13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Legislation has been introduced on several occasions to clarify this ambiguity, but none has been signed into law. Therefore the ambiguity remains. Of those who responded to the survey, a bare majority (52 percent) were in favor of the conversion. Accordingly, staff concludes that there was majority support for the conversion and recommends that this finding be made. The property owner shall file a report on the economic impact of conversion upon the residents and shall make a copy of the report available to each resident at least 15 days prior to the hearing. In converting the Park to resident ownership, Section 66427.5 requires the property owner to avoid the economic displacement of all non purchasing residents. This is accomplished in a number of different ways: offering each resident the option to purchase his /her lot (i.e., condominium unit) or continuing residency as a renter; and as to non purchasing residents, complying with State law as to how rents are to be calculated, depending on the income level of the resident household. Here, the property owner has sent out to each resident a Tenant Impact Report, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit F. That Report (the terms of which were negotiated with City staff) provides that the sales of the lots /units will not occur for at least 10 years, that the terms of the Rent Stabilization Agreement will remain in effect, that no one will be evicted upon conversion (10 years hence), that residents will have the option to purchase their lot /unit; and that rents, after conversion, will be in accordance with state law. Staff therefore recommends that this finding can also be made. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING On December 17, 2008, staff sent notification to the residents within the park informing them of a neighborhood meeting to be held on January 8, 2009 at the Park's club house, hosted by City staff and the property owner's representative. The intent of this meeting was to address questions /comments the residents may have had regarding the proposed conversion. Approximately 80 residents attended the meeting. The primary concern raised by the residents was what the cost of the lots would be. Those living within the park are 55 or older, and many are on fixed incomes. They expressed concern that they may not be able or be interested in purchasing their lots, especially if it would be necessary to borrow money to purchase the lot. The residents requested that the property owner provide the residents with what the purchase price would be if the conversion were to take effect "today." Coincidentally, when this application was being processed by the City, staff made a similar request of the property owner, even though staff recognized that the lots would not sell for at least ten years in the future; staff nevertheless felt it was information that the residents should have at this time. PMCC -2, Vineyard Villa Mobile Home Park Planning Commission Page 5 of 6