707 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
tel (213) 626-2906
fax (213) 626-0215
www.meyersnave.com
Timothy D. Cremin
[email protected]
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN DIEGO June 7, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND US MAIL
Genesis Crank
Planning & Community Development
Administrator
City of Barstow
220 East Mountain View St., Suite A
Barstow, CA 92311
Email: [email protected]
Re: Closure Report for Midway Mobilehome Park 24644 Main Street, Barstow Dear Ms. Crank:
On behalf of BNSF Railway Company, we submit the attached Closure Report relating to the Application for the closure of the Midway Mobilehome Park submitted on May 30, 2024.
This completes our Application. We request the City schedule the matter for hearing before the City Council on July 1st. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Timothy D. Cremin
Attachment – Mobilehome Park Closure Report
c Andrew Espinoza Jr., Interim City Manager
Matthew Summers, City Attorney
1 MOBILEHOME CLOSURE REPORT
Midway Mobilehome Park located at 24644 Main Street, Barstow, CA Applicant BNSF Railway Company
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Request for MHP Closure and Cessation of Use
3. Summary of Legal Inapplicability of Notice Provisions and City Verification
4. Explanation Of Legal Inapplicability Of Replacement And Relocation Plan For Displaced Mobilehome Owner Residents Located On Property Since There Are No Such Residents Located On Property (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(a))
5. Explanation Of Legal Inapplicability Of Appraisal Of Mobilehomes Owned By Residents Located On The Property Since There Are No Such Residents Located On Property (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(a))
6. Preliminary Information Relating to Statutory Finding (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(e)(1)(B))
7. Preliminary Information On CEQA Exemptions Applicable To MHP Closure 3 1. Introduction
On May 30, 2024, BNSF Railway Company submitted an application for closure of the Midway Mobilehome Park located at 24644 Main Street, Barstow to the City of Barstow (Closure Application) pursuant to Government Code, section 65863.7. In response, the City of Barstow sent a letter to BNSF, dated May 30, 2024, confirming receipt of BNSF’s Closure Application, informing BNSF of State and local regulations concerning the duty to provide notice to affected residents and mobilehome owners of the mobilehome park, pursuant to Government Code, section 65863.8, and determining no notice is required in this situation since no residents or mobilehome owners are presently on site.
This document constitutes BNSF’s formal Closure Impact Report, discussing the impact of the closure and cessation of use of the mobilehome park in accordance with the requirements of Government Code, section 65863.7. This Closure Impact Report, combined with BNSF’s May 30, 2024, Closure Application, satisfies the requirements under State Law for the permanent closure and termination of use of the Midway Mobilehome Park.
2. Request for MHP Closure and Cessation of Use
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) requests the City of Barstow (City) approve the permanent closure and termination of use of the Midway Mobilehome Park located at 24644 Main Street, Barstow (MHP or Property) in accordance with the provisions of Civil Code, section 798.56(g) and Government Code, sections 65863.7 and 65863.8 (collectively, State Law).
BNSF is the owner of the Property. Under State Law, the local jurisdiction in which the MHP is located has jurisdiction over the closure of the MHP. (Govt. Code, § 65863.7.) Since the Property is located within the City, the City has jurisdiction over the closure of the MHP (Closure).
BNSF requests formal Closure of the MHP because BNSF, as a railroad company, does not own, operate, or manage residential properties, mobilehome or otherwise. Moreover, the site was vacant, with no tenants, occupants or mobilehomes at the time BNSF acquired the Property in November 2023, has remained vacant since, and is currently vacant. No operations are being conducted at the site by BNSF, and no proposals to develop the site are currently contemplated. BNSF intends to keep the Property vacant.
The Property is not required, and will not be used, for the Barstow International Gateway Project (BIG) which is currently being processed by the City. The Property is located outside the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan area for BIG and is not needed for any off-site improvements relating to BIG. For these reasons, BNSF is pursuing the proposed Closure separately and independently from BIG.
3. Summary of Legal Inapplicability of Notice Provisions and City Verification State Law requires the City to inform BNSF of State and local notice requirements and to instruct BNSF how to verify that the required notice was provided at least 30 days before the 4 City Council’s consideration of the Closure application. (Government Code, § 65863.8(a).) The City confirmed in its verification letter to BNSF, dated May 30, 2024, that “[n]o local regulations exist regarding mobilehome park closure.” Notice to affected residents and mobilehome owners of the mobilehome park (collectively, Residents) under State Law of the proposed Closure is not required, because there are currently no Residents located on the Property. Only MHP residents who own their mobilehomes are entitled to receive these notices under State Law. (Civ. Code § 798.56(g)(2)(B).) Since there are no mobilehome owners and no residents located on the Property (as described below), these provisions do not apply to the Closure of the MHP located on the Property.
Neither Residents nor mobilehomes are located on the Property. In fact, the Property has been vacant with no Residents or mobilehomes since BNSF acquired it in November 2023.
Since no Residents are or have been located on the Property since at least November 2023, the requirements to provide notice to such residents are legally inapplicable under State Law.
The City confirmed in its May 30, 2024, letter that “no further notice is required under this situation since no residents or mobilehome owners are presently on site.” Based on foregoing facts, BNSF is not required to provide notice of the Closure to Residents under State or local law.
For similar reasons, BNSF is not required to provide a copy of the Closure Report to Residents. Under State law, the applicant must provide the Closure Report “to a resident of each mobilehome in the mobilehome park” at least 60 days before a hearing on the Report. (Govt. Code § 65863.7(b).) As described above, there are no Residents or mobilehomes located on the Property currently and since at least November 2023. Therefore, this requirement is not legally applicable to the Closure.
4. Replacement And Relocation Plan For Displaced Mobilehome Park Residents Under State Law Is Not Legally Applicable (Govt. Code § 65863.7(a)) State Law requires that, “prior to closure of a mobilehome park or cessation of use of the land as a mobilehome park,” BNSF, as the “entity proposing the change in use [,] shall file a report on the impact of the conversion, closure or cessation of use of the mobilehome park.” (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(a)(1).) The Closure Report must include a “replacement and relocation plan that adequately mitigates the impact upon the ability of the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted or closed to find adequate housing in a mobilehome park.” (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(a)(1).) The Replacement and Relocation Plan should analyze and mitigate the impact of the Closure on displaced Residents’ ability to find adequate housing in another mobilehome park (Replacement Housing).
State Law mobilehome eviction protections apply only to Residents who own their mobilehome and rent their base pads. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 798.12 [limiting “tenancy” to Mobilehome Owners]; Civ. Code, § 798.56 [providing acceptable reasons for terminating a “tenancy”]; Sen. Select Com. on Manufactured Home Communities, 2024 California Mobilehome Residency Law Handbook [“The MRL eviction protections and procedures only apply to homeowners who own their own homes and rent their spaces, not to tenants who rent mobilehomes owned by the park….”].) This limitation is reflected in the form of 5 compensation potentially available to displaced residents who cannot obtain Replacement Housing: the in-place market value of the displaced residents’ mobilehomes. (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(a)(2)(A).) Therefore, the Replacement and Relocation Plan requirements only apply to residents located on the Property who own their mobilehome. As described above, since there are no residents who own mobilehomes located on the Property, the Replacement and Relocation Plan requirements do not apply to the Closure.
Even if the Replacement and Relocation Plan requirements under State Law can be interpreted to apply to residents who are renting their mobilehomes on the Property, these requirements similarly do not apply to this Closure because there are no such residents located on the Property. In fact, the Property has been vacant with no Residents or mobilehomes since BNSF acquired it in November 2023. Accordingly, the Replacement and Relocation Plan requirement is inapplicable under these circumstances and BNSF is not required to provide such a Plan for this Closure Report.
5. Appraisal Of Mobilehomes Owned By Residents Located On The Property Is Not Legally Applicable. (Govt. Code § 65863.7(a))
State Law requires the Closure Report to analyze the in-place market value appraisal of each Resident’s mobilehome for displaced Residents unable to find Replacement Housing. (Govt.
Code, § 65863.7(a)(2)). The “in-place market value” appraisal “shall be based upon the current in-place location of the mobilehome and shall assume the continuation of the mobilehome park.” (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(a)(2)(B).)
As discussed above, there are no mobilehomes on the Property currently or since the time BNSF acquired the Property in November 2023. As there are no mobilehomes on the Property, there can be no appraisals based on “the current in-place location of the mobilehome.” As there are no mobilehomes owned by Residents on the Property, the requirement to appraise such mobilehomes is legally inapplicable to this Closure.
6. Preliminary Information Related to Statutory Finding (Govt. Code § 65863.7(e)(1)(B))
State Law requires the Closure Report to analyze the Closure’s impact on low- and moderateincome housing supply. (Govt. Code, § 65863.7(e)(1)(B) [stating that the legislative body reviewing the Closure application shall “tak[e] into consideration both the [Closure Report] as a whole and the overall housing availability within the local jurisdiction” to determine whether approving the Closure and converting the property to its intended new use would “result in or materially contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for lowand moderate-income households within the local jurisdiction.”].) BNSF submits the following information relating to the above finding for the City’s consideration.
As stated above, here, the Property was vacant when acquired by BNSF in November 2023, with no Residents, occupants or mobilehomes on the Property. The Property has remained vacant since and is currently vacant. Thus, the proposed regulatory Closure would not 6 remove any housing opportunities from the local housing supply, as none exist on the Property.
In addition, the Property contains a maximum operating capacity of 15 mobilehomes. The loss of this previous maximum site capacity of 15 housing units – a very small number of housing units - would not “result in or materially contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for low-and moderate-income households” within Barstow given the City’s overall number of housing units, affordable housing units, and housing vacancy rate.
7. Preliminary Information On CEQA Exemptions Applicable To MHP Closure BNSF submits the following information relating to the application of CEQA to the approval of the Closure. BNSF believes that the following exemptions from CEQA apply to the City’s action on the proposed Closure: the Class 1 Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities; the Class 4 Categorical Exemption for Minor Alterations to Land; and the General “Common Sense” Exemption. The main factor supporting the use of any or all of these CEQA exemptions is that the only physical activity and environmental change that will result from the Closure is the removal of the mobilehome pads and accompanying minor grading since the site is currently vacant with no structures and no new use is proposed. In addition, no exceptions to the categorical exemptions apply to the Closure.
Class 1, Section 15301: Existing Facilities:
“Class 1 consists of the … minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of ‘existing facilities’ itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive. The key consideration [when determining whether a project is among the types which might fall within Class 1] is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 [“Guidelines”] § 15301.) Examples of Class 1 exemptions include “[d]emolition and removal of individual small structures” including “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (Guidelines, § 15301(l)(4).)
The City approval of the Closure qualifies for this exemption because the direct impacts would be limited to demolition and removal of the mobilehome base pads. BNSF proposes no new use of the Property, which will be maintained as vacant. Therefore, there will be no expansion of an existing or former use. For these reasons, the Closure Approval qualifies for the Class 1 Categorical Exemption.
Class 4, Section 15304: Minor Alterations to Land:
“Class 4 consists of minor …private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees…. Examples include but are not limited to:
7 (a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal, state, or local government action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard such as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone, as delineated by the State Geologist…. (f) Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored.” (Guidelines, § 15304.)
As discussed above, the Closure will result in the demolition of the remaining mobilehome base pads and limited accompanying grading which constitutes “a minor alteration of land.” No trees would be removed as part of the base pad demolition. To the extent minor grading would occur, the grading would take place on the Property, which has a slope of less than 10 percent, and is not within the special hazard areas enumerated in section 15304(a). Similarly, to the extent trenching or backfilling would be required to restore the surface after removing the pads, such work would be minor pursuant to section 15304(f). For these reasons, the Closure Approval qualifies for the Class 4 Categorical Exemption.
General “Common Sense” Exemption
A project is exempt from CEQA under the general exemption if:
“(3) The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” (Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).)
The “project” here is limited to approval of the Closure of an already vacant MHP.
Environmental impacts of the Closure would be limited to minor grading or demolition of mobilehome pads, which will result in no reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect impacts on the environment, as discussed above. BNSF will maintain the Property as vacant and no use is proposed. Thus, the proposed Closure Approval is exempt from CEQA review because “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Id.)
No Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Apply
Under CEQA, there are certain exceptions to categorical exemptions. A project is not categorically exempt if the project would: (a) be located in a particularly sensitive environment (under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11); (b) have a significant cumulative impact; (c) have a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances; (d) result in damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway; (e) be located on a listed hazardous waste site; or (f) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (Guidelines, § 15300.2.)
8 There is no substantial evidence indicating that any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions apply to the Closure. The Property is not located in a particularly sensitive environment, does not constitute a scenic resource within a state scenic highway as defined under State law, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not a significant historical resource.
The cumulative impact of successive mobilehome park closures in the same place over time would not be environmentally significant because there are a limited number of mobilehome parks located in the City. Moreover, none of these other parks are affected by this Closure, which would not lead to other closures. No unusual circumstances give rise to a reasonable possibility that the Closure would have a significant environmental effect given the vacant condition and characteristics of the Property. Thus, no exceptions to the categorical CEQA exemptions apply.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the City approval of the proposed Closure qualifies as exempt from CEQA under the following classes of categorical exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code, section 21084: Class 1, Existing Facilities; and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land. The Closure also qualifies as exempt under the general commonsense exemption, pursuant to Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).
Accordingly, BNSF believes that the law and facts support a City finding that the approval of the MHP Closure is exempt from CEQA.
5738700.2