The City Council approved the Jissers' relocation-assistance plan in May 2015. It included payments to residents for the on-site value of their mobile homes and reviews by an independent appraiser within six months of a tenant's eviction.

"As is readily apparent, the evidence upon which the relocation assistance is to be based, i.e., the updated appraisals and market survey, does not even exist. Thus, the City Council approved the closure of the park relying on the mitigation measures which are based on appraisals that have not been conducted, a market survey that has not been performed, actual moving costs that are unknown, and assistance for disabled and handicapped residents that is unspecified," the court wrote.

The 19-page judgment effectively stops the clock on any evictions from the property -- a stinging setback for the owners, the Jisser family, who have been trying to close the park since November 2012.

The decision by Judge Brian Walsh found the city did not have sufficient evidence to support its finding that the relocation assistance offered by the park's owners is adequate to prevent adverse effects on the park's 400 residents.

The Jissers then presented an amended plan during the hearing. They stated that because the appraisals were old and only a partial rent subsidy was being offered, they would have their appraisers perform new evaluation six months prior to relocating any resident, among other concessions. Labadie approved the park closure with those concessions, but the Buena Vista residents appealed the decision to the Palo Alto City Council.

He also stated that residents moving to an apartment would not find one in the Bay Area for the same amount of rent they paid to live in the park, the court noted.

But during a May 2014 hearing front of the city's hand-picked hearing officer, Craig Labadie, to determine if the plan was adequate, the Jissers' relocation consultant David Richman stated that on average the proposed package was not enough for residents to purchase new mobile homes within 35 miles of the park without additional financing in the range of $20,000 to $50,000 per household.

Residents who could not move their mobile homes would be paid the fair-market appraised value of their homes, estimated at between $5,500 and $45,000, along with other costs. Partial rent subsidies ranged from $3,300 to $30,600, depending on if the residents moved to another mobile home in another park or into an apartment.

The Jissers originally agreed to pay relocation costs for residents to move within 35 miles of the park, an estimated cost of $4,870 and $5,250 per household; a rent subsidy of $3,500 to $5,300 per household; and the costs of moving personal property and a two-night hotel stay, among other reimbursements.

The city did not show that these updated costs were reasonable and appropriately reflected the Palo Alto location of the assessed units and market conditions, the judge noted.

"In fact, the City Council abdicated its duty to make such a determination by delegating its purview to the hearing officer (Labadie) and Richman to make determinations at some future point in time," the judge noted.

On Wednesday, Walsh issued a stinging rebuke of the city's decision, noting the city did not have any evidence showing the amount of relocation assistance that would actually be provided or that the measures were adequate and would not negatively affect the residents.

The council approved Labadie's determination with modifications: the updated appraisals for each home were to be completed no more than six months before the expiration of the notice of tenancy termination; the updated appraisals would be prepared according to the 2013 methods used by the appraiser; and an independent appraiser would review the new packages to ensure they are adequate and reasonable.

The Jissers, as real parties of interest in the case, also have the right to appeal the judge's ruling, Stump added. The Jissers' attorney, Margaret Nanda, could not immediately be reached.

Although the council approved $14.5 million toward purchasing the park and has expressed support for the Housing Authority purchase, "The city's interest is in providing a fair process and outcome for everyone," she said.

If the city doesn't file an appeal, the council would have to go through the process of approving the plan again with hard numbers, she said.

Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump said her department would consult with the City Council regarding an appeal as an option when it reconvenes in January.

The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara's board of directors voted unanimously in closed session on Dec. 20 to negotiate purchasing the mobile-home park with the Jissers. If the Jissers agree, the Housing Authority would use county and city funds -- as much as $29 million -- to purchase the park. The county authority would own the park, and a separate nonprofit would improve and operate the site.

"The residents have been given hope this holiday season that their park will be saved, especially with the Housing Authority's decision yesterday," she said.

The city and the Jissers' attorneys had argued that council members only needed to know the "categories" of relocation assistance when they approved the plan, a notion the judge firmly rejected.

Court rejects approval of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park closure

Palo Alto mobile home park's relocation package based on inadequate information, judge rules