CCMIN050509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Thorne questioned how renters would be represented on the homeowners association. Mr. Roush said, assuming the application is approved and ten years in the future the lots are sold, prior to their sale, the owner must go through a State Department of Real Estate process. As part of this process, the State performs an inspection of the premises and establishes what the reserves must be and what improvements need to be done prior to the lots being sold. As part of disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser, that person would have to be informed as to what homeowner association dues would be monthly, which would go toward maintaining infrastructure and other common area expenses. He said for a homeowners association, only owners would be on the Board. He did not believe tenants typically would have a voice on such a board. Councilmember Thorne noted that the applicant seems like he wants to have the application approved quickly and he questioned the reason. Mr. Roush assumed that the applicant would like to process this under the existing State laws which appear to favor the park owner. If there are changes in State law that might make it more difficult for the park owner to convert, and that might be a reason for getting it done sooner rather than later. Councilmember Thorne asked for an explanation of AB 566 and changes made to it. Mr. Roush noted that AB 566 is pending legislation in the State Assembly. It amends Section 66427.5 and in its current form it provides that the subdivider has obtain a survey demonstrating support of a majority of residents of the mobile home park for the proposed conversion, unlike the current law. Councilmember Thorne questioned if residents knew what they were voting for when the survey was sent out. Mr. Roush said there was information provided to residents by the park owner prior to the survey being distributed, and there was an all-park meeting of residents at which time information was distributed, but it is difficult to know how much information was fully understood. However, there were efforts made to inform residents about the conversion prior to the survey being sent. Councilmember Sullivan noted that the survey was sent out early March 2008 and they were received the end of March/first part of April 2008. Councilmember Sullivan also confirmed that the Tenant Impact Report was issued in January 2009 and after the survey was already taken. He questioned whether there was anything in the law that states the Report must be issued before the survey is taken so that people fully understand the impacts of the vote. Mr. Roush said the law is ambiguous regarding timing of the report and survey; it suggests the survey is to be submitted at the time the Tentative Map is submitted to the city. The Tenant Impact Report is to be provided prior to the hearing when the matter is considered by the City, so depending upon the timing, there could be considerable time in-between. Councilmember Sullivan questioned whether any additional information was provided by the applicant about impacts. Mr. Roush said he was aware letters had been sent to residents prior to the survey, but there were no minutes of the meeting. He did not see the letters, but he attended one of the meetings held prior to the survey being sent out. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 17 May 5, 2009