is yes.

Okay. Well, I will uh just state for you, and my math is not good because I'm a lawyer, not a mathematician. I added up those items. They totaled $12,673. And I think from the city's perspective, those do not qualify as capital improvements. Okay.

I'll offer that as something for the hearing officer to consider. Um, okay. When you uh were looking at the park or during the time you were thinking about doing the roads, were you given any kind of reports about car accidents where people drove down the road and damaged their car because of uh potholes or problems? No.

Okay. Did you get any reports about people tripping or falling when they were walking on the road or any of the area common areas in the park?

No. Sorry, I'm just checking my notes. Can you explain because I was a little confused the clubhouse uh office area. Are there two buildings or one per one building?

Okay. the the way it's constructed building A which is kind of next to the street is a clubhouse in the office area and then I would say about maybe a 200 ft down the road or whatever 150 right there's a then there's a we call a swimming pool area and out of the swimming pool the other side have a second building called building B are similar in size and construction design as the clubhouse. In building B, it holds the uh the I guess laundry room is part of it. Maybe is the laundry room part of it? Okay. Laundry room. And then there is uh used to be like a shuffle boy area. And then there's a spa, indoor spa and uh other area whatever uh is that storage?

Yeah, storage. And this you know that building I would say 4,000 square feet storage

about 4,000 4,000. We know we have two building of 4,500 square feet and then the so the that building uh before uh the previous ownership had used as a shuffleboard core when was built that's what long time ago and then we there after we requested to restore that to be a shuffleboard core which we did and then uh then the storage room still became storage room for the you know parts, lumber and then uh we have both uh I think the uh both building are fully functional accessible and uh that's where the uh infrastructure

does the roof cover both buildings which one the roof the roof no it's a it's easily what 100 ft apart I would say easily 100 ft apart. So they are separate all separate and there's no kind there's a big street right in the middle. I can show the map in case you want to see it. I have a map of the so the clubhouse and um office the expense records that were submitted were only for one building and the roof only relates to one building. Uh uh uh I believe the roof is for the clubhouse.

Exactly. Yeah. Yes. One building where the other uh building have not enjoy the improvement that the clubhouse all the other thing has spent except we convert everything back into um shuffleboard core functional shuffleboard core and we also work on spa but not it's not structure related. is more like a uh inside material related.

Okay. Um I don't have anything else at this time. No further. Thank you, Mr. Strawberry. Any further questions here? Oh, you about documents. Isn't it Did Mr. Reiner have some documents too related into the project that maybe the prior owner didn't? Are you aware of that? I'm not sure. Yeah, I I asked Dr. previous ownership and also I think uh previous ownership also have two party G is John, party B is outside contractor. So I think I got both of them. That's all I see.

All right, that was it. Miss Johnson, any further questions for this witness? Yes, I do. Uh, so, Mr. Wang, you said that you thought that the the roads and and uh the uh different uh entities, amenities there uh they were not in good repair before uh you decided to buy the park. Did I understand that correctly? Yes. But yet you told the lender there was nothing wrong with the park. Is that correct?

Haven't we gone over this before? And presumably they've already had a chance to to ask him questions on this and already have. Uh their questions should be limited to any new subjects that came out. I agree. Uh we already covered this topic on the lending documents. If you have new questions.

Yes. Thank you. Heather Kurthers. [clears throat] Let's go back to the spa jacuzzi. You state here on page 405 that the HCD health inspector Haimey advised the petitioner that the spa needed to be replaced and the leak fixed and uh Mr. Wang can be available to testify regarding these matters. I see no report. Do you have a report that's not in this packet that says the spa needed to be replaced in the leak fixed from Mr. Garcia? Uh I testified that it's progressive process. Uh when we find out small have some problem and we contractor come in and we start to do do the research want to make sure is that one problem or are we have more problem. It turned out that we had a lot more problem than we saw. You know, my knowledge of the um both spa and this pool became progressively bigger than we thought. That's what happened. So, we need to address all that.

Okay. But we have no inspection reports for that, right? The inspection report from where? From anybody that says that the that these things existed, that there was a leak or that the spa needed to be replaced. Well, we have a quite a bit the discussion with our contractor. Well, but those aren't inspectors. Those aren't government agencies requiring you to do anything, right? No, it's okay. Thank you. Right. No further.

I just No. Uh I just want to make sure. Is this your signature on page 675? Is this your signature? Sure. [clears throat] To tell the truth, it's not my signature about I don't know why. What's it before?

Thank you. Okay. Are you aware on the page 334 from the HCD report that on number eight it says no park manager was on site to discuss the violation? Yet you say you spoke with Mr. Garcia regarding the spa needing to be replaced and the leak fixed. What day did you speak to Mr. Garcia? Uh is Mr. Garcia first in Haimey? You wrote Haimey. Okay. is I I never did any discussion personally with him. He's also a manager. Advise the petitioner. Is that you, Mr. Wang?

Yes. All right. Thank you. That'll be all. Great. Uh just in case you want to do this, I was going to uh call up the park manager just to talk about the timing of the survey of visav the spa and when when it was done visa v the spa and pool improvements just because that was a question that came up. I it will I can't tell you about other people's questions but it'll take her 30 seconds for that limited per purpose. We'll bring up that witness. Thank you Mr. Albert. Thank you Mr. going. Okay. I don't want to call Kathy. Um well, and were you here when the witnesses were sworn in?

Yes. All right. So, I remind you that you're providing testimony under penalty of perjury. First, state your name for the record. Katherine Davis. And if you could spell the last name. D I T G Tes. And Katherine with a C or K. K. Thank you. Go ahead. What's your position? I am the park manager. All right. How long have you been the park manager? For a little over two years. All right. Can you uh were you aware of and involved in the voting process regarding the pool in the spa? Yes, I put out the notices. All right. Can you kind of tell us the timeline how it relates to the the when the work was done? Yes. Um do you want me to start from the beginning?

Sure. Okay. We found out from KP pools, who is our ordinary pool keep. They keep our pool. They they check our chemicals and they are the ones that went and to the jacuzzi and told us that they believe that there's a leak. Now, we have noticed that that we have been having to put water in it every day to every other day. Quite a bit of water. Kathy, I just want you to get into the timeline of uh when the the vote was t the survey was taken place versus when the work was done. Okay. The survey was taken place about two months after we found out before it before the construction started. Okay. I'm not sure that was really clear.

Okay. Uh so first you found out there was a problem. Yes. Yes. And then you conducted the vote after that. Yes. But that vote was before the work was actually done. Yes. All right. And you were the person at the park who conducted the ser Let me finish the question. Sorry. You're the person at the park who conducted the surveys. Yes. Okay. That's it. That's it. Right. Miss Johnson. Questions for Miss Ditis concerning her testimony. In this voting, did you tell the residents in that voting that there was a problem with the spa, the jacuzzi, or the pool? No. Thank you. All right, Miss Grayson, do you have questions for Miss Ditis?

Sorry. Were you involved with the survey sent out about the um clubhouse, the street lights, and the streets? That was done in a meeting in person at a meet and greet. So, you had the the written document with you and gave those to the residents? Yes, they were given out to residents and you I'm assuming from the documentation you signed the proof of service saying you you provided those and it was in October 2023. Yes. So, those were done in October 2023. They were.

Okay. Do you recall the date when the pool and spa survey was done? I believe sometime possibly around April or May. You need to give a year. 2024.

Thank you. No further questions, Miss Grayson. Anything else? Any other witnesses? Uh, I have no further witnesses. The witnesses uh although I would reserve the right for rebuttal.

Right. So, here we're here's where we're at. We're uh completed step six questions. Petitioner. Uh, next step would be seven, Miss Johnson to call I believe he said one witness opposing party representation. That'll be your chance to present your case and then call witnesses. And then after that, we'll have questions for the witness or witnesses and we go into public uh comment. It's 12:30 almost a hair under. And so my recommendation would be to take our halfhour break right now, come back and then start with Miss Johnson's case and then you can call your witnesses and we'll go from there. Actually, I

clarify because I kind of took things out of order. I do have some opening statements about some other issues, some of the other issues in the case that that'll take me about 10 or 15 minutes. 10 or 15 minutes. Let's do that when we come back. Okay. Right. All right, everyone. We'll see you at 1:00. It's 12:30. Thank you.

gone the cities is already operating correct on the system we're back on the record matter regarding our public hearing [snorts and clears throat] for California and mobile home estates capital improvement petition and temporary rent increase petition we had just completed petitioners case. However, uh Mr. Alper, before going on the break, you advised that you needed to present your case that you did not do that at first. Well, I I basically had not finished presenting my um opening statement. I went ahead and called witnesses, which I hadn't even planned to do, but

Okay. So, let's hear the rest of your opening statement, then we'll switch over to the uh uh resident side up and go with their case. I want to talk a little bit about this. Are Are we ready? Am I

We're ready. I'm ready. Okay. Uh I want to talk a little bit about the specifics of the the clubhouse remodel. Uh as I noted, uh we requested 136,736. Um uh the city attorney was pointing out some items on there about $12,000 in value or so. I would agree those aren't capital items. They're they're not really necessary to be included in this. Um, we uh estimated the total amount of the project to be 227,893 and only ask for 60% of that. So, there's plenty of room to exclude those sorts of expenses. If you look at page um the record 291 to 292, there's a a a spreadsheet that summarizes the various uh categories of expenditures and uh it actually shows a little bit of a higher total 234,27710. Uh again, there are a few items that aren't health and safety related. A coffee table was the example I noted. But uh the the expenses that are um capital items that are health and safety related according to the descriptions that we've given today exceed the 136,736. So uh we believe that the uh health and safety concerns support all four uh categories. Um, regarding the vote, again, I want to point out uh the ordinance uh uh doesn't uh say that the vote has to take place um before the work was done uh regarding who the owner is. Um again, the ordinance doesn't say

the petitioner had to be the party to pay for the improvement. And when you think about it in this particular case, this was done in 2023. If the park owner, prior per park owner had actually uh gone through the process, the and it was approved, these increased payments would be made to the current owner for 15 20 years. So, it's obviously contemplated that the the funds don't are they're going to the park, not to the particular park owner. if if otherwise they wouldn't be carried over to a new uh park owner. In uh section 10.5 of the administrative rules, it says the petitioner shall provide documentary evidence of the actual cost incurred for the capital improvement. We have done that. It does not say incurred by the petitioner. It says the actual cost incurred. Um, so I don't think there's we obviously staff feels like this current park owner shouldn't uh be able to proceed with this rent increase, but that's not what the ordinance says. In the staff report and it was read today by Miss Gertis, it says whether or not expressly stated in the ordinance, the purpose of the capital improvement provisions of the ordinance are to allow a current park owner to apply for a rent increase uh based on costs incurred by that park owner, not the prior owner. When I see language like that, it's that says whether or not expressly instated in the ordinance. What they're what it's telling me is they're trying to make up things that aren't in the ordinance. Uh and we cited the relevant language. It it is not limited. Now, they may not

like that result, but that is the result that the or that that is required by the ordinance that they prepared. And uh again they make this secondary argument that the staff report that they basically say that this requirement is somehow implied because the park owner uh needs to show that the improvement was necessary for health and safety by proving the intent of the park owner which I which I think is just a silly argument. Uh the intent of the park owner really isn't relevant. It's really whether the improvement serves that purpose. And if you look at the statutory language in the ordinance, it doesn't say anything about the intent of the park owner. It's it simply says um well, it's got the the the five criteria and then the exception under 9.050.090C 090 C says a petition which meets all requirements of subsection A of this section but has not been consented to by 51% of the occupied spaces that's where we are may be granted when the capital improvement is necessary to protect health and safety of the park its residents or neighbors as uh determined in accordance with the rules and regulations. So, is it necessary to help? If there's a leak in the jacuzzi, it's causing damage. Is it necessary to do that to protect the park? Uh, yes. If And but this says nothing about the intent of the park owner. So, it's really what purpose does the improvement serve. So, it's they're sort of using a madeup requirement of intent or purpose on the part of the park owner because

they don't like what the actual ordinance says. So, you know, staff doesn't get to rewrite the ordinance and rules for our hearing. Now, we also made the argument that the park owner effectively paid for this these improvements when they bought the park. Now, we didn't do that because we're planning on presenting a fair return presentation. It's simply to point out there's nothing unjust about this result. It's simply pointing out that yes, this park owner didn't literally pay for the the the new work in the clubhouse, but the per the purchase price reflected it. So, it would be fair to allow the park owner to to recover that cost. And as I said before, if the prior park owner had actually gone through that process and submitted an application, the rent increase would continue for 15 years or 20 years depending on the useful life. It would go to whoever owned the park. So that is confirmatory of the structure. It relates to the park, not the specific park owner. Now, finally, uh I just want to talk a little bit about the fee award. Uh we really updated the fee award towards the end of this process because we had no idea there was going to be a large uh request by the city regarding the cost of this uh application. Our total costs are $45,795 of that above more than $25,000 of that is all city fees. So, the lawyer's fees are around $20,000 and we'd submit to you that that is quite reasonable. I've been doing this practice for 25 years. Um, and I'm very experienced. Uh, this process, frankly, is needlessly

expensive. I wish we uh Mesa follows often follows UKIPA, the next door neighbor on on their rent control ordinance. And in in um Ukipa, you can get a decision from the city manager without a hearing on capital improvements, at least under the prior form of the earth. I'm not sure if that's the case. Now, there's basically they've created this adversary process for a petition that really based is based on facts that really don't need to be adversarially addressed. And that has increased the cost of this process. But I would submit that our $20,000 in part of our costs are reasonable and the total cost is reasonable under the circumstances and and that uh now oh on the interest rate I agree with the city uh I I saw what was in the administrative rules about the interest rate ordinance trumps the the the the administrative rules. So 7% is the correct figure to be applied and uh that equates to the rent increase of uh what was the figure?

It's on page 30. On page 30. I'm sorry about that. I think it was $7 and some change. See it here, but oh $6.99. Okay, I'll accept that. Yeah, there it is. $6.99 per space per month for a period of five years. That I think that's the correct uh with that uh we're we are uh done and we reserve our right for rebuttal. All right. Thank you, Mr. Albert. So now let's hear from the representative for the residents, Miss Johnson. State your name again and then present your case.

My name is Donna Johnson. I represent the residents of the California mobile home estates. We feel that the uh residents do not owe anything at at all because as I think has been shown most of this is elective. It's my understanding that you cannot use uh elective uh anything for a pass through. Most of this was general maintenance. He went beyond the scope of what was necessary. I mean necessary. And so that was his uh elective decision to do all of this and it's when it's just maintenance. When you when an owner or anybody sees something that is needs to be fixed then you would fix it. That's general maintenance. He is responsible for the general maintenance and the and the health and safety of this park. That's his his responsibility, not the residents. Furthermore, he has closed off amenities to us. The pool half of the year, the recck room was closed off to us. But yet, he continues to charge us every month for these amenities. and we would like to have them we'd like to have that money back. It's unfair to charge people for something that you don't get to use. And it's also unfair to try to pass on what the

previous owner has uh already paid for. It's um successor liability. Correct. successor liability. He's responsible. He was responsible to inspect the park. He already admitted that he looked at everything and thought things needed to be fixed, but yet he told his lender everything was just fine. If everything is just fine, then we don't need to pay for anything. If if this is all maintenance and uh and it and it's not an elective, it did not have to be done. It's not a life or death as HCD would say, then it's not fair to pass it on to the residents. And the park is still not there is still your us failure to maintain in this park. We've had to call HCD out numerous times. So, while he's concerned about health and safety, he has not completed uh projects or or fixed things that would be uh a health and safety issue. If he was concerned about that, then why has he not fixed uh bricks along the road that people fall on? Uh why has he not fixed the uneven and the cracks at the pool? Why does he not grade the road appropriately so that puddles do not now exist when people run water? If he's concerned about health and safety, then

object objection. I thought it was already ruled upon by the hearing officer that these maintenance issues were not going to be part of the the present presentation by this the representative of the residence but that you know somebody on public comments wanted to comment about that. I guess that would be okay, right? So,

well, hold on. We had made we discussed this earlier today. Um, I'm going to let her continue only because she's the representative of the residence, but I agree with you that the evidence to be admitted into evidence for my consideration has to be relevant evidence as I decided and we decided that the condition of the property according to my limited authority under this ordinance is not a relevant factor. It's these four or five factors that I need to look at. But I'll let you continue to give your um comments because you're making your opening remarks for your case. Okay.

And if you want to all of that, bring it back into showing me how that's relevant under this ordinance. You're more than welcome to do that and I'll allow that.

This all makes it elective. It's my understanding you can't have a pass through on elective. if if he has they've elected to to do these um projects. It's my understanding that it's only if it's a health and safety issue, not if it's uh aesthetically pleasing or if it's uh for his benefit to improve the park so that it makes the park um more profitable to him. That's my point. These things are elective. They they did not have to be done. And he's trying to get money from the residents. And he came into the park saying that with the very first meeting that he was going to do all these things and he wanted to charge us and he wanted to charge us uh interest on the money he's going to spend and he wants to get the money back uh from something. You can't you can't buy a house and then go back and say that I I I want my money back. And I think that it's just unfair to the residents for him to um take on these projects that mostly did not have to be done. And I think it's unfair to him to keep uh amenities from the folks from the people in that park and then not reduce the rent. That's in the ordinance for the city. I think that's unfair. And so I do have a a witness that looks at this park on a daily basis and can

see what goes on on a daily basis. May I

and I will hear from the witness in a moment. Want [snorts] to advise those who may have come in later or did not were not here earlier today that we will get to public comment. In the public comments, you will have your chance to tell me whatever you think is important and relevant. And I emphasize that I have not said I have not decided that the conditions at the park are not important. I didn't say that. I didn't decide on that. It's just that for these purposes here of this process, we have to stay with what's relevant to the determination under the ordinance. But for public comment, you'll have that ability [clears throat] to tell me whatever you think is important and relevant. Uh, go ahead and call your first witness. Oh, we're not finished with opening.

Okay.

Okay. Heather Kurthers for the opening. Uh, the park owner certified in multiple loan documents, that the property was in good repair, free of def defects, compliant with all applicable laws, and that any changes, repairs, or construction would require written lender notice and approval. No such approvals were obtained. These certifications prevent retroactive claims against residents for alleged deficiencies. Under California Title 25 and the MRL, maintaining common areas in safe working order is a legal duty of the park owner. They define failure to maintain as a violation and a public nuisance. Maintenance cannot be converted into a capital improvement to shift cost to residents. Street deteriorations, drainage problems, and unsafe condition existed at the time of purchase and were known to the owner. Title 251102 requires streets to be kept safe. Deferred maintenance becoming more expensive does not create a qualifying capital improvement. These costs cannot be passed through to the residents. The owner knew lighting levels were insufficient when he purchased the property. Title 251108 requires minimum illumination for safety. Many lights remain non-functional or non-compliant. Inspection records do not show structural failure, leaks, or documented findings that would require reconstruction for the pool and spa. HCD cited minor corrections. Only work was performed without written findings or approvals, converting maintenance into elective reconstruction. These conditions cannot be used to impose capital charges. The clubhouse remodel began under prior ownership in 2022 and the full renovation was completed before the current owner purchased the park. There were no inspection reports, violation notices, or documentation of structural or ADA issues. Because the work had already been performed before ownership changed hands, the current owner could not have identified or cured any alleged defects, nor can he retroactively designate pre-existing and

fully completed work as a capital improvement. Costs associated with a fully completed remodel prior to purchase cannot legally or logically be charged to residents. All four categories categories paving, lighting, the pool, spa, and the clubhouse represent maintenance, deferred repair, or elective construction performed without required authorizations. Title 25 and the MRL place maintenance responsibilities solely on management. Loan certifications confirm that alleged conditions were either known, unreported, or unsupported. Therefore, the requested pass through must be denied in full. Failure to maintain is a violation and a public nuisance, not a capital improvement. Thank you.

Thank you [snorts] both. [applause] You may now call your first witness. I call Heather Kurthers. All right. Go ahead and come up to the lectern. Come up to the lectern there. Thank you, Miss Kurthers. Thank you. And let me ask, did you take the oath earlier today? I I don't recall. Your right hand. Do you promise and affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence you provide today will represent the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Heather Kurthers. Right. Go ahead.

Okay. Miss Kurthers, can you tell us when you get up early in the morning, is there plenty of light in the park at 400 a.m.?

No. And I get up every day between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. And this solar lighting is completely inefficient. Not only are the lights that are put in, some are still not working, nor do they meet the legal requirement of uh illuminating the roadways and walkways. Okay. Okay. Miss Kurthers, have you personally seen any water puddling on the street when the streets were supposed to be graded so that they did not puddle? Have you seen this? Yes. And especially during this last rain, we still have the same issues. It's not draining. The water stands. It still goes from coach to coach. And I still have sandbags at my property and I know other residents have sandbags on their property. So, no, it is the pavement has not been corrected. The drainage problem still exists.

Miss Kathers, did you see a puddle uh on the street between space uh 94 and 95 that it was just simply from someone watering? Yes. And it's I didn't check it today, but it was there for two days. Okay. And Miss Kthers, have did you see the uh failure to maintain at the picnic area? And were you aware that HCD had to be called out because that was a health and safety violation?

Yes. And I was there the day HCD came, multiple residents had already put in complaints, which we have done throughout uh this. Me personally started this whole process. Uh I've been at this property almost 4 years and but for me a lot of this wouldn't even have been done because there was so much uh failure to maintain and uh numerous complaints have been written regarding this picnic area uh and finally again have to call HCD. HCD has to come out and say hey fix this and they had to tear it down. [snorts]

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Miss Kurthers, have you seen uh blocks or bricks or anything along the roadways uh that would be harmful that would be a health and safety issue that would be harmful to our residents? Hardy is an issue. I have fallen in. There's holes on these bricks. I've already fallen in it. My dog has fallen in it. I've seen other residents dogs fall in it. Objection. I just let it go for a while because I hoping it would end. We just keep getting into maintenance issues that are unrelated to this petition. Are there health and safety issues?

Well, and again, it very important and you know raise liability issues and all that and we want to protect the residents. However, I agree with Mr. Albert that for purposes here anything that's ongoing now and after the fact of the work that was projects were done for my determination is not relevant. Okay. Okay. Is it is it relevant that um I ask Miss Kathers if she has to pay for amenities that she's not allowed to use? I don't see that as relevant.

Okay. All right. I'm not saying it's not important and there may be a different uh remedy that you have within the city's rules, but for this process strictly to narrowly determine whether these uh improvements or projects that were completed are to be uh recouped through the process in the ordinance. I can't get into that. or does it have to be separate because the ordinance says that it is up to the hearing uh process as to whether the residents get their money back uh that that have been kept from them when they couldn't use the amenities but yet they were charged. The ordinance I believe said that it was up to the hearing process. Is that a separate issue I have to bring up after

that would be a separate hearing process. It may end up again before me but for today's hearings it's not part of this process. Okay. Okay. All right. Miss Kathers, do you have anything else to add?

Just that the pool and spa, I mean, the pool is still closed half the year. Um, uh, Miss Valentine, um, obviously redid this clubhouse. She started in 2022. She had already sold five other properties. She did this specifically to sell this property. She sent out letters in June of 2023 saying, "Oh, no. We're not selling. we're doing all this for you. There's things you don't even know about that are being done. And then literally three months later, September, getting a new owner. So, I fully believe Miss Valentine did these improvements to the clubhouse uh for the purpose of selling it. And uh personally been in that clubhouse many times. Nothing wrong with the floor. Never saw any leaks, nothing.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kthers. Don't don't go anywhere just yet. Mr. Albert, do you have questions for this witness? I have none at this point, unless the issues come up from Miss Grayson. The questions, do you have questions for Miss Kathers? Yeah, just you were living there when the clubhouse and the roof were done. Yes, ma'am. Were you aware of any leaks? Oh, sorry for the tape. Were you aware of any leaks inside the clubhouse? None. any leaks in either of the buildings?

Well, the wreck room had been closed for many, many, many years. Uh, which the wreck room/shuffleboard room, which in their documents they call a second clubhouse. It's named many different things. Okay. But that but I'm only asking you about leaks, right? We weren't able to even go inside that shuffleboard room, so don't know. Okay. But in the clubhouse, you're not aware of any leaks. never saw any evidence of any leaks. And you said there weren't what was the condition of the floor before the work was done by uh Laura Ballentine?

It was nice. I I bought uh in December 2021 and uh it was a nice clubhouse. I didn't see that. I mean, if I thought it was shabby and believe me, I've went to a lot of mobile home parks when I was buying. So, uh, our ours was nice compared to some others. Nothing wrong with flooring. Bathrooms were nice. The office space, it was small, but there were other amenities in there. There was a reading room. There's a little library. There's a piano. There was a lounge. There were a lot of other things that were in there um that we were able to use that were they're no longer available to us now. They're gone. And did you were you ever told that there needed to be um modifications to the restroom in the clubhouse to meet ADA requirements?

None. None. Are you aware of anybody having difficulty maneuvering in the clubhouse because of trying to get in with a wheelchair and not be able to maneuver in the room or get into the room? No, ma'am. The only problem that uh residents were uh handicapped residents were having were with regards to the laundry room. There was no ramp up for them to be able to get into the laundry room.

I nothing else for now further. Miss. Johnson, do you have any follow-up questions for your witness? Miss Kthers, do you remember during a meeting that a resident brought up the ADA a compliance with the pool that they needed a lift to be able to use the pool?

Um, yes, we have several residents that are in wheelchairs that um and me personally, I have a disability as well. Um, so the fact that there's no slope, no slope was added uh when they had this whole pool, no lift was added, no slope for those of us with disabilities. So, do you remember Mr. Wang's uh retort to uh a resident asking for uh a lift so she could use the pool? Do you remember what he said? He said he wasn't going to do that. Yeah. All right. No further questions. Mr. Albert, anything else?

Just a few questions. Uh, Miss M. Kurthers, you submitted a great deal of complaints to the park about the condition conditions of the park. Is that right? Right. And were those uh things that you submitted, those complaints, were they true? Absolutely. So, [snorts] uh, when you complained about a hallway with a carpet ripped and torn as a health and safety issue, was that true? It was. Do you want to know where it was located? I'm just going to continue asking questions. Uh, when you complained about the mold in the showers, was that uh true?

Yes. No hot water in the showers. in one shower. I believe it was men's bathroom, urinal not working, correct? You mean all those maintenance issues, right? All right. So, every one of the complaints that we could find in here, they are accurate. They are. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Grayson, go ahead. Uh, following up on Mr. [snorts] Alpert's questions. The torn carpet. Where was that?

They had some uh it was like astroturf. Uh outside there's a jacuzzi. There's a jacuzzi room. Uh there's a little hallway there um that leads to uh the bathrooms and also to that shuffleboard room that was closed and uh obviously hadn't been maintained. So it was where it comes together. It was frayed enough that when you walked your your foot would get caught in that little piece of it was like indoor outdoor carpet kind of thing. And was that was that in the pool/spa area?

It's in the spa area. The pool is a whole separate section. The spa is off to the left of that. Um, and the mold in the showers that he mentioned, where was that located? Uh, all around the base. And the only, let me tell you what they did. They couldn't remove it. They had a cleaner come in, put bleach. She did everything she could to try to get rid of that mold. And so what they ended up doing was just putting more over it. And what where was that shower? In the um in the jacuzzi room. In the jacuzzi building. Were you told if that had been cited as violation?

No. Were you told by anybody on behalf of the park that anything they did, any of these projects were because of citations from HCD? No. Or the [snorts] health department? No. Were any of the other uh what you call maintenance problems in your submittal? Were any of those in the clubhouse area? No. Were any of them on the roads?

I don't believe we mentioned the roads in in those complaint. There may be separate complaints regarding the roads, but this doc I think what he's talking about where her and I walked the whole property as far as all the buildings and wrote down everything that was working, not working, the mold, you know, just like I said, maintenance issues. Um I don't believe we put the roads in that. And um at some point uh the park owner you said had a meeting right after he bought the park. 3 weeks.

Three weeks after. And then they came in proposing to do certain things. Is that correct? Well, the first thing he wanted to do was give every resident 20 bucks to uh [sighs] to uh [gasps] to check out um other parks to to see what a great deal we were getting. But did they give you uh there's materials submitted where it looked like it was to survey the residents as he defined it, Mr. Wang defined it to get the residents to consent to doing improvements? Um were there any reasons given to the me at the meeting why those were being proposed?

No. And you were specifically not told that it was for health and safety reasons? Absolutely not. I think we may have even recorded it. Nothing further at this time. Mr. Robert, anything else? Miss John, anything else? Yes, I [snorts] do. Miss Kthers, uh, Mr. Wang stated that he replaced the fencing around the pool. Have you seen new fencing?

No, there's no new fencing. I see the diagrams in that book, but absolutely no new fencing. So, he was incorrect uh when he when he put that uh in his um when he submitted that that he actually did not replace uh the fencing and that would be part of his pass through. Yeah. No, no new fencing. Three new gates. That's it. No further. Okay. Thank you, Miss K. Thank you. Right. Moving along. Thank you to the all witnesses. We're up to our number nine in our agenda. Public testimony. I need the speaker cards, please. And do I call the speakers or will you be calling them?

I'll call them. Very well. Thank you. Okay. So, I have a whole list here. When I call your name, you will come to the podium and speak directly into the mic and state your name. And I don't have them in any particular order. Um, but we will start with Heather Kurthers. [laughter] Oh, come on. And you will have three minutes and I will have the timer set. Um,

okay. Well, like I said, I've been a resident here since uh 2021, and my first problem with the park as soon as I got on here was why is the pool closed? [snorts] Didn't make any sense to me. So, uh, and then ultimately, uh, nobody gave me MRL laws. I wasn't given the book. Once I found out what was going on with that, my coach, I I dug in and then I started started my complaining and I've got 50 plus complaints at least regarding problems at this park. uh not only health and safety violations, MRL law violations, uh title 25 violations, I just kept pounding them. So, um but what I'd like to say is uh he's just he's gone beyond the scope. Um HCD did not violate that spa, one violation, and it basically said it's your responsibility. the pool and spa. Some of those were just minimal, like don't put a brick in the in the basket, you know, uh attach the handrail to the wall of the pool, minor things. The only thing was the shell and that Riverside County wanted them to set up a plan. And then he goes even against Riverside County Health and starts doing stuff without getting their approval. Uh we still to this day have a a failure to maintain on many items. We still have to call HCD. We still have to stamp top them. I know in this uh packet he's he's conjoining roof replacement and roof coating. Those are two different things. Roof coating we all have to do. And yeah, it's expensive. It can be up to $500 a gallon for this

stuff to coat the roof. We have to do it. our own coaches don't leak. Um what how long had that roof not been coated on the clubhouse or I don't know. But yeah, do we have to do it? Yeah. Is the usable life of that coating up to 5 years? Sure is. But we have to do it for our own coaches. And it's not a roof replacement. Let's be real clear on that. It's coating. You roll it on. We all have to do it in order for our own coaches not to leak. So, the fact that they have to do it. Yeah. Got him. Um, uh, and I would also like her, I'd like to state that, yeah, we want our money back. If anybody owes anybody here, it's this guy. He owes us money. So, uh, you can't keep things closed off to the residents. You can't take their money and not not maintain your property. Just can't do it. I'm sorry. I'm just out of breath. So thanks. [applause]

Next we have Elizabeth Roar. R O HR Roar.

[laughter]

Yeah, the mic has to be on. I can them. Here we go. Pull it down. It's good. But then I'm too loud.

Elizabeth Roar. I live in the park modular home estates. Before I bought my coach, I looked to see what kind of things were going to need upkeeping or changing. And when Mr. Wang bought our park. He said he had looked around at least at the streets and things like that to see what was going to need upkeep and changing. I could understand not knowing that a roof was going to need repairing. I was surprised it needed repairing. I never saw any leaks with it. Um, and I was in and out of the clubhouse quite a bit. The increases he's asking for are not temporary. It's a lifetime. This is a 55 and over park and I think quite a few of us are really over 60 and probably 65. Uh that's not that's not a temporary increase. um when buying the park, he would have gone around and seen what things needed repairing and changing before he bought it. And you calculate those things as part of your purchase price. We knew that the clubhouse was being changed and repaired and I'm sure he was aware of that before his final purchase price and asking us now to pay for it when the previous owner had paid a significant amount of that cost. I'm surprised at um

part of he he owns other parks and so he knew what kind of things would come up in a modular home park that could need repair or replacement. And so the things that he's repaired and replaced are not new are not a surprise. and to ask us to shoulder that cost when that should have been part of his cost of doing business, part of his that's what his profit is for in charging us space rent and the other charges we pay. Um, the swimming pool, uh, I can see him not knowing that it needed changing, but we can't use that pool quite a bit of the year. [clears throat] Uh, when I first moved in, I used the pool quite a bit, and my doctor said he wanted me to swim every day year round. and as the pool is closed part of the year because it's cold. And he said, "I don't care if there's ice floating in it. You should swim every day." Okay. When I was in college, we swam every day. We went out and stood in the rain in line for attendance and then got in the pool to swim. And so saying we can't swim in the pool there because it's cold out just didn't make sense to me. Uh he's trying to pass on the cost of doing business on to the people who live there. And again, that's what we pay our space rent for. Um,

that's about all I've got to say. I'm not taking three minutes. It's just a lot of the things other people have said have come up. Uh, thank you. Thank you. [applause]

Next, we have Janet Greenwood. All right, we'll move on to Edward Quantero. All right, [groaning] this one um last name is Jen Varia. Sorry. [laughter] I get that all the time. Okay. Well, when you get to the microphone, you can say it right for me. [laughter]

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Mauricio Chavaria and I've been living here since July 23rd 23. Um, and one of the reason why we liked it, it was because the clubhouse looks neat, clean, really organized, nice. So that brought us our intention to to buy the property. uh two 3 months uh 3 months later he introduced himself on the meeting and something that brought my attention and made me um I I [snorts] changed my mind to keep living in this park is that he said that your intention were to bring our rent up to $1,000. Yes, you did now. Yes. Yes.

Neither you you you you can judge only God. Yeah. Amen. And he was he's you know he's going to be a judgment. You say my intention is to bring the rent to $1,000.

The minute that he said that like told my wife and say, "Would you stay uh uh uh renting?" But anyway, now another issue the lighting. Yeah, he has bought lights. As a previous subcontractor, something that your guy did not see is what is the power of the light that you're supposed to have on the street. You buy lights, but they're not bright enough. So therefore, the money that you waste is gone because you didn't buy the it's it's someone made a you made a comment also that says here um we are that you wanted to place to look neat, clean. No, it's not about looking. It's not about the looking. It's about the needing. If you know that you need brighter lights, that's what you need for the safety to of the park. Um, you also said that um, electrical wiring need to be updated by law. You have to change. There's updating every 20 years. So, you have to update that. And so, you just bought the building. you had to update to whatever needed to be work on that on the park. Uh the streets uh did the payment it needed to be done under your responsibility because that's the reason why we pay the rent at the park. Uh I don't know if you're aware if you if you ever got the report, but at the swimming pool my wife it was she fell because once again I'm bringing this out again as a ex subcontractor whoever worked on the swim forgot to put a

handrail by the gate and remember this is a 55 park. He forgot to put the rail by by by the fly. No sign that says to step down before you go in and no yellow tape on the step. That was ironically that was fixed half hour after I called management on a Sunday saying my wife fell. Can you wrap up your comments? Your three minutes has passed. Oh, I'm sorry. That was it. Thank you. Thank you. [applause]

Okay, next we have Terry Hail, Donda Sers. Good afternoon. My name is Donda Sers and I live at the California Mobile Home Estates. I moved in in 2011. I've been a resident there for going on 15 years. So, I can go ahead and tell you a little bit about the park, how it has been maintained and how it is now. When I first moved into the California, it was a beautiful complex, beautiful mobile home park. We had management that cared and that were concerned about the residents. In fact, a lot of the city council meetings, there were so many residents outside, it was a standing room. Things have changed since Mr. Wang purchased the property. I can contest that the streets were not cobblestone in appearance. I've been there. I know. I can also confirm that the streets do flood. My home at space 102 floods right in the front and I have trouble crossing the street if need be or getting my mail. It's close to impossible without soaking my feet. The lighting I need to address that because it's very concerning for the seniors that live there. our community. We like to walk our dogs in the evening and at dusk, especially when the weather isn't the greatest and we need to get the little guys out for a quick walk. The lighting that's there

now is absolutely insufficient. If the sky is cloudy, if it's raining, the lights don't charge as if they should. it becomes a health and safety issue for the residents that live there. I personally won't take my dog out to the grass area or even along the walkway. It's just too dark and we have a coyote problem as well that periodically come and our animals have been taken. the clubhouse. We've lost a piano, a library room, a community board for residents that we were able to post events coming up sometimes at our own homes, sometimes HCD would post notes up on how to contact them. And that board is no longer there. It was taken down by current management. I have notified Peter Wing on numerous occasions. I have filed complaints regarding safety concerns, aminity regarding complaints I have made where management has told the resident where I live that caused me to file reports with the sheriff's department. These are things I'm not used to. I'm not used to living in a community where I feel monitored 24/7 with cameras and staff wear cameras and enter our our backyards to read to read meters. Excuse me. I want to note that out of all of the complaints that I filed with Mr. Wang, not one was ever ever replied to. And this has been going on two years. I did recently receive three letters from his attorney firm. I filed a complaint regarding safety and my concern regarding management. The first letter I got back from their

attorney was to seize and dismissed. Conduct yourself accordingly. That's what I was told told as a resident that has been there close to 15 years. My concerns weren't acknowledged. Instead, I was indirectly threatened. I took that as seasoned desist. Conduct yourself accordingly or else. The second letter, same thing. Thank you. Another report. Can you wrap up your point?

Yes. With another report. Same thing. Season desist. Conduct yourself accordingly. Stay out of management's way. Things have changed there. Not for the better at all. It's for the worse. We're not being taken care of there. And these residents here, an increase would be detrimental. Detrimental to their finances. Absolutely detrimental. Thank you. Thank you. [applause]

Okay. Next, we have David Devvin. David Devon, uh, mobile home resident. Mr. Alpert has conceded that pursuant to the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance section 9.05.090 090 subsection A paragraph 2 that 51% of the residents did not consent to the capital improvements when voted upon in 2023. Therefore, the owner has attempted to invoke subsection C where it states that a petition may be granted when the capital improvement is necessary to protect the health and safety of the park, his residents or neighbors. From what I can gather, the roof improvement was completed prior to the purchase of the park by W. Mr. Wang. Part of business is spending money does not meet the criteria of being necessary to protect the health and safety and therefore should be denied. Again, it's part of doing business. The changes to the building were not done because of health and safety and should therefore be denied. A jacuzzi can expect a normal loss of about 1 to two inches of water per week from evaporation and bodies exiting the jacuzzi. Therefore requiring adding water request should be denied. Maintenance of loose tiles in a pool should not be considered health and

safety, but regular maintenance request should be denied. From my observations, the residents of California Mobile Estates did not feel that there was imminent health and safety concerns. that worked under the streets and lighting was certainly capital improvements but did not protect the health and safety of the park, its residents or neighbors. I would urge you to deny the increase. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Okay. Next we have Tandy Moreno.

You don't want to speak. I just want to say you'll have to come to the mic.

My name is Tandy Marino and I don't talk. So, [laughter] um I just feel that the streets are not repaired. I still have flooding in front of my street. I've lived there for almost nine years. Nine years. And when he first took over, he did tell us that he was going to raise the rent to a thousand because he says that the other parks are charging more. So, he needs to charge more. I don't agree with that. We're seniors and we can't afford it. We can't afford to pay for what he wants to beautify our park. We don't need beautifification. We need safety. And he's all into beautifification. I feel he's always said it from day one when he first got the park in the meetings and the lights are not working. They don't cover the streets. Now, he tried to put a light in front of our yard that we told him that floods I've sinked in my yard up to my hip before and he tried to put a light in my yard and we told him, "You can't do that." Sure enough, the light the next day fell out on the street. [snorts] So, if that's safety, these are not safety lights. They don't cover anything. It's dark down our street. And I we don't walk our dogs because of it. We don't even let them out at night because I'm scared that there's coyotes. I've heard of coyotes. So I just not happy. Not happy what what you're trying

to do to us seniors to take us out of our homes. It's not right. I mean, I have a girl that throws up in my yard and she still lives there. She has taken hoses through my my window and she still lives there. And then your management just told me that part of my yard is part of the neighbor's yard that I have to give up part of my yard because she had because I've moved my fence in. Now they say that it's grandfathered. You can't grandfather a property. You guys are doing totally wrong. I've been managers. My mom's been a manager for a park and we never had this situation. And when there's things that go on with a drunk person going around and throwing up in your yard and then I have to be quiet, it's not right. Management needs to take control because you know what? They pick certain people in that part. And I'm not liking it. And I loved living there before.

So, thank you. I'm just not happy. [applause]

Okay. Next, we have Richard Nava.

My name is Richard Nava. I've been a resident there almost 10 years. Uh, I've also previously was uh working in the office for Laura Valentine prior to Mr. Wang purchasing uh the property. I've uh personally witnessed the in and outs and the uh financial parts and things of that nature and the constructions of the ongoing projects uh prior to his purchase. Uh I personally witnessed and uh even helped a little bit with John when uh he was doing the construction uh inside the uh clubhouse which was uh fully taken care of prior to the purchase. Uh I would say almost about two months it was fully taken care of. And as far as the leaks on the roof, um I could attest that there was a leak in the far corner, but uh Laura went ahead and uh made sure that it got recoded. I went up there personally. I don't know if John did, but there was also another uh maintenance guy, uh David, uh my neighbor, who went up there and uh we all inspected that. And I I don't have a a contractor's license or anything. I'm just going by my personal knowledge. And by speaking with the gentleman that were that did the job and did coat the entire roof, sealed everything and uh it didn't have a problem after that. And uh we did bring in all the furniture. I helped bring the furniture in. I helped uh uh put up some pictures and such. and uh

made sure the clubhouse was in great condition, ready for the neighbors to enjoy, which they did come in and everybody really loved it. We had a good time. As a matter of fact, we had a uh uh lunch in there, I believe. Uh but uh as far as that goes, yes, it was fully taken care of and I don't know how the that even comes into play. But uh and as far as the streets and such, uh personally I I know from what they're talking about the flooding at the bottom cuz I personally went down there while I was working for Laura and uh there was leaves would because of the way the water flowed, leaves would gather up on that grate and we would have to scrape that and it would flow fine. um you know during heavy rains and that was part of I guess the Kypas and Calamas flow that goes underneath our mobile home park from above. So there's always been an issue there as far as uh flooding goes and still to this day there still is an issue. Um maybe not as prevalent uh but there's still and will always be an issue. I mean the standing water they're talking about was because of leaves there and one of the neighbors I believe he's here somewhere one of the other ones uh he we would go down there and just clear the leaves flow perfect so as far as the and you know our streets they did the slurry over them which we had problems oh there's a chip here this chip there they did a slurry over it roads were just fine as a matter of fact they did a slurry over it about two years prior to

can you can you wrap up your 30 minutes of liver. Okay. But anyways, I just want to uh express my personal uh and insight of uh of uh the California mobile park. Thank you. Thank you. [applause]

Next we have Mary Terry. Okay. Patricia Hudson, uh, Steven or Stefan Hager. Hi, I'm Steven Hager and uh you know my biggest thing with this is that it's a blatant disregard for the rent control that we have for seniors. There's a reason why that was passed and a lot of people can't afford it. And the fact of the matter is that this being a temporary thing, like it's been said, for a lot of us, it's not temporary. It's for the rest of our lives cuz my speaking personally, I'm dealing with cancer and I don't intend to be able to live for another 20 years when this would be paid off. And so for me, it will be a lifetime thing. And I don't understand if when an owner buys a property knowing that it's basically what we call a fixer uppper, there are costs that are going to be involved with that. And I have personally invested um quite a bit of money in my mobile home to fix it up and to make it liveable. And um I can't pass my cost on to the owner even though he benefits from it because I'm on the front row and it makes the whole place look better. When my place looks nice, his his mobile home park looks nice. And but I can't

pass my cost on to him, which if this goes through, I think I should be able to. I think he should have to pay for it. And so yeah, I mean he's if he gets money from us to pay for this stuff, then when he turns around and sells it, he's going to get his investment back and this has all been paid for. So the equity that we're helping him put into his mobile home park, he will benefit from when he sells it. So, you know, that doesn't make sense to me. So anyways, that's what I've got to say. Thanks, guys. [applause] Next we have Larry Nulan.

Hi, my name is Larry Nulan. I've been living there 10 plus years. I've seen the Laura the Watson's then Laura Valentine the daughter take over. Uh the maintenance in the park then was all inhouse done by whoever thought they could do it and uh it wasn't done to a professional level. So when they bring in the pros, you're going to have major issues that weren't addressed when just your neighbors working there. But my main concern is the economic impact that this is going to make upon everyone here because even $50 increase can pretty much put a lot of people out on the street or have to choose between medicine and food and keeping you paid. And I was at that meeting when he said his first meeting with the park group, the $1,000 and he offered somebody $200 to go do reconnaissance across the freeway at the park that had burned down and see what they're getting for their rent, which was like $2,100. So it this money issue, it comes down to the economic the impact that it's going to have on people. I'm sure because we're rent control, you do get a tax break. Um, it's just unfeasible that we would have to pay for your part. Thank you.

Thank you, [applause]

Glenna. Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. Um, my name is Glenn Goss and um I live at the mobile home estates. Um, we moved in in May of 2021. Uh, we were we were seniors. Uh, but my partner had to quit working unexpectedly um when he was only 57. He had had a stroke. And then when we moved out here in May, in October, we got two diagnosis with him of cancer. vocal cord and leukemia. Um, I kind of felt what somebody else started off with, which was the whole idea of it seems like rent control is not really an exact thing to to the city. It's something like it sounds good in theory and maybe it will be somewhat controlled or maybe it won't be controlled at all. and and it just seems like seniors are a vulnerable group and to make matters more complicated, it does seem like it has turned into very stressful and adversarial um where there you don't feel like you

are comfortable in your home. Um the other day I we don't have a printer in our home set up. I just wanted to do uh a medical release for or excuse form for for him to not be going to jury duty. The doctor had filled it out. I did not realize he needed to sign it. So I needed a copy made. And it's kind of like we'd like to help you because I had gone to the office. we'd like to help you, but I'm sorry, we can't. So, I had to go over to Ukipa to make a copy. I don't know whether the fear was once one copy is made, the word is going to be out and everybody is going to be coming forward. I don't know. There's a lot of people there who their family are their animals and the animals have been looped in and kind of used as a weapon and threat. If if you do this, you're going to be evicted. You're going to have to get rid of your animal. Um, oddly enough, the what has been talked about with the the water that was pebbling up, we don't live anywhere near coaches 99 or whatever those were. However, we noticed on our street a big I'm sorry, puddle of water. [laughter] Actually, I didn't even know this was coming up that I took a picture of. early in the week. So, the the drainage and those kinds of of issues still exist. We have a light on our property that was put in. I believe it's solar,

so there's a lot of times it doesn't seem to go on. Maybe because it hasn't been sunny enough, I don't know. But the the illumination is really not um sufficient. Can you wrap up your comment?

Yes. And that's pretty much more than anything I wish that the the whole adversarial [snorts] and the pettiness and the we're going to get you and that that whole thing because the power is very much upended and I believe it was you know his the park is part of his asset sheet and his assets. It's we can't put it down as ours. Our home is that the park is his. Thank you. Thank you, [applause]

Elizabeth Avala. My name is Elizabeth Avila. I live at the Calam Mesa um estates. Um I just wanted to say that for one truth is an absolute and there can only be one truth. There is no such thing as just his truth or our truth. There's only one truth right now. The truth is is the residents who have come up here so far and the ones that we have been advocating for has in fact told many truths that you should be hold dear and right now just you know that's solid. It's what they're saying which is true. We were given a choice at the beginning for the amenities that we wanted added to our community park. We at a majority said no. We didn't want to pay for those extras. those extras were told by Miss Valentine that they were paid for like the comm the community um center and that none of this none of these improvements would be any cost to us. It was until the new owner came in and he did state that his purpose was to increase our cost and he said and after he told us about one he said about 800 to 1,000 would be it seemed like a good number he said and uh I of course was horrified to hear that because that would be way out of my league. Um, I know that uh anything that officials state as temporary,

especially an increase in finances, is never temporary. It will be permanent for many of us residents, just as one of them had uh stated. I will repeat what I said last night when I came here that Senator Aoa Bael had agreed with me that mobile home parks are the last of affordable housing and there isn't anything out there anymore. You can't get just a senior apartment without waiting two years or waiting for somebody to die to get it and they are very expensive. It doesn't give you the luxury of just living on your own, walking around the park and pretty much just having the luxury of having your own home. Um, it's the last of the things that we can live with and the rent costs, anything that's increased right now has been hurting us with everything else that goes along. It's been stretching our budgets beyond measure with other politicians making decisions for us with utility costs, whether it's insurance, medical costs, and any emergencies that might come up. And that doesn't even include things that might happen in the home, the car, and just pretty much anything. Any little increase, regardless of how small it seems and how long stretched it goes, it's still going to be too much. And it shouldn't happen anyway because those costs were already paid for before he even had this new ownership. Um, this should have already been uh a done issue. So, thank you.

Thank you. [applause] Next, Rebecca DS, Mark Isaac, Stephen Rainey, Elizabeth Bishop, Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Bishop. I live in 72 space of the Calama. And I'm here to say that I think that all of this is nothing but a huge waste of time. It's a smoke screen. That's all it is. You're talking greed versus need, and that's what it comes down to. All of these things should have been determined and he himself admitted. He inspected that park before the escrow closed. Any deficiencies, any maintenance or operational things that should have been and still are included in his operating budget, his maintenance budget, which is paid for by the rents we currently pay, is beyond sufficient to take care of any needs that he has had come up in this park. Okay, that being said, I did property management for over 20 years. This has been his plan all along. He inspected that park. He knew what money he was going to invest in it. He knew what money he was going to try and hit us with. That was his plan. That is exactly what this has all been designed to do. All of it. It's not capital improvement. It's operating budget. its maintenance budget that he is already collecting

money for and it's designed to increase the CPI on that property. If he is allowed to advertise over 15 years, we are going to end up paying over 300 times the principle of what he has laid out. Not fair. It then increases the CPI on the property which therefore gives him more money when you guys determine the 4% pass through automatic in the rents every single year. So you increase his CPI over the next 15 years, which you can't take back. You can't take that back. That's the whole plan. That's the whole purpose. This is all subtrauge. This is all smoke. This is all greed. That's what it comes down to. No, we cannot afford another $10 on our rent. We have medical costs. We have increase food, housing, everything. The city themselves has admitted that 80% of this city is senior citizens. The decision you make today sets a precedent and he knows it because he's done it on every single park he's taken over. Reportedly, he's done this very thing. Every single park the minute he purchases it, it's the plan. It was in the plan ahead of time. There was nothing wrong with that roof in that clubhouse. Nothing. There was no reason for him. And every time we ask for something, ping pong table, cornhole, put up a dart board. Why does that turn into $150,000 in a floor renovation that we never asked for? That is part and parcel. That is what he's doing. That's his MO. That is his pattern and his history. And he's doing it. And the minute you allow this, you set the precedent for not only him to continue doing it to other parks and other people, but you set the precedent for other park owners to do the same damn thing. And I'm sorry, but I think all of it is conspicuous and suspect. And I think the change in the rent ordinance and the change in the rent stabilization board is also part and parcel and conspicuous. the time frame.

If you look at it, we came to this council what, three, four years ago, told them what we thought was going on, what was going to happen. Oh, no, no, no. Don't worry about it. Is it a little conspicuous that the rent control ordinance got changed right before this public hearing? I think it is, and I think that needs to be looked into, too. Thank you. [applause]

Thank you. I have one more. Um, the last name is E T Z A D Y. Sorry, I'm not always good with people's words. Sorry. Is that Laya? Lely. Okay.

Hi all. It's Lily Etzadi. Um, thank you all for being here. Thank you. want to thank you all the ladies have been very helpful. Um I wanted I think everything has been said. Um not much more to say but um um um I think Mr. Wong probably miscalculated. You're a businessman. Um when you got the house you must have known what problem the you've got an inspection. You must have known what the problems are. you usually calculate for next 10 years minimum to see where it's going. Um I know for a lot of investors um the old term is they put a lipstick on a pig and they sell it over. So I don't know if that's what your plans were. I don't know. Um I live in a separate park and uh we all have heard of your name. Unfortunately not as a good u and the issue is you come in you fix some stuff rent increase rent. We are all seniors. Um, and we all live on a limited budget. So, um, so I mean, every 10, $15 means something to us. It may not mean something to you. You have so many parks. You have family money. Um, it's a mobile home. It's not a fancy house. You live in a house. Uh, maybe you need to live in a mobile home to see what that means and what kind of repairs we do. We put bandaids on things. You know, you rebuild, you renovate, you add on. we put band-aids because life is short for us. Uh so that's mostly what I want to say. I think um I I won't say it's greed. Maybe it's miscalculation. I'm I don't know. Um but um you know and capital improvements means improving the capital. The capital is yours not ours. Um we come come there. This is for most of us the last destination. From there

on we're going to a different place. So, um I don't see any reason why we should be paying for your capital to improve and you to make the money. Um it would be great if you make the money but not on our account. So, um that's mostly what I wanted to say. Thank you all. Thank you. [applause]

I do have one more speaker, but I also received Is Gloria Hastings still here? Okay. All right. She left a letter. Yeah, she left a letter. I just wanted to see if she wanted to read her letter if she was here. So, because I will not be reading that. So, I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Our next speaker then would be Joyce McIntyre.

Joyce McIntyre, Douglas Street, Calamsa. I served on a commission on the city council and was mayor of this city. representing these seniors went through a rent control back in the middle of the '9s. These seniors are our residents. Calamea's residents. They are belong here. They they live here. We should represent them and deny this rent increase. This man, I don't see any capital improvements that he spoke of that weren't done before he took over this park. This rent control or increase that he's asking for, but this needs to be denied. These seniors live on a fixed income. They can't afford what, $3, $5, $10, $50, $100, what he's asking for per month on top of the rent they're already paying. That means some of them are have to give up medicine, food, a loaf of bread. I mean, this is ridiculous. This would it happened and it this is not setting a precedence. This happened back in the mid 90 uh 2000s and that rent control was denied. The increase was denied. the council that I sat on back there, we put this mobile home uh rent control stabilization ordinance um in place to protect these people, to protect the residents, the seniors. And so I'm asking you to deny Mr. Wang's um request today. I'm asking you to deny that and represent and and approve what the um mobile home rent and Donna has worked so hard to represent these people to um side with them.

That's the only fair thing to do for these seniors. There are seniors or Calamusa's seniors. Mr. Wang probably don't even live here. He doesn't. He doesn't pay taxes here. I mean, maybe on his mobile home park, but he doesn't live here. These people do. These are who we represent and take care of. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] [applause]

Thank you to all the public comments. Move on. Next, we have petitioner rebuttal witnesses if any. you know, would you mind if we broke for just a couple minutes or maybe five minutes? People can go to the bathroom and I'll talk with my client about whether we want to present any rebuttal. Okay. Just so everyone knows, uh, we have a hand raised or public comment has question. She says that she's got a written statement from state to read it and that's not being entered into evidence.

If the hearing officer would like me to read it, I will. However, that's not our practice to read public comments into the record. We submit them and give them to everybody so everybody has a copy, but I don't sit and read them into So, everyone will have a copy of this public. I will provide everybody a copy. Yes. Going to follow the practice of the city. I'm not going to change that on the public comments. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Albert. I was just going to suggest a short break of couple minutes so I can talk with my client about whether we want to present any rebuttal witnesses.

Okay, we'll do that. It's 2:30 almost and then we'll go to this side after we hear from this side and then we'll have staff rebuttal if any and we'll close out after that. So let's give it five minutes. Yeah, that's fine. Five minutes. All right. Five minutes. 235. Thank you.

maybe a different I have no idea if that match anymore's code, but for those of you that know it, let me know later. All right, we're back. Thank you everyone. Uh let me go back on the record. Right, we're back on the record. met regarding our public hearing for California mobile home estates capital improvement petition and temporary rent increase petition. Chalbert, you consulted with your confer with your client. What have you decided?

We're not presenting any rebuttal witnesses. Uh, one thing I would point out is, um, not sure where this process is or why there is a rebuttal for staff, but if staff is going to make a rebuttal, since it's our burden, I'd like to reserve the right to respond to that.

Fair enough. And we'll give you that, right? Um, I just interpret that as just a second opportunity for staff to maybe clarify some things from their report as things develop through the day. That's how I interpret that. But you're right, but we'll give you an opportunity if needed and uh we'll we'll ask them once we get to that part how they want to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Albert. So, now let's ask Miss Johnson. Do you have any rebuttal witnesses that you'd like to call? I would like to call Elizabeth or Right. Am I supposed to ask? Is it Miss Roar? R O HR or

OR Ro. Right. Roar. Right. Like the Roar Manufacturing in Riverside back in the day. Yes. Right. It's Elizabeth Roar. I worked at an elementary school. My little kindergarteners called me Miss Turtle because they would they I'm sorry. Sorry to interrupt. I I love the story. Yeah. Before I forget though, I need to do this. I need to swear in as witness if you could raise your right hand if you're able to. It's up to you. Uh, do you promise and affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence you provide today will represent the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. And I also advise you that after any questions that Miss Johnson has of you, I'll give Mr. Albert and uh, Miss Grace an opportunity to ask questions as well.

Yes. Okay. State your name for the record. I know you already said it, but state your name for the record. Miss Roar. Okay. Um, tell us your name for the record. I know you said your name. Oh, my name is Elizabeth Roar. Thank you. Any questions, Miss Johnson, for your witness?

Um, yes, Miss Orur, do you have anything further to add to the health and safety uh conditions of the park that uh Mr. Wang might have been trying to pass through? Uh, as health and safety. Oh, yes. I didn't say. Um, I want to thank all the people behind me for paying for my driveway. If he if he succeeds in you paying if he succeeds in paying the cost of doing business as at a mobile home park. Um when they replaced the street, they redid my driveway because of all the cracks and bumps and everything in it. And when I asked why they were replacing it since it was in the condition when I moved in, I moved into the park in 2010 2011. So I've been there a while and the driveway was the same as when I moved in, but they said it was unsafe that uh they had to replace my driveway. So uh thank you for that. But as far as paying for all these other things of him doing business as a modular home park, he will adding these extra expenses will price me out of the home I bought when I moved into the park. Uh I'm on a limited income and I'm 82. Okay. Actually, my birthday is in about another week and I will be 82 and much of any increase he adds

is my lifetime, not just a short time. Let me uh remind Miss Johnson that we need to stay relevant during testimony. Barry had public comment, but we're on testimony. I'm not sure why we have a rebuttal witness when they went after us anyway and we didn't present a rebuttal and shouldn't rebuttal be based on something we presented after their presentation.

I'm I I understand hearing officer has some leniency latitude in these proceedings they're informal process and what you can do Mr. Albert, as I tell many council in these proceedings is you can argue whether I should give any weight to this testimony or not. Even exclude it if it's not relevant. I'll let you do that of course. U but I do want to hear testimony that's relevant to the case here. And then once we've done that, we'll ask the city if they have any they called it rebuttal if any further response and then we'll go back to Mr. Albert. And I think that should conclude the hearing today.

Okay. One thing I would say in rebuttal is that he's passing on the cost of doing business of owning a modular home park and that's the cost of doing business. That's rebuttal. So I thank you for that uh insight, Miss Roar. But you have anything else you'd like? The testimony is for facts that you know firsthand and you're giving opinions

fact is you firsthand. My father owned his own business. My brothers and I worked in that business. And so I know what things you take off as a business expense. And when we bid on a house to do complete painting inside and out and then come across something that has to be repaired or something that has to be done differently, a different coating that has to be put in the bathroom for health and safety. We don't pass that on to the customer. We have to pay that and that's the cost of doing business. I thank you for that. M. However, that's what I'm sure Mr. job or Miss Grayson would tell me is expert testimony. Yes, we're not going to get into that. Thank you. Anything else? That's his rebuttal.

Thank you. All right, let's move on to city uh any response, rebuttal, however we call it. Um I would want to make some closing remarks. Closing remarks. Okay. But whenever if you want me to do that now, I can or I can wait. Let me first check back with Mr. Albert. Anything else, Mr. Albert, you'd like to present? Uh no. Again, I'd like the opportunity to go last if if she's going to make closing. You'd like to go last. Very well. We'll go first with the city as we did in the morning. Closing remarks and then we'll hear your closing remarks and then we'll hear their closing remarks. Right. That's the order we took in the morning. So, let's start with the city. Sorry.

And if I have questions of each of these participants during the closing remarks, I'll let you know.

Thank you. Um, I'm going to be very brief. Uh, the staff report lays out the findings from our perspective we thought would be helpful and relevant uh for purposes of issuing a decision on each of the claim capital improvements. Um, in this petition on the merits, it is clear the issue is whether each of those claimed projects capital improvements were necessary for health and safety as well as whether they each qualify as a capital improvement under the ordinance. Um, I don't think there's any dispute about the amortization periods selected by the park owner. Um the interest rate um for the capital improvements claimed um is is again part of the determination and whether the cost was properly allocated among all spaces. But for purposes of the capital improvement itself does it qualify under the definitions? It would be the city's position that anything that is part of the cost has to qualify as a capital improvement in the sense that um we're not saying that if there's a pipe you have to put in to do certain work that it itself is part of creating the capital improvement. But that's distinct from putting throw pillows in a clubhouse. Um, and I listed off with the page references, there's about $12,000 worth of expenses for the clubhouse that would appear not to qualify as capital

improvements. And if the hearing officer concludes that those clubhouse expenses constitute in the grand scheme a capital improvement, it's our position those need to be removed from the top. Um we would also point out there's really no explanation to justify document why the residents should pay 60% versus 40% of the total cost. um that analysis on whether each item qualifies, each project I should say qualifies as a capital improvement should be done on each of the items, the pool and spa, the um streets, the street lighting and and then the clubhouse and roof. Um [snorts] there the issue with the clubhouse and roof. We think there is a serious issue whether number one it has been documented what was done why it was done and what the costs were. And yes Mr. Wang presented invoices or bills that he says were provided to him by the prior park owner. However, that's hearsay. There's no direct testimony about what work was done. I know Mr. Rhymer G gave some testimony about things that were done before Mr. Wang purchased the park. However, he said he was not involved with the roof. he was not involved with the clubhouse um with I think he did mention one leak but he has no personal knowledge of what was done in the clubhouse why it was

done and um the other bigger issue for the capital sorry for the clubhouse I'm getting tired um Mr. Wang's position is yes, I didn't spend the money having the work done, but I paid for that work through what I paid for the park. We know what the price of the park was. We have no other evidence before this hearing officer as to whether or not that clubhouse cost in fact in any way affected the purchase price. There's no competent evidence from any expert as to what kind of financial impact that expenditure or if you call it an improvement that improvement would have on the purchase price. Um and excuse [cough and clears throat] me. Um even if you had that evidence, Mr. Wang and Mr. Alpert have taken the position that they're not seeking a fair return. He made a reference in his uh arguments in the papers that he's entitled to a fair return on his capital improvements. This is not a fair return application. This is what did you spend money on a capital improvement? We'll give it back to you if it's financed. If you want financing, we'll give you back the um interest on the financing. if he wants a fair return, he can come in with an MOI, maintenance of net operating income, uh, proposal or a fair return application. That's not before the hearing officer. And respectfully, any claim that because he paid a certain amount of money for

the park means he gets to get recovery, quote unquote, from something that was done by the prior owner. That's not within the scope of what the ordinance provides for under this particular section. Otherwise, anybody could come in, they buy a park, and they could say, "Well, the prior owner put a new clubhouse in 10 years ago. It helped increase the price of the park. I'm going to put a capital improvement on these residents." Or they put in a new street 15 years ago. That's not what this ordinance was set up to do under this provision. And for that reason, it is staff's position that allowing this park owner to recover the cost of something the prior owner did, um, let alone whether it was because of health and safety. There's no competent evidence before the hearing officer. Um, it was not consented to by 51% or more of the residents. There's some of the things in the in the costs are not clearly not within the definition. It's just not something recoverable. And otherwise, I think we've laid out the city's analysis and suggestions. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Grayson. Mr. Albert.

Sure. Stepping back to take a big picture look at at it. I think a lot of the residents uh understandably don't understand exactly how rent control works. And when somebody buys a park and rent control, they're partly buying the ordinance in a way. they're buying what's allowed for rent increases under the ordinance. In a non- rent control environment, somebody wants to uh do improvements to a park. They just they can just raise the rents. Well, the city the city has adopted a rent control ordinance that you look at uh before you buy a park, right? Uh and of course, often times, you know, I can I can be consulted by park owners who say, "Well, what does the ordinance provide for? What does it allow?" And that's just part of the structure. And this city has chosen an ordinance that says, you know what, we like it when park owners uh go in and do these improvements that provide health and safety. We're not going to give the residents necessarily a veto on that. That's the structure. I mean, the reality is it's extremely hard to get residents or anybody to agree to improve the rents. So, uh, the city has adopted in its wisdom this structure that says if we've got a health and safety type improvement, we definitely want to allow this park owner to be able to pass it through. Um, as far as the specific um improvements here, the roads, as I said, uh, the rules and reg the park's own rules and regulations site this kind of road replacement as a kind of health and safety type project that should be considered. That's what the city's own rules and regulations say. Now, some of the residents suggested that some repairs should have done repairs instead. The

testimony you got was that that wasn't feasible. That wasn't where the the road needed to be replaced. It was, you know, beyond its useful life. Regarding the lighting, again, there's no dispute that that's a health and safety issue, but you've got a lot of residents saying they wish it were lighter. They want more light. Well, I don't think that changes the fact that this the you had a situation where you had only five lights in the park, which clearly inadequate, and the then the park owner uh uh used has has put in something like 40 of these uh lights to try to address a health and safety issue. Doesn't have there doesn't have to be some citation by the government. There doesn't have to be uh uh uh somebody coming out measuring your decibb to see if you've got enough light. The ordinance says, well, does this capital improvement serve the purpose of health and safety to the park? Uh which by when you say safety to the park, I think that means damage to park property. I'm not sure what else it would mean. And that's what you look at. So, uh that's what's relevant. So, uh that figure is $1.77. the pool in the jacuzzi area. Again, uh um we had uh uh testimony that the work that was done was the work that was necessary. Uh it wasn't just the fact that there was a citation from health and safety, which was required to do some of the work for the pool and the jacuzzi. That definitely true. but that when they got into the project, in order to address things like the leak uh in in the jacuzzi or the spa, they had to do this work for for health and safety. Uh and we had the uh the the contractor, he went through all of the various work that was done and talked about how explained how it was health and safety

related. Uh, so then we get to the clubhouse and I guess I disagree with um the city attorney's characterization of the evidence there. I I I felt like Mr. Rhymer, the contractor who actually did a lot of the work and supervised it, did a very good job explaining all the health and safety issues that were necessary to be addressed uh as part of that project. uh and uh uh we have a spreadsheet that has $234,000 of expenses that are related to that. And we went through all the main elements of that project. We went through the flooring, we went through the paint, we went through the roof, we went through all we went through and and discussed all the health and safety items that it relates to. Now, so the the really and and I have to admit that this is sort of the big issue to me that you know this jumps out for that pro that project is this park owner didn't pay for that. Well, let me step back before we get into that. There was I I thought I addressed this. There was this idea there's like $12,000 or so of expenses that that uh Miss Grayson talked about. Uh but keep in mind we've got a project that's $234,000 and we're only asking for covery of 136,736. So you could take out that 12,000, you could take out another 50,000, you could take out, you know, 75,000, you still have capital improvements that are uh that are equal to the amount we're requesting, which is 136736. Now, as to this discussion of whether the current uh park owner can can seek

this rent increase uh based on the improvement done by the prior park owner, one thing I did not hear from Miss Grayson was a citation to any piece of language in the actual ordinance, any piece of language in the in the rules that says uh the a new park owner uh who can seek cannot seek a rent increase based on the uh the cost incurred by the prior owner. We read I read to you the language from the rules that just basically says you have to demonstrate that this expense was incurred and of course you have to meet the other requirements in terms of health and safety obligations. And uh I'm not sure why there's a major concern over uh a bunch of park owners coming in and doing this. Uh but uh if there is and they they're concerned that that's going to happen, they should change their ordinance because their ordinance does not bar a new park owner from doing it. And the the reality is these residents um are benefiting from those improvements. They have a useful life that will go it was only it was only done in 2023 or completed in 2023. The useful life of those improvements would continue through uh Mr. Wong's ownership. If the prior owner had come in and sought a rent increase on that basis, demonstrated the health and safety and needs, these residents would still be paying for that rent increase. If we're talking about an example of 10 years ago, of course, you can't go back 10 years unless the useful life actually

continued to the to the existing or current residents. Uh in any event, the city's argument here I think is more one of like sort of the equities, what they think is fair, what they think is unfair. Uh and uh my point in in in noting the fact that the park owner basically paid for these improvements when he bought the park is it is it's it's it is fair that this pass through be come through for setting aside fact that the ordinance allows for it and the rules allow for it. He paid for all of these improvements. Uh it's just common sense. You pay for the park in the condition that it is. the residents benefit from it. It's got a useful life. There's no there's no reason that this pass through should not be approved. And just to clarify again that the correct figure for that is $9.13 uh uh per month for the pool and jacuzzi and that's for 20 years. Pool and jacuzzi 480 a month for 15 years. And as far as the uh the legal fees go, I just submit that A lot has gone into this process. You've got this package here with all these attachments. Uh our side of the fees is is roughly $20,000. The rest is city fees. We think the fees are pretty reasonable. I've been doing this, as I said, for 25 years. Uh and no wasted effort goes into it. With that, I want to thank you and everyone for your time.

Thank you. We'll get to you in a moment, Miss Johnson. I have some questions, Mr. Albert. So, is it your position that as I go through the evidence, the record, I will come to the conclusion that Mr. Wang did not get a discount for the clubhouse work in the purchase price. Is that established in the in the evidence that's before me? Because you're telling me he paid for it, therefore he can now ask for recoupment.

How do I know from the record that he did not pay? the fact well he bought the park and the park included the improvements. I'm not sure my point isn't in fact to me even if even if it even if you take that aside it's really what we need to do is apply the ordinance and the ordinance it's my point is in the ordinance it's irrelevant whether whether or not he paid for it or paid some special amount for it. The issue is follow the ordinance. The ordinance says, "Were these improvements completed? Do they serve health and safety purposes? Uh, and were they paid for? And if so, it should be approved."

Wouldn't that pose possibility of a double dip problem where he didn't pay for the clubhouse and now he's getting paid for the clubhouse. I don't I don't understand how you can not when you when you buy a piece of real estate, you buy the whole property in the condition that it is. You don't partial out different pieces of it. So, it's a nice principle. I know that's typically what happens in many real estate transactions. How do we know what happened in this transaction? Well, I think the only thing that's rational to presume is that he paid a market price based on the value of the property and the improvements uh and the stream of income.

And that's the conclusion you believe I can draw from the record. I don't think you have to draw it. I don't think it matters, but [laughter] Well, I'm just asking the question. I'll decide if it matters or not. Right. But I think that's the only inference you can you can draw that when he paid for the park, he paid for it based on the condition that it was in. Certainly, anybody who's, you know, I mean, I could call uh uh um Mr. Wong to talk about this. There's a as part of a due diligence process when you buy real estate, you go through the condition of the park. And this is the argument. I object. He's arguing information not in the record. Well, [applause] [cheering]

got a little order. Thank you. Um, thank you for the objection. I I disagree because he's posing a hypothetical to ar to respond to my question, which is fair. And so, go ahead with your point.

So, no, my point is the normal due diligence that you would expect from somebody in a real estate transaction is they go through the property, they they set the price based on condition of the park, what it's worth. Also, they would look at the rent control ordinance and what it allows. So, you have the only rational presumption to make is that the purchase price uh reflects the current condition of the park when you when it's purchased. All right, we'll leave it at that. So, my question now is 51%. This ordinance requires a 51% approval. I would imagine there could be a scenario where a park owner, not Mr. Wang just a hypothetical park owner whether it's a corporation partnership LLC trust whatever the form call it the owner that owner wants to do some kind of improvement capital improvement they call according to the ordinance they duly notice the meeting however the ordinance requires everything's by the book everything's documented there's a vote survey I think Mr. Wang said, but there's that process and within that process, you get the 51%. I believe it's of spaces, right? Not an individual mobile home could be owned by multiple people, but it's of spaces, not percentage ownerships. So, we have the required approval of the 51%. Under that scenario, would it matter whether or not there was a health and safety or a necessary health and safety protection?

No. No. Under the ordinance, the the first five sections would just all be controlling that sub subdivision C that talks about health and safety says is basically addresses the situation where you can't get approval of the residents. And why I have ideas as it's my job to have, but why do you believe there's a section C?

Because you do not want to have a situation where it what's very difficult to get residents to agree to any kind of a rent increase. Human nature. you want to encourage park owners to go ahead and do those improvements uh because they serve the purposes of health and safety. So you have kind of a a safety safety provision that you say it's a safety valve. Yeah, it's a safety valve.

So we have this health and safety requirement under subsection C. To me that's a very peculiar thing because it's health and safety. It's not just general, you know, these, you know, it could have said this improvement, this itemized, you know, like 20, 30 things. So, except for these, you can do it. But it just says health and safety. And I would imagine maybe there's definitions within the ordinance for that or you have to refer to other parts of the ordinance, titles and so forth, chapters, all that good stuff. But here it says health and safety. So, we know that there's a a special category of improvements under this ordinance that are health and safety. So let me ask, is it your position that as I look through the record, the testimony received evidence and everything that I will be looking at that I will conclude that each of these projects as invoiced as requested for in the petition and I know we already talked about the 12,000 that was identified that everyone agrees now was not health and safety but otherwise I will conclude that each of these projects was a health and safety necessary for protection of the parties identified in the ordinance,

right? But it could even include protection of the neighbor, it says, and it can includes protection of the park, which means limiting property damage to the park, right? So, uh, for so, for example, if you have a leak in the roof, not only is it a slip hazard, it's going to cause water damage to the park improvements. Um uh so we have to consider that. So if it's just what the distinction I really make is between um improvements that that basically are designed for pure aesthetics.

And so give me an example of an improvement in a hypothetical that would be obviously not a health and safety pictures. Okay. the pictures on the wall, the sofas, the examples that that council came up with uh are I mean even a nice portrait of our favorite scene, right? That wouldn't be a health and safety even though it might make us feel better and help our well-being and so forth. That's too Yes, that's we can take that. You can make anything into health and safety with that. Right. And so what would be an obvious example of something that's is a health and safety other than things like pictures on the walls and

No, that is those are obviously not. We all agreed on that. Oh, that well I'd say is a healthy I'd say everything that we've got in this is actually obvious obvious example. For example, the roads. So that's your position that's obvious that these are all health and safety issues,

right? For example, the roads were addressed as an example of of in the ordinance or in the rules and regulations. And why is it the roads? Because well, it's trip and fall hazard. People or you drive over it, it could damage your car. Uh you could get hurt. Um and by the way, it's not just it's it's not it's also compliance with things like rule um um um uh uh handicap requirements, those sorts of things, other rules and regulations. I think once you break ground on an improvement, right, then it triggers all these other requirements, ADA requirements, building code, you know, so forth,

right? So, a lot of the a lot of the improvements that were done, say for example, in the bathrooms, uh they were done, you know, you replace the existing toilets and and other things so they comply with uh uh those handicap type rules that are in place. That's obvious to me is is a health and safety issue. Well, let's let's look at that a little bit differently. I believe as Miss Kthers pointed out that these are maintenance regular ongoing maintenance items, right? And why would they now be health and safety that would trigger the exception there's subsection C?

Well, actually disagree with you. So, the the distinction there's

you're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the argument. There there the there's the ordinance talks about and defines what is capital improvement and uh it is you know it's sort of circulatory circular and it says not ordinary maintenance but the way that it then further defines it is something that has a useful life of five or more years that is really and of course if you look in a tax law that's the same kind of a distinction between a capital investment and a uh an a simple or ordinary repair. So, the closest we have to something that's uh a um a repair would be the what they did on the roof, but that does have a useful life of over five years. The stuff that we did in the jacuzzi's and the pools, that's why we have a 15-year amortization. Those are major investments. They're not simple repairs. It's not It's not changing the uh ball on the back of the toilet. Uh it's it's

I don't think they have those anymore. I think it's a little Well, well, mine do, but really might need to upgrade that one. Maybe I do. But anyways, I know what you mean. So, there's no other real way to def define and it's of course these were thousands of thousands of dollars uh in in each case. So um if I can find the language in the rules. Can I say something? Yeah. The uh capital improvement from the accounting as well as mobile home I've seen has a lot to do with dollar amount for example. Time time out please. That's testimony.

Again we're in argument now. I So I agree with Miss Grayson. Uh thank you Mr. R. No that's the point. And in fact, it's um uh I think that's talked about in here somewhere. Um I'd have to I'll have to find that. But yeah, it's partly it's partly the amounts we're talking about. Large expenditures, a repair. This will be in the ordinance for me when I look at the ordinance. I believe it's addressed. Um I'll be looking at the ordinance, but

let's see. There is a definition of a capital improvement and and it says installation of new improvements in facilities and/or replacement or reconstruction of existing improvements. Okay. So when you replace a toilet that's not a repair, you know, uh uh replace your roads, that's not a repair. So replacement or reconstruction, a lot of which happened, of existing improvements in facilities which consist of more than ordinary maintenance or repairs and have a useful life of at least 5 years. Um, capital improvements are included but not limited to improvements which would qualify as capital improvements rather than ordinary repairs and maintenance pursuant to applicable regulations of the IRS and the California uh, franchise tax board. And those

so tax code, huh? Those codes often uh incorporate an amount a minimum amount uh for depreciation.

This discussion reminds me of that old thought experiment about the axe. Axe handle has been replaced five times. The axe head has been replaced five times. The person says, "I still have the same axe from 20 years ago. Is it the same axe or is it different?" I don't know. But thank you. Now, let me ask about the word necessary. That word necessary, it's in there. And to me, that word is kind of an important word because it implies some kind of a need and perhaps even an urgency. And then it combines with the word protect. and of course health and safety. So we have necessary protect health and safety of a various parties after that part of the ordinance. So is it your position that these projects were necessary to protect the health and safety? Now it's on this side they raised the issue of elective. It was a choice. Well they also said he was required to. So that kind of takes away some choice. So I'm not sure it was entirely elective on that basis. But here I'm looking at the word necessary. Were these necessary? And if so, how do the facts that you have in evidence support that conclusion? Uh well, the testimony was um there was ample testimony on the health and safety concerns that were addressed. And so then the question is, if you have a roof that's leaking, how is it not necessary to do the replacement or the or the repair of that to address it? It seems like it to me

it's almost implied unless there's an argument that that you should have just done a some kind of a patchwork repair, but Well, that's the ordinance we're with, right? That's the one we have. And it uses the word necessary. And I'm I'm I I would imagine they could have drafted it without that word and just say it excludes protecting health and safety, but they put in necessary.

So if there if the testimony of the residents was accurate that there was no roof leak leaking. Of course, you heard one of the residents acknowledge that there was a roof leaking. Putting on a new roof, you could say it's a health and safety type uh repair, but if the if the roof wasn't leaking, it's not necessary. Uh again, the roads, we have testimony regarding the roads being in bad shape. We have testimony that it wasn't feasible to do a repair. Uh if that testimony is true, that the repair that was done was necessary to address the health and safety concerns. Again, regarding the jacuzzi and the pool, there there was testimony regarding the health and safety issues that were addressed. And there was also testimony about how they went through the process to figure out what actually had to be done to address it. Uh unless we think that those claims were false and there's no reason to doubt them, those were necessary to address the issues that had arisen. Uh so I'm not sure unless in this context I'm not sure what necessary means other than someone claiming that some patchwork fix should have been done uh which is contrary to the testimony that we have or that or that there wasn't an issue at all in which case of course it's not necessary. So let's say the roof and I don't know what exact roof I heard information that it is just you need to put some sealant on it and so forth but let's say the roof has a useful life with whatever sealant has of x years and we are at the x minus 5 years and the owner whoever they may be decides you know what I just want to be proactive I have some monies here maybe I do want to get the property ready for

retirement sale and all that. So, they replace the roof, redo the roof before the useful life is over. It's not leaking. It's still functional. Would that be a necessary health and safety capital improvement that would be subject to subsection C? I we don't have any testimony on anything like that, but I would say I don't unless you thought the park owner was doing making a decision for some your in your example, the park owner is being proactive to try to address and it could be and I could have made the hypothetical with no reason at all given, but as humans, we want to kind of hear a reason in a hypothetical. So that's why I did that.

No, I mean if it was done unnecessarily obviously it's not necessary. not necessary, but if yeah, if it's done unnecessarily, but there's do are we really going to any anytime you face a situation like this, you know, you ask your repair guy, uh, well, should I replace it or should I just repair fix it? Well, you know, you can fix it. It'll cost you, you know, who knows how much it'll leak, right?

You know, or like it's just kind of a judgment call that that a businessman makes. And unless you have some reason to think that that Mr. Wong is here is just kind of willy-nilly deciding to uh to make these un make these unnecessarily then and there's no evidence of that then then I'd say really I don't respectfully I don't think you're in a position to second guess that and and I appreciate that Mr. Wang. Um, a and these questions that I pose, I don't want anyone to read into these questions that I'm floating this way, that way on a decision. These are for my context, right? So, but so bottom line is you're telling me that these were necessary that I will find that conclusion based on the evidence. Yes, I believe that the testimony you have supports that they were necessary.

All right. Anything else? No. Covers it. Let's move on to this side. I might have even tougher questions for you. Just hang in there. If you need a drink of water, go ahead. What kind of drink? You know, it's 5:00 somewhere and I believe that means somewhere in the United States. So maybe we're okay, right? But I know everyone's going to probably meet at the local watering hole afterwards. So you won't see me there. I'll be at a different watering hole. But nonetheless, let's let's hear what you have to say.

Okay. First, we did not establish whether Mr. Wang took any of um this monies for the projects off his income. I think you used the royal we. You said we. I'm not sure if you mean I didn't establish or the two of you. Okay. We we uh could not establish whether he took any of these monies off his uh income tax because we couldn't see any financials. Also, we don't know if he turned any of this into his insurance because we haven't seen any financials. So that in effect could be double dipping, but we don't know that.

We don't know that. We don't know that because we get the financial. I know Miss Grayson's probably ready to jump in on this timeout and all that, but I will tell you I can only go based on what's in the record. And I know what you're saying. You we can and and that's fair. You can argue to me the record does not establish X, Y, and Z. Maybe ABC because he wouldn't answer. He wouldn't give it to us when we asked for for when we asked these questions. He wouldn't answer them. He wouldn't give us any financials at all. So go ahead. You didn't. Okay. So let me finish in closing.

Okay. The park owner is legally responsible for maintaining all common areas of the mobile home park under state law, including lighting, pavement, pool, and spa facilities. And the clubhouse and recreation building in each of these areas, the owner failed to maintain the property properly over a period of many years, resulting in disrepair, safety concerns, and loss of amenity access to residents. Rather than performing maintenance on a timely basis as the law requires, the owner attempted to classify ordinary repairs and um delayed maintenance as capital improvements, which is not supported by state law or local ordinance. Residents [snorts] may pay for they have to pay for amenities and services that have not been provided or have been restricted or removed. Residents cannot be build for deferred maintenance and management cannot demand reimbursement. Things age. You have to repair them. You have to take care of them on a regular basis. [snorts] MRL 79.15D management must maintain all common facilities in good uh working order. MRL 7984. Residents cannot be charged for management failure to maintain MRL 798.87. Management cannot reduce services or deny access to amenities. Civil code 1 1944.1 and 1 1942.1. Common areas must be safe and maintained. Title 25 1102A. Management is reasonable. Management is responsible for safe operation and maintenance of common areas. Title 25108.

Lighting access and safety requirements apply. Title 25 1116. Pavement and grading must uh prevent water hazards, which we know it did not. Healthy and safe codes 1840018407. Parks must be maintained in safe and sanitary conditions which we know that the spa was not. Successor liability and property specific obligations. When a mobile [snorts] home park is sold, the new owner inherits all existing maintenance obligations and liabilities connected to the property. These are property specific duties, not personal duties of the former owner. The obligation to maintain common facilities attaches to the property itself under MRL 798.15D title 25 and health and safety requirements. The successor owner must maintain pavement and drainage safety which did not happen. Lighting in common areas did not happen. pool and spa structures and access to the clubhouse and recreation facilities which we didn't have for a long time. Deferred maintenance cannot be transferred to residents. Repairs made after purchase are the legal responsibility of the successor owner, not reimburseable expenses. Residents have already paid for access to these amenities in their rent. The city of Calama [snorts] mobile home rent stabilization organ uh ordinance CMC chapter 9.05 recognizes resident rights to pursue rent reductions when services or amenities have been reduced or eliminated. Administrative rules allow

rent reductions based on reduction or elimination of services and amenities. This applies directly to the pool which we only can use half the year. Pool access being denied half the year. Shuffleboard recreation room being inaccessible for years. Loss of lounge, reading, piano, game room, uh our our earthquake room also. They are using it for storage. There [snorts] um these are paid amenities. Residents may seek a rent reduction through the city's hearing officer process. Mr. Wang has taken money from these residents and given them nothing for it. What would you call that?

Right. Thank you. I don't answer questions here like that. Um [laughter] that's not my job. Hi. But let me ask, you mentioned [snorts] deferred maintenance, disrepair. Does not that establish that these were necessary projects? They were, but the necessity falls on the owner for ordinary maintenance. He's supposed to take part of the rants and take care of the park.

And I get that. So when I hear ordinary maintenance, I'm out at my house, I'm changing a light bulb, mowing [snorts] the lawn, maybe changing a faucet in the sink. I see that as maintenance, right? But yeah, the roof ends its useful life, starts leaking, dripping on inside the house. Then I call the roofer, they bring the drone, inspect the roof, want to charge me a little extra because they used the fancy drone to give me the estimate. And so based on that, that would be a project that would be, yes, it's a maintenance because you're fixing up the property, but it's a health and safety perhaps because you don't want mold infiltrating, you know, water infiltrating, the mold developing inside the house. Here they're alleging, and I'm not saying I agree with them or not. I'm just asking the question. They're alleging these projects are health and safety. They're necessary. You told me that there was failed deferred maintenance, disrepair. Is that not establishing that these were necessary projects and you said that ordinary maintenance and I heard you cite the MRL and I'll look at that too. Uh but it says routine maintenance. I think of that more as like yeah putting the coating on the driveways every so often, whatever. business industry standard is for that. But the way they're describing it in their evidence, I know you have an opposing view, is that the surface of the streets was posing a health and safety. If I agree with that, I'm not saying here. So, what we need to know is um how does this deferred maintenance? It has gotten cold in here, huh? It was very cold this morning, too. Uh nice outside, though, until what about 4:00? then you better put on the sweaters. But so tell me why is it not necessary this repairs they made?

Just because it's necessary doesn't mean it's not his responsibility. We have to maintain our roofs. We have to have some come someone come in and we have to have those roofs repaired and get ready for every winter. Why then shouldn't we get money back? uh for taking care of our roots.

And so is it your position when I look at the ordinance, look at definitions, maybe the recitals, it's just just the throat clearing of an ordinance basically saying, "Oh, this ordinance is whereas whereas, you know, they do that." If I look at all that, I'll conclude that these were not necessary or even if they were necessary under the MRL, they were just routine maintenance. That's what you want me. Yes. That's what you say I will find as I navigate the analysis looking at the ordinance governing law. Right. I have their side of it. I have your side. Anything else? I believe that you will.

All right. Can I address the roof specifically? You necessary versus non-necessary. We don't know how long the former owner didn't coat the roof, right? That's something as home owners we have to do every couple of years. You can buy it at $500 a gallon and maybe it'll last five years. If you buy the cheaper stuff, maybe it'll last a year. Again, that's something that's just common practice. You have to do that. That is part of maintenance. It is necessary that you do that so you don't have leaks. The facts that they didn't coat the roof and from that produced the leak,

right? So basically, you're saying yes, it's necessary. It may even be a health and safety issue to protect the health and safety of the individuals listed in the ordinance. But you're telling me even with that we don't get into subsection subsection C they cannot get recoupment under the ordinance with the interest in amortization all that under the ordinance. And why is that? Well because again it's it's ordinary maintenance. It's something everybody has to do.

And where's that in the ordinance that if it's ordinary maintenance? Well, I think you bring up the issue being necessary, right? Necessary. So, the the two go hand in hand. It is necessary for you to do that if you don't want to have a leak on your roof. If you don't do what's necessary by maintaining it and coding it every couple of years, every 5 years, whatever it is, um then you're going to have a leak, right? So, give me an example kind of like what I asked Mr. Robert, give me an example of what would be a necessary health and safety issue to protect those identified in subsection C.

Okay. On the roof, like for me, that's ordinary. Let's let's look at the light. The light situation would be a good example of that necessary because the law requires it. Number one, he's under a duty under title 25 there. It's very clear you have to maintain park lighting. That's a law. So it's necessary that he maintain that because the law requires him to do that for our health and safety.

Is it necessary for health and safety protection under subsection C that would obiate meaning not require the 51% vote? And if if not in your example, give me an example of something that would not require the 51% vote. Changing a door. No, but what you're what you're saying is that changing a door, but then that's not something that they would be able to get re compensation or recoup under the ordinance, right?

Yeah. And so that would render subsection C a nullity, meaning it has no meaning and it can't have that. My job as judge, as all of us, we have to read these ordinances to have meaning. And so that's what I'm trying to get from you guys. Well, and and I understand and that obviously is going to be your dilemma, right? Uh what's necessary versus what wasn't necessary, what's failure to maintain, what the law requires him to do. I mean, all of those factors have to come into play before you say, "Hey, I'm you need to pay for that." Fair enough.

Um, and I also would like to address the fact that we keep bringing up he wants to to use the loan. We're talking about, "Oh, this is what's included in the purchase price." Well, I hold up a document with Mr. Wang's signature and he denies it's even his signature on the loan documents. A loan document where he says this property is free from damage. that there's nothing on this property that's going to cost money, that it's all perfectly fine. And I really, really hope you dig into those loan documents because it does talk about furniture. It talks about improvements. It talks about what he's allowed to do, what he's not allowed to do. So to come in literally three weeks after you buy the property, you buy lights because you know if somebody gets hurt because the law requires you to have a certain amount of lights, how much illumination the law requires him to do that. So if somebody trips and falls, if somebody gets hurt, they're not suing us, the residents, they're suing him because he didn't follow the law. So the the the problem for for you, sir, is going to be Yeah. what's necessary and what we have for violations for anything that's documented. He went beyond the scope and like she had said well if you come across something later when you went beyond the scope I don't understand how that can be put on us. So the pool violations again were very clear. Don't put a brick in here. Put up an emergency sign. How does that go from that to we need all of this?

All right, we don't agree with that. So, he's gone beyond the scope of what was necessary. So, all right, I'll consider that. You mentioned that if someone tripped and fell, he would be sued and right would imagine the Morgan and Morgan law firm might sue everyone they can find. [laughter] They do. Well, but you know, like I said, the law and the same with the roads. The law is very clear with t uh title 25116. There is grading. He has to have those roads a certain way. We the residents didn't put in those roads. And roads plus bad grading plus all that equals a problem. So all right. Thank you. Yes, Miss Johnson.

We had turned in complaints even when Laura Valentine owned it. And I would think that Mr. Rang would look at that at the complaints that we had turned into HCD before he bought it so he would know um the problems with the park. All right. Thank you. Final word, Miss Grayson. Anything else? Um well, if you're still interested in examples, as I'm sitting here, I thought of a situation where one of our This better be funny. It's not. I'm very bad at very serious. So yeah, buckle up, folks. Sorry, Miss Grayson.

We get one of our Santa Ana winds come in and blow the roof off the clubhouse. Necessary health and safety. You got to replace the roof. If that were to happen, right? Yes. An example of a necessary health and safety. But if we've got to repair one leak, that's a repair. Ordinary repair and maintenance. The definition of capital improvement excludes by its own language ordinary repairs under the ordinance. Yes. Right. And so all right. Anything else? Um

maybe a more serious example. I'm very serious. What can I say? Uh uh can't think of anything. Right. My other example was the water system failed because of an earthquake. That's even worse. So yeah, I suppose that's why all the modern codes have these rules for the pipes to be flexible and ductile and all that. Used to have what? Lead pipes, steel pipes. Those probably didn't hold up too well. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Shaber. Anything else? No. Anything else on this side?

Okay. I just like to close with, you know, we pay a yearly rent increase. Mr. Wang receives these in monthly rents and receives approximately $1.2 million a year in rents. So, I'm going to exclude that. Uh, he enjoys the tax benefits, the rents. No closing statement. No, that's we're we're done with closing statements. Oh, okay. We're done. Okay. Awesome. I'm going to conclude the hearing. Want to thank the witnesses. Yes.

One question. if you were able and I have not discussed this with Mr. Alpert to get his thoughts. Um the normal process we thought would be for you to take this under submission and we didn't know if you had some idea of timing. So the holidays coming up too. Okay. I do not have an estimate on timing. Uh Miss Grayson if you could tell me Mr. hour if you know and on this side what does the co I was reading the ordinance last night again and I didn't see

normally it's within 75 days of the petition being deemed complete we've gone past that so that's why I wanted to bring it up I have no objection to uh today is this you know if if uh you were able to get a decision out within two weeks I have no objection to that

I'm going to tell you based on my workload and all the lovely people I see at hearings every day, I will not be able to meet that deadline. I can tell you that. Uh and also because of the holidays, um even though I know a lot of folks at these hearings don't consider me to be human, I am human. I have a family. I have neighbors. I have the same problems everyone else has. But I won't be able to do two weeks. I would recommend uh 45 days. That's my preference. Any objection on the city's part? Microphone.

Maybe the battery is running out. No, I I would I would more defer to the park owner because they're the petitioner on this. The thing is that we're past the deadline, but I don't want to force you to do something that you can't do. If we do if you do 45 days, does that give you we have to give a 90-day notice of any rate increase. So my only concern would be would you be okay with 45 and we'll get into So December that would be around January. So even if I did two weeks,

I told everyone else tough luck. Cal Mesa needs me. Forget your cases and I did the two weeks. How does that make a difference whether it's there? I I I thank you for agreeing to Thank you, Mr. Wayne. But I just was wondering of that. Uh but let's do 45 days. Leave it at that. All right. It is time to close it out. And I think you agree on that, right? 45 days from today. All right. Thank you. Make a nice note of that here. Days

today. So I'll leave that to the city folks to advise you. I don't have any part of that. I want to thank everyone for their participation. Everyone have a good day and happy holidays. Yes. Okay. Right.

Yeah. Just so how it would normally work is uh the hearing officer will issue his decision, send it to the city, the city clerk will send it out to the parties and that triggers any time for appeal. Right. So, and that's the the elect other appeal of the city council, I believe. Right. All right. Thank you everyone. Have a good day.