My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
081809
>
13 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2010 2:02:26 PM
Creation date
8/13/2009 4:33:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/18/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 3 <br /> Memo to Chair and Members of the Planning Commission <br /> February 19, 2009 <br /> happens to the rent in Park that is converted upon the sale of the lots (see discussion below), the Park <br /> Owner has also agreed to abide by the terms of any Rent Stabilization Agreement in effect when he <br /> begins selling the lots. (Of course it is not certain that there will be such an agreement as the current <br /> Agreement expires December 31, 2017.) <br /> Discussion <br /> State Subdivision Man Act <br /> Under the State Subdivision Map Act, conversion of rental mobile home parks to residential ownership <br /> is governed by Government Code, Section 66427.5, copy attached. Residents who wish to purchase <br /> their lots /spaces have the right to do so, assuming that they can afford to do so. For residents who <br /> choose not to purchase and are lower income households, their rents may be raised, but they are limited <br /> to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years preceding the conversion. (For example, if the <br /> rents, in the four years prior to conversion, had increased a total of $48, the rental increase would be <br /> $12.) For residents who do not choose to purchase and who do not qualify as lower income households <br /> (and some, especially those who have more recently moved into the Park, will not so qualify), the <br /> preconversion rent may be increased to "market levels in equal annual increases over a four year <br /> period (i.e., 20% each year). The Park owner, not the City, establishes "market level" rent. <br /> Litigation Over the Scope of Section 66427.5 <br /> On its face, Section 66427.5 appears to limit significantly a local agency's discretion to condition <br /> approval of the conversion to matters set forth in that section: "The [applicant] shall be subject to a <br /> hearing... The scope of this hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." <br /> The scope of this provision was litigated in the early 2000's. A park owner in Palm Springs sought to <br /> convert a mobile home park to residential ownership. Many of the park residents were opposed to the <br /> conversion, in part because they had concerns about what the price for the lots would be and also, as <br /> indicated above, what the rents would be for those persons who did not qualify as a lower income <br /> households. The City eventually approved the application but with a number of conditions. (For <br /> example, one of the conditions Palm Springs imposed on the approval was the use of a sales price <br /> established by a City approved appraiser; another condition required the developer to provide financial <br /> assistance to residents who wanted to purchase their lots.) <br /> The park owner, represented by the same firm that represents the Vineyard Villa Park owner, filed suit, <br /> contending that Palm Springs had no power to impose additional conditions. The appellate court felt <br /> compelled to agree because of the express language of the statute cited above. Said the court, <br /> "Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight, and although it might be desirable <br /> for the Legislature to broaden the City's authority, it has not done so." <br /> One of the arguments that Palm Springs made in the litigation was that the purpose of Section 66427.5 <br /> was to allow conversions only when a majority of the residents were in favor of the conversion and that <br /> the statute did not allow sham conversions. That argument did not fly with the court because of the lack <br /> of any statutory language (at that time) to indicate that the residents had to support the conversion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.