Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-04-08 HC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
S POSTED AGENDA HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE APRIL 8, 1998 3:30 P.M. NORTH WING CONFERENCE ROOM DECLARATION OF POSTING I,Diana Leal, Senior Office Assistant of the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency,do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Housing Advisory Committee meeting of Wednesday, April 8, 1998was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to the Council Chambers, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on April 1, 1998. Dated: April 1, 1998 • i a eal, enior Office Assistant Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Bernard"Ben"Kurtz Roger Dash it FROM: DIANA LEAL, SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT �a 4' SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Housing Advisory Committee will be held on Wednesday, April 8, 1998 at 3:30 p.m. in the North Wing Conference Room. Enclosed is the agenda. Please call me at 776-6349 and let me know whether or not you will be able to attend the meeting because we need a quorum in order to conduct business. • Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. P.S. A Redevelopment Agency information packet has been prepared for you. It is available for you to pick up. If you are unable to pick up your packet, it will be given to you at the April 8, 1998 meeting. PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: DIANA LEAL, SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTAN SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Housing Advisory Committee will be held on Wednesday,April 8, 1998 at 3:30 p.m. in the North Wing Conference Room. Enclosed is the agenda. Please call me at 776-6349 and let me know whether or not you will be able to attend the meeting because we need a quorum in order to conduct business. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. • • PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Leonard Wolk, President- REASCO FROM: DIANA LEAL, SENIOR OFFICE AS ir. •NT SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING You are cordially invited to attend a meeting of the Housing Advisory Committee which will be held on Wednesday,April 8, 1998 at 3:30 p.m. in the North Wing Conference Room. Enclosed is the agenda. Your attendance is greatly appreciated. • • ® POSTED AGENDA HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE APRIL 8, 1998, 3:30 P.M. North Wing Conference Room * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Committee at this point by giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Committee. B. This is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on nonhearing Agenda items. It should be noted that at Committee discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the Agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Committee. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING'S MINUTES - March 11, 1998 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Stipulation for Entry for Judgment Analysis - Guest: Leonard Wolk, President, Real Estate Analysis Services Company (REASCO) B. "Make a Difference Day" Event - May 9, 1998 V. CONTINUED BUSINESS (ORAL REPORTS) A. Mobile Home Park Issues 1. Portola Palms Mobilehome Park Update 2. Mobile Home Park Conversion - Proposed Ordinance B. Home Improvement Program C. Housing Authority Properties One Quail Place - Suggestions for name change D. Santa Rosa Apartments Rehabilitation Update VI. REPORTS (VERBAL) A. Desert Rose Update B. Housing Projects Update VII. ADJOURNMENT PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 1998 TO: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS/CITY CLERK FROM: DIANA LEAL, SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT— SUBJECT: HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (HAC) MINUTES Attached is a copy of the minutes for: ♦ Housing Advisory Committee Meeting of April 8, 1998 approved on May 13, 1998. Please submit to the Agency Board. Thank you. 110, cc: Carlos Ortega 1 i I i } -"-:r ...., ' 41 ,a4) a Minutes "'WS? SkOrb. %'1:4'•°' �y .�.;.� 011313 a AD' s0) Ir OO 'r%WEI CONVENE 3:34 p.m., Wednesday, April 8, 1998 ROLL CALL Members Present: G.A. Holmes, William Winfield, Bernard "Ben" Kurtz Members Absent: Roger Dash (Excused), Jean Benson (Excused), Carrie Wick (Excused) Others Present: Carlos Ortega, Teresa La Rocca, Bryce White, Charlene Sumpter, Diana Leal Guest(s): Leonard Wolk, President of REASCO ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of Bryce White, Rehabilitation Construction Specialist. W. Winfield inquired if a letter of congratulations was forwarded to Congresswoman Bono. MINUTES It was moved by G.A. Holmes and seconded by W. Winfield to approve 'NMI the minutes of the March 11, 1998. Motion was carried to approve the minutes. NEW BUSINESS A. STIPULATION FOR ENTRY FOR JUDGMENT ANALYSIS Mr. Leonard Wolk, President of Real Estate Analysis Services Company (REASCO) explained his analysis of the Amended Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Analysis. Concluding that an additional 160 units need to be produced as soon as possible; 54 units produced by January 1, 2001; 52 units produced by January 1, 2002; and 30 units produced by January 1, 2006. All available to very low and low income households. B. "MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY" EVENT - MAY 9, 1998 An update of the planned "Make a Difference Day" May 9, 1998 event was given by both Charlene Sumpter, Rehabilitation Specialist and Bryce White, Rehabilitation Construction Specialist. They stated that 150-200 volunteers, food, T-shirts, materials and skilled labor will be provided by the Marriott's Desert Springs Resort and Home Depot for the event. They are making an all-out effort to invite volunteers from the community and local organizations to participate in the spruce-up of the homes located along Catalina Way, west of San Anselmo. News media will be invited. �, Possible radio station remote will be broadcasting live from the site. 1 Minutes An r . 3 , 1993 nO TTSZ J O AIDVISOliar• CONTINUED ITEMS A. MOBILE HOME PARK ISSUES (CONTD) 1. PORTOLA PALMS MOBILE HOME PARK - UPDATE Staff has been working with a local appraiser and is in the process of obtaining a valuation appraisal for the 37 spaces. 2. MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION - PROPOSED ORDINANCE Staff has forwarded to Council, for review at their meeting of April 9, 1998, a request for direction to proceed with the preparation of an ordinance pertaining to the conversion of mobile home parks similar to one adopted by the City of Westminster. Note: Council continued this item. B. HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Bryce White indicated that literature explaining the program was being distributed at the local schools and various organization to inform the residents that the program is available. 7 homes are in process and contracts are ready to be released for 2 homes. Yard signs have been posted in the front yard of the participant homes. C. HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTIES RPM Company, Property Management is in the process of making needed improvements to each of the seven properties and evaluating the extent of deferred maintenance necessary. 1 . ONE QUAIL PLACE-SUGGESTIONS FOR NAME CHANGE Suggestions given: a. Babbling Brook Apts. b. Waring Palm Apts. c. Willow Bend Apts. d. Center Lane Apts. e. Desert Swan Apts. isw Minutes Apr. 3, 1998 CONTINUED ITEMS D. SANTA ROSA APARTMENTS REHABILITATION - UPDATE (CONTD) Renovation has begun. One building was completely demolished at a cost savings. Staff is working with Eric Johnson relative to the landscape which will incorporate desert-type low maintenance plants. It is anticipated that the rehabilitation work will take approximately six months to complete. REPORTS A. DESERT ROSE UPDATE Desert Rose is sold out! 144 units closed escrow 17 units in escrow. B. HOUSING PROJECTS UPDATE The committee was provided with a verbal update status report. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by G. A. Holmes and seconded by B. Kurtz to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. `, (vim Carlos L. Ortega Secretary TLR:dcl L 3 REASCO REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS SERVICES COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 2809, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE: (619) 340-1429; FAX: (619) 340-2041 March 11, 1998 Ms Terre La Rocca /`ix Housing Programs Coordinator 6')/-‘ CITY OF PALM DESERT 12/7 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 ` c REFERENCE: City of Palm Desert Affordable Housing Program SUBJECT: Recap Of Affordable Housing Units to Provide Pur The Original And Amended Stipulations Dear Ms La Rocca, The attached report is an analysis of the number and income level categories of try. ig units (rented and owned) remaining to be provided by the Palm Desert Housing Authority ("PDHA") purse, iriginal Stipulation of June, 1990 overlaid by the Amended Stipulation of June, 1997. The Housing Authority of Riverside County, the previous owner and operator of 725 of the rental units (now owned by PDHA), has supplied the most recent data (as of January 27, 1998) about the number and income level categories of the units which are available and occupied. My analysis utilized that data to determine the number and income level categories of the units remaining to be provided, but since the data is not current, in order to accurately decide how many units of each income level category remain to be provided, we must have more recent data of the following kind:. 1. How many units in the very low, low, moderate and unrestricted (market) income level categories are currently availabe for rental or ownership? 2.Of the available units in 1. how many are occupied? 3. Do the incomes of the tenants and owners match the required income levels of the units they are occupying? Subject to the availability of the current data, the following table describes the schedule and income level categories for the units required to be provided pursuant to the Original Stipulation overlaid by the Amended Stipulation: UNRESTR— VERY LOW LOW MODERATE —ICTED TOTAL 1.To provide immediately if the occupancy rate of either the very low and low rental or ownership units is greater than 90% 100 60 0 0 160 2.To provide by January 1, 2002 366 367 0 0 733 3.To provide by January 1,2006: (20%of the remaining 367 moderate units) 74 0 0 0 74 4.Totals 540 427 0 0 967 5. In addition, the following mobilehome spaces or units must be provided 21 78 0 156 255 6 Grand totals 561 505 0 156 1,222 Yours truly, Leonard R.Wolk, President Real Estate Analysis Services Company (REASCO) "LTR TL2724 11—Mar-98 03:14 PM REASCO REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS SERVICES COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 2809, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE: (619) 340-1429; FAX: (619)'wow - page 1 of 4 - March 11, 1998 Ms Terre La Rocca Housing Programs Coordinator CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 REFERENCE: City of Palm Desert Affordable Housing Program SUBJECT: Recap Of Affordable Housing Units to Provide Pursuant To The Original And Amended Stipulations Dear Ms La Rocca, At your request, I have prepared this report which decribes the number and income level of affordable housing units which the Agency is required to provide pursuant to the Original Stipulation overlayed by the Amended Stipulation. I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL STIPULATION: In June of 1990, a judgement of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside stipulated that the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency shall develop, rehabilitate or acquire, or cause to be developed, rehabilitated or acquired, within the City of Palm Desert, housing units in the amounts and during the times specified in the stipulation. These housing units are to be made available to, and occupied by households with income levels, as in the following paragraphs: A. PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 1.a: Before December 31, 1995, not less than the following units shall be developed or acquired: VERY LOW LOW MODERATE UNRE- INCOME INCOME INCOME -STRICTED TOTALS 1. Number of units to provide 366 367 367 n/a 1,1 00 B. PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 1.b: Agency shall commence development of additional housing units within 120 days after the average occupancy rate on the very low and low income units in item a. (above) is at least 90% in any calendar month, and Agency shall maintain this average occupancy rate for these additional units: VERY LOW LOW MODERATE UNRE- INCOME INCOME INCOME -STRICTED TOTALS 1. Number of units to provide 100 60 n/a n/a 160 C. PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 1.c: In addition to the housing units in a. & b. above, before December 31, 1992, not less than 255 existing housing units shall be acquired, to include • up to 191 mobilehome spaces and the remainder shall be housing units, at the following income levels: VERY LOW LOW MODERATE UNRE- INCOME INCOME INCOME -STRICTED TOTALS 1. Number of housing units or spaces to provide 21 78 n/a 156 255 D. Total number of housing units or spaces to provide pursuant to PARAGRAPHS 1.a, 1.b and 1.c above: VERY LOW LOW MODERATE UNRE- INCOME INCOME INCOME -STRICTED TOTALS 1. Number of housing units or spaces to provide 487 505 367 156 1,515 "LTR TL2"/21 11—Mar-98 02:58 PM REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS SERVICES COMPANY - page 2 of 4 - March 11, 1998 TO: Ms Terre La Rocca FROM: Leonard R.Wolk REFERENCE: City of Palm Desert Affordable Housing Program SUBJECT: Recap Of Affordable Housing Units to Provide Pursuant To The Original And Amended Stipulations H. NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THE ORIGINAL STIPULATION: The following is a summary of the affordable housing units provided(available and occupied)utilizing the latest available data provided by the Housing Authority of Riverside County(as of January 27,1998)details are on page 4: VERY LOW INCOME LOW INCOME MODERATE INCOME UNRESTRICTED INCOME 35%.►45%OF MEDIAN 55%r 75%OF MEDIAN UP TO 120%OF MEDIAN > 120%OF MEDIAN TOTAL UNITS AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 A.THE ORIGINAL STIPULATION: 1.Requirement in Paragraph 1.a 366 366 367 367 367 367 0 0 1,100 1,100 a.Rental units provided 196 296 210 139 186 103 153 115 745 653 b.Ownership units provided 45 25 96 92 32 47 0 0 173 164 c.Total units provided 241 321 306 231 218 150 153 115 918 817 a.Difference between units provided and those required by the Original Stipulation 125 45 61 136 149 217 -153 -115 182 283 VERY LOW LOW MODERATED TOTAL G.Remainder units to provide 45 61 149 255 2.Occupancy rate of very low and low income units pursuant to Paragraph 1.a.: a.Rental units 107.14% b.Ownership units 82.98% c.Rental units&ownership units combined 100.91% VERY LOW LOW MODERATE' TOTAL a.Additional units to provide pursuant to Paragraph 1.b. 100 60 n/a 160 3.Remainder units to provide pursuant to Par.1.a and 1.b. 145 121 149 415 4.Pursuant to Paragraph 1.c.,the following mobilehome spaces or housing units must be provided: VERY LOW INCOME LOW INCOME MODERATE INCOME UNRESTRICTED INCOME 35%r 45%OF MEDIAN 55%*75%OF MEDIAN UP TO 120%OF MEDIAN >120%OF MEDIAN TOTAL UNITS AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 UNITS 31-Jul-97 a.Units or spaces to provide 21 21 78 78 0 0 156 156 255 255 b.Units or spaces provided 34 34 53 33 2 2 52 52 141 121 c.Difference -13 -13 25 45 -2 -2 104 104II 114 134 UNRESTR- VERY LOW LOW MODERATE -ICTED TOTAL a.Remainder units or spaces to provide 0 25 0 104 129 'LTR TL7/22 11-Mar-98 02:58 PM REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS SERVICES COMPANY — page 3 of 4 — March 11, 1998 TO: Ms Terre La Rocca FROM: Leonard R. Wolk REFERENCE: City of Palm Desert Affordable Housing Program SUBJECT: Recap Of Affordable Housing Units to Provide Pursuant To The Original And Amended Stipulations III. PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDED STIPULATION: On June 16, 1997'the Original Stipulation was amended, and the following provisions pertaining to the number and income level category of affordable housing units and the schedule for providing them were stipulated: A. PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 6: Paragraph 1.a. of the Original Stipulation was amended, as follows: Agency was given until January 1, 2002 to provide 366 very low income housing units and 367 low income units. The parties agreed that as of the date of the amended stipulation, the Agency had provided some of the required units. It was stipulated that Agency shall provide one—half of the remaining very low and low income units by January 1, 2001, and the remaining one—half by January 1, 2002. 1.The parties also agreed that as of the date of the amended stipulation, Agency had provided some of the required 367 low or moderate income units. It was stipulated that Agency shall provide 20%of the remaining moderate units as very low income units by January 1, 2006 in lieu of the original requirement for 367 moderate income units. B. PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4: Paragraph 1.b. of the Original Stipulation was amended, as follows: Within 120 days after the average occupancy rate of either the very low and low income rental units or the very low and low ownership units is 90% or more during any calendar month, an additional 100 very low income units and an additional 60 low income units shall be provided. On January 27, 1998 the average occupancy rate of the very low and low rental units was•r•►.►.oj 107.14% therefore Agency must provide the additional units. C. The following chart describes Agency's required schedule to provide the remaining affordable housing units: NOTE 1: This chart utilizes the data provided by the VERY LOW LOW Housing Authority for availability and occupancy of units. 35% 45% 55%mk 75% TOTAL OF MEDIAN OF MEDIAN UNITS 1.To be immediately provided from III.B.above 100 60 160 2. Remainder from II.A.1.e on page 2fnote 1 45 61 106 3.One half to be provided by January 1, 2001 23 31 54 4.Total to be provided by January 1,2001 123 91 214 5.Other half of remainder to be provided by January 1, 2002 22 30 52 6.Total to be provided by January 1,2002 145 121 266 7.To be provided by January 1, 2006 from III.A.1. note 1 30 0 30 8.Total to be provided by January 1, 2006 175 121 I 296 9.Paragraph 7 of the Amended Stipulation states that none of the provisions of the Original Stipulation is waived or modified by the Amended Stipulation, other than those explicitly addressed in the Amended Stipulation. Therefore, pursuant to II.A.4.d on page 2, the following additional mobilehome spaces and housing units must be provided: UNRESTR- VERY LOW LOW MODERATE -ICTEDi' TOTAL a. Additional units or spaces t to provide 0 25 0 10411 129 You s truly, L n rd R.Wol ,President Real Estate Analysis Services Company(REASCO) 'LTR TL2'/23 11—Mar-98 02:58 PM I * * * e * * * e * o * * o * * a aZ 0) N O CO O CO (O a) O If) O O N co 1 O V O O N O Cr) O O) O (0 st O O c0 I� 41 r_ N O (n a) V ai a) O) (() N 7 O O (n O co .�. sr W Z d O) co )� W D1 O) O) CO CO 0) O O CO O co p a) C ' r as > 0 O_ O W R W CO CON- N r a) N r r o O I a 7 CO co U 1.0 a) O COIO ICIr r co N co 07 O co ro W H O O m Ei z i = D U J Q Yu. y Sr CO O N In O CO �o �"� H H CO CO N r I` N N CO .- co r O p V p m Z co a) o a Q Z ~ S = r H <• c7 W < • Q Er F' ~ 0 w c co O u) 0 0 0 0 0 )n O to a O O O N N N IA Z• W Z W Cr) r r r 0 in in O co t0 W = I in Oci r J D U Z o o ? h. o COCO J W' W LL N > p J 2 o m CO 1 o � o 0 0 0 0 c o o 0 0 in u) 0 < W W N CC 2 co t4 S = r r r N 0) CC W Z D < CO co o 00 IN IN 0 0 0 O a) c') O 0) c N O O N O) oe N N W W Y. r r Z W 0N r O O coTr N N 0, O < C co 0 cc -I < U 2 o I O (o � Z• a I- W O a < LL1 < V wW y N N- O O O In sf cO O (0 N O O N Tr o = < aJ I-W N N- In N COCOa) CO N 2 N co Z N r 0 c O - Q alO 2 S• < CC O W a W — co c co co N. co (n O o o) O rn N o o CO (n 0 Q 1 Z Wd o) N CO 0) CO a) O) O) co a O co co O m D W C U ' CO0 c6 co rs d CO • O 0 m Z p a • Z = 0 N (- co O O l() O st 0 CO O O 0) 0) 0) W Q O 3 n -I F N IN r N N 0) r 0) Li) v m N m2 LL OJ • S 0) N W 0 a4 < Zco W 2 H < n 0 m .. O 2 2 c co co N o v o (n U r co aR ae ") Tr Z -ID Z W Of a) co rn In rn C rn r r r 0 (°)n aR tit ae dZ < F. C N O N 0 (O I0 CO 0 O O (p O O W ' < r 0 0) n OLi. U 3 v I r 0 CO N O) = O Z W O N W ~ 3 * N J — O v. (n o n co co o co v o (o (o co r r v 0) I) m U J ♦� F N h (f) N O) 0) a) •- co N- >, 3 N ■ • Wcll Z co CC = W * < ' I 7 �' 0 O) N ; H > n y p O p O Z " < a 4 111, *5 co O P. 00 (0 3 >* co 3 U. V d (C '2 O O L V _a Ll co = O 0 c c � u) (`a a c m fa .2. U o 3 'o — c (7 �o o °c' ' v°1, E °1 m ° 11 10i > cc y O d O N y 0 c 0 Z p cc E C a .2 .2 H o co «+ .. N o y L •� O G1 r C C C L r_�• d (U� (V(�� ap+ 7 7 O '� O) N /G 3 /G 7 L (0 d 6. d cn t .61 O O UU U Z C .+ O Z H a O (n «+ fn O N N (C p O C O Vp co c a • • • • • • • • 0 • I- ae ae x o U) 2 a o H ZR * 2 O ? Q b A U 0 m W al nj b M O O r N M d (n (O ): 0 ae ae Cl) Q m 0 0 LLI d c,:.:› 2 l - ,• z Or Ali . , w slaiEEEil i.1 ts.z ru ��- w A t. , :",r.....,00,„, 4_7 t o t1/4 •yam, Nyumw - s . _. . ___._ _ ___ .._. _ ____ ______ _. ___ _ .__ _______ _ • z1£9-I4£(09Z).z3 II90-94£(00 09VC6 VD'za oQ tuled "Fa$uuvm pz3 OIS£L uoiewc SOH lauaPv luaurdoiaeapaa 1iasaU turd g e.. DEW, OzOa � � Qv �P � H _ tt Z. aP O ] � S go � W WV O ale � a 0 0 > A CY mil tr.:1 E., 74 kl ° 0. tea ; a ¢ a ¢ Fz O 0C) � c) z ° g a O w WI 9 ° oR8o ° io5 ^A ° a AAo pow Qn o w � 03 � � on El z 4 N d a' � ; g a 0 o f.WQ ova w x 4 3 �+ ► • 0 . . ♦ ♦ CbpCn C7 •tiHsZ ♦ M ►d *i 4 � k It 4 xoa toH " C a ° 4a o � g gy p ° CCU y z H ° O a r ! k 4 F. d Opo H y y �yz � rij C) o ° › Ty G '4 .. 0 T' O gn � ° � Ti , Gpq 00 v HM o � � o z dH, g � a � y OZ 0 i CD ?dg ..i i5 9, z 0 FF mi x ° %� C70c� xn ,-, C yr.i b 08 tTi b , dr O y > ooy 0 0 c � a n g M g re; g ti- lil „ 7� d � a � y o � o � rgrong2 gy r t: z ' C z *i til zyae zp � o � � y0 "� C1H z0 � '� id oorri .-3 0 i 8 R - a � n LT, d y C) ►G � H gr_thOfnv� rriaKr 1 y rn C 05 Eg0, C) p :4 x z zAExEc) s1, � v Oxa4ttcyo ° cA o ° oc000vx O g g i Pjj TTn � _< ° � � c xH y Oo O O � z *< < G � p C az 0-3 2 m � rnQ zn aoxz � C � bOH i ` 4 tTi X ril "il ...3n ,T ° QzH zm.- x rxp4 r" d zZ3co 6 d «d r7 p O ,. � T � ri OOp .,� ppC CH x � � 0 Q on rri zoo p . ° o ampg ,O Hoz - .< � 4 ©o z � o n -,, ~ >. z 5 ° an ,.ttz •may �, a � 0 �C � . . 8 2 cit nn 1 � � A 8 i c)rrI 6cm y � Pptri H V r... '< Hr 4� SiC lEI "" ,a.3c , i 0 = to o HCO � a O z o � O 53rd :hC770Hcn ►C --3 ' 1O ;�77o �nHrG •21 0 .-‹ w 52 L- r" �' t�i H _ Cv� v) t"' ° tmrz � Xz0H Z >y r Oa00 x a "‹ i Z5 "< wl t1 - z,. 4rt; P ".,, 7t C: -i cir, ?" �' cri '11CV pnc� c ° o an O qito z ° mi n0z0 a p2x c) 00 C4 Q Crr?-' mla � �.. rm at, 00o �T xrm y _ � HnrY CV � �--� �^± < a tiJ v r E. 4 rPo tl0 zyz � r0 2 0 Hb � - a Om, ). pH •. V' r rVI H it .� � 'J "'h ,� a � . � o � dp 0 3 rri * ozg d � m ca o " oHO o � oH 0d � Y1 Q-• � oo.!._ R � � o O y � p� so o � rn •-a 4. _ 4. H ° s p 8 ..- m r oz4 ? o rrs"a8pz ' z � o2 Or o ° � ° oO0z A E2 4 ° � `� n M H a o m° � o � yo Rzo �, CC Hz � gya o 1A1\ A DIFFERENCE NI The Make a Difference Home Irr rc r ment Program inyinnAir emir C nsaara w Ands ` 14/7 7 76-6 42 I . I :•a\ -. Spaunariew�Jr l e ►p of Paw Desert puerevn�`�3r AgerleY Dear Homeowner: The City of Palm Desert is putting together its first ever"Make A Difference Day"! This is a project where we will work on a selected street in the City to beautify a section of a particular neighborhood block in a one day event! Each homeowner selected will receive one or more of the following services: exterior painting,general yard clean-up, landscaping,fence repair and painting that can be done in a day; all at no charge to you! One of our House Captains will be assigned to your home. That person will work with you in deciding what work will be done as well as coordinating the • volunteer workers who will come to your home on May 9th to complete the work. It is important to note that by filling out and returning this application, you are not guaranteed participation. Your neighborhood will be selected based on how many of your neighbors choose to participate. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, sex or race. The "Make A Difference " Program has selected the neighborhood located along the northwest corner of San Anselmo and Catalina Ave. The primary factor for neighborhood approval is participation amongst your qualifying neighbors. Should most wish to participate the described area above will be our focus area for the "Make A Difference Day "of May 9th. By completing the attached application and returning it to the City of Palm Desert's Redevelopment Agency by Friday, April 10, 1998, we can begin our evaluation process. As our goal is to Make A Difference and to continue to make Palm Desert a wonderful place to live. Consider this program as our gift to you. The Make a Difference Home lammed Rogan ef last776--6421 flap 1Patee Desert !�Y EVENT DAY FOCUS HOUSES ADDRESS WORK NEEDED 73-030 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint wooden fence Empty lot Catalina Ave Remove debris and weeds 73-051 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint wooden fence, cut grass, prepare and paint exterior of the house. Repair asphalt driveway. 73-061 Catalina Ave Landscape side yard 73-060 Catalina Ave. No work needed 73-070 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint side wooden fence 73-075 Catalina Ave. Patch sod, and cut grass 73-085 Catalina Ave. Replace roof,repair,prepare, and paint wooden fence. 73-082 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint wooden fence 73-092 Catalina Ave. Landscape in front of block wall 73-095 Catalina Ave. Prepair and paint exterior house 73-105 Catalina Ave. Landscape front yard. 73-115 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint wooden fence 73-110 Catalina Ave Cut grass 73-124 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint exterior house and cut the grass. 73-125 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint fascia and landscape front yard. 73-130 Catalina Ave. No work needed 73-131 Catalina Ave. Cut grass and pull weeds out of rocks. 73-141 Catalina Ave No work needed. 73-140 Catalina Ave. No work needed 73-155 Catalina Ave. (Maybe Apartments)No work needed 73-153 Catalina Ave (Maybe Apartments)No work needed 73-150 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint exterior house and garage door - 73-160 Catalina Ave. Prepare and paint wooden fence 73-165 Catalina Ave. (Maybe Apartments)Patch sod. 73-163 Catalina Ave. (Maybe Apartments)Patch sod. 73-175 Catalina Ave Repair and paint garage door,and patch sod. 73-173 Catalina Ave. Patch grass 73-180 Catalina Ave. Remove and replace roof, and garage door. Remove or repair and paint patio cover. 73-200 Catalina Ave. Repair fence. Prepare and paint wooden fence. Prepare and paint garage door, cut the grass, and landscape side yard. 73-185 Catalina Ave. (Maybe Apartments)Patch grass 73-183 Catalina Ave. (Maybe Apartments)Patch grass 73-193 Catalina Ave No work needed 73-208 Catalina Ave. (Possibly bank repo)Windows are boarded up, needs landscaping, prepare and paint exterior, and garage door 73-115 Catalina Ave No work needed 73-233 Catalina Ave. No work needed 73-240 Catalina Ave. Remove and replace roof,prepare and paint exterior of the house, ani all trim, removal of debris from front and back yard, removal and replacement of wooden fence, prep. And paint fences. Landscape front yard. 73-243 Catalina Ave Prepare and paint wooden fence 73-250 Catalina Ave. Repair small section of stucco, and prepare and paint exterior of the house. PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: APRIL 9, 1998 TO: CITY MANAGER,HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA LA ROCCA, HOUSING PROGRAMS COORDINATOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION: That the Council, by minute motion, direct staff to proceed with the preparation of an ordinance pertaining to the conversion of mobile home parks. BACKGROUND The Housing Advisory Committee received a request from the Silver Spur Mobile Home Park Association regarding a request for consideration of recommending the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council pertaining to conversion of mobile home parks similar to one adopted by the City of Westminster. As a result and at the request of the Housing Advisory Committee, staff forwarded the Westminster Ordinance to the City's legal counsel for review and advice as to legal liability to the City, and the validity of the ordinance if adopted. Helen Dreyer of Best, Best and Krieger prepared an analysis of the ordinance and concluded that the City should consider the creation and adoption of an ordinance similar to that of Westminster to enable the City to carry out the requirements of Government Code Section §65863.7 and §65863.8 which requires the following: "(a)... prior to closure of a mobile home park or cessation of use of the land as a mobile home park, the person or entity proposing the change in use shall file a report on the impact of the conversion...upon the displaced residents of the park {park}...the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation costs." MEMORANDUM TO: CITY MANAGER, HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PROPOSED MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE March 12, 1998 "(e) The legislative body or its delegated advisory agency, shall review the report, prior to any change of use, and may require as a condition of the change, the person or entity to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion... on the ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park. The steps required to be taken to mitigate shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation." {emphasis added.} Hence, in order for the City to respond to the submittal of an Impact Report by a developer or park owner, there needs to be a process in place to review and respond to the report. Based on this, it is legal counsel's recommendation that an ordinance be prepared and presented for adoption in response to the above cited government code section. REVIEWED AND CONCUR TERESA L. LA ROCCA Executive Director, RDA Housing Programs Coordinator TLR:dcl City Manager Page 2 SFi By: 1-20-98 : 5:50PM :BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-' 7603400574:# 3/16 LAW orrlcE• Or BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP January 20, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa La Rocca, Housing Programs Coordinator FROM: Helene P. Dreyer, Deputy City.Attorney RE: Request for review - Proposed Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance You have asked for our review and comment upon City of Westminster Ordinance No. 2222 ("the Westminster Ordinance") which was brought to the attention of the Housing Advisory Committee by residents of the Silver Spur Mobile Home Park Association via Councilwoman Jean Benson. You have also requested our consideration of the probable effect if a similar ordinance were adopted in the City of Palm Desert; and our review of the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency's current Policies and Procedures regarding the conversion of mobile home parks. Mobilehome conversion is an area of law that is highly 411 regulated by the State. In many respects, that regulation amounts to preemption. However, there is some latitude for local regulation and, with respect to relocation impacts, local agency review is mandated. Therefore, at a minimum, an enabling ordinance needs to be adopted to provide a procedure for the required review. In adopting such an ordinance, however, we cannot recommend verbatim adoption of the Westminster Ordinance for the reasons outlined below. However, the Westminster Ordinance can be used as a "starting point" for developing a conversion ordinance for use in the City of Palm Desert. I. EXISTING LOCAL REGULATION. The City of Palm Desert Municipal Code currently regulates mobilehome parks via Chapter 9.50 (Mobile Home Park Rent Review] and Chapter 25.22 (R-1-M Single-Family/Mobile Home Residential District) . Except for the limitations upon conversion to other uses which zoning may present and/or limitations of rent control, neither of these Chapters significantly impacts the actual conversion process or scheme.] 1/ In adopting a new ordinance, care must be taken not to use the definitional scheme of Chapter 9.25 - which applies only to rent control vis a vis the park owner as lessor and the owner of the IWU HPD1eco SENT BY: 1-20-98 ; 5:50PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-, 7603400574;# 4/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP You have also requested our "review of the current policies and procedures regarding conversion of mobilehome parks. " The only such document you have submitted to us is the Redevelopment Agency' s "Policies and Procedures Regarding the Conversion of Mobile Home Parks to Resident Ownership" ("the RDA Policies" . ) The RDA Policies govern the provision of financial aid where a conversion to resident ownership is sought. On the whole, the policies are not objectionable./ They establish guidelines for the conditions upon which financial aid might be granted and further a stated goal to encourage conversion to resident ownership in order to increase affordable housing. In relation to the Westminster Ordinance and/or the issue of ordinance adoption in the City of Palm Desert, however, it must be noted that the RDA Policies apply only to conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership and only, to standards governing financial aid. They do not set forth a process for conversion to residential ownership and do not apply to conversion of parks to any other use. Therefore, the RDA Policies would be largely unaffected by the adoption of an ordinance similar to the Westminster Ordinance unless specifically incorporated therein. (If there are additional policies applying to such alternate conversions, please submit them for review prior to adoption of any ordinance. ) II. THE WESTMINSTER ORDINANCE. The Westminster Ordinance is not directed at issues of zoning or rent control. Rather, it concerns itself with the conversion of existing mobilehome parks "to any other use of land. . . or a change in the form of ownership of all or any portion" of the park. (Westmin. 17.59.10 (H) [defining "Mobilehome Park Conversion"] . ) Essentially, it provides a scheme whereby notice must be given of intent to convert, an impact report prepared, public hearing, and relocation reimbursement_ imposed upon the "owner and/or applicant" prior to approval of a conversion permit. Our review of this ordinance has revealed several areas of significant concern and/or inconsistency. mobilehome as lessee. Thus, for example, "tenant" is defined in the rent control regulation as "an owner of a mobile home, " (P.D. Munic. C. 9.50.20 (J) ) , whereas (as discussed below) a distinction must be made in a conversion ordinance between "owners" and "residents" of those mobilehomes. V Please note that the final section of the RDA Policies contains several type-o's which you may wish to correct when you have the opportunity, particularly in the bolded paragraph beginning with "It shall further be the policy. . . " , as well as subparagraph (3) thereunder. wUIMPO1540 -2- SENT BY: 1-20-98 ; 5:50PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEfFR 7603400574;# 5/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A. SEVERAL DEFINITIONS ARE TOO BROAD OR AMBIGUOUS. 1. 'Applicants . Section 17.59 .010 (A) defines "Applicant" for a conversion permit as any "person(s) , firm(s) , entity(ies) or corporations) applying for a conversion permit for the purpose of converting,] changing to another use, closing or ceasing to use land as a mobilehome park. " By this broad definition, any resident of a mobilehome park could initiate a conversion application process and that process could arguably be completed without any consent of the park owner. (Note also the distinction later made that the "park owner and/or applicant" is responsible for paying relocation costs (sec. 17.59.50) . ) This is admittedly an extreme example. However, consider that a mobilehome park resident has submitted the Westminster Ordinance in hopes of its adoption. Whether that resident' s motivation was the desire to see a notice and relocation provision adopted, or the mistaken belief that such an ordinance would enable residents to force a conversion against the wishes of the park owner, is not clear. Furthermore, it is a problem easily avoidable by fine tuning the definition of "applicant" in any statute adopted. A Westminster Deputy City Attorney closely involved with the adoption of the Ordinance has indicated that this provision was worded broadly with the intent of including prospective park purchasers/developers in the group of those authorized to commence a conversion application. Changing the wording used by Westminster to "park owner, or any person with the written consent of the park owner" would both alleviate our concerns and avoid misleading residents, while also meeting the developer/purchaser objective. 2. "Comparable Mobilehome Park' . Under the Westminster Ordinance, consideration must be given to the existence and availability of "comparable mobilehome parks" to which residents may be relocated and for which relocation an "owner and/or applicant" may be held to pay relocation expenses. However, "comparable mobilehome park" is defined (sec. 17.59.010 (c) ) with reference to parks "within a 50 mile radius" . Given the geographic limitations of the Coachella Valley, this distance is probably too large to be considered "comparable. " 3/ Pursuant to section 17.59.10 (H) , "conversion" includes, but is not limited to, closing or changing the use or ownership of a park. wtmviro tern -3- SENT BY 1-20-98 ; 5:51PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER� 7603400574;# 6/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 3. "Conversion Permit" . Section 17.59.010 (E) defines "conversion permit" as that issued "to the park owner" authorizing "the park owner" to discontinue the use, while subsection (A) [discussed above) permits any "person (s) " to apply for the permit. If the intent is to permit developers and/or purchasers to initiate a conversion process, consideration should be given to whether final approval may tentatively issue before that applicant is the actual "owner. " Conversely, if the permit may only issue to the "owner, " then the broad definition of subsection A (virtually "any person" can apply) makes no sense. 4. "Mobilehome Owner" "Non-resident Mobilehome Owner" Resident" Here is where the definitional scheme of the Westminster Ordinance really begins to fall apart. "Mobile home owner" is defined as the registered owner of a mobilehome (sec. 17.59.010 (G) ) , and "Non-resident Mobile Home Owner" as an owner that does not reside in the park. (Sec. 17.59.010 (I) .) However, the Ordinance also uses the terms "resident, " "occupant" and "tenant" without defining or distinguishing those terms, and no definitional provision has been made for "residents" who are not "home owners. " Furthermore, the term "resident" is not, used in sections where logic dictates that "residents" should have been included. The result of these inconsistencies may leave "residents" who are not also "home owners" unprotected under the Ordinance. For example : * Section 17.59.025 prohibits the sending of any notices or correspondence to "residents" concerning conversion, except as required by the Ordinance, but then the Ordinance never "requires" any notices to "residents"; * Many of the notices required need only be given to "home owners" but not likewise to "residents" - even though conversion impact upon the residents is a vital issue to be considered in impact reports and at public hearing (sec. 17.59.025) ; * The Conversion Impact Report must contain "Occupant" information; the names/addresses of persons "owning or occupying" ; the total number of "residents"; whether the "residents" are "owners" or "tenants" ; and the length of occupancy of the "current occupant" (sec. 17.59. 030 (C) (1) , (2) ) ; MPUO\NPo184o -4- SENT BY: 1-20-08 ; 5:51PM ;REST, BEST,& KRIEGER-, 7603400574;# 7/16 LAW OFFICES of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP * If the "residents" fail to cooperate in providing the information required for the Impact Report, the City may waive the requirement. No similar exemption is provided for lack of cooperation from "home owners" , "occupants" , "tenants" or "current occupants", as distinguished from "residents" . (Sec. 17.59.030 (C) (2) ) ; * The Impact Report must also include a relocation compensation plan, including plane to accommodate the "home owners" of unrelocatable homes and the specific benefits and options available to "home owners" , but apparently not similar information as to the impact on "residents" or "occupants" . (Sec. 17.59 .030 (C) (4) ; * The applicant or park owner is required to mitigate the effects of the conversion on "displaced home owners" by providing relocation compensation (sec. 17 .59.050 . ) These include not only the expense of relocating the actual home, but also the cost of moving personal belongings and a daily living allowance. (Sec. 17.59.050 (D) , (E) . ) However, expenses for moving personal belongings are limited to the personal effects of the "home owner" - not the "resident" . Furthermore, the daily living allowance is calculated via consideration of the number of "residents" or "persons residing" in the home, but additional funds are provided for each person "permanently residing" in the home; the allowances apply only for each day "a home owner and cohabitants" are without a home; and it the "home owner, " not the "resident, " who is designated to actually receive the daily living allowance and/or apply for an additional allowance. (Id. ) Having thus so limited relocation compensation entitlement to "home owners, " subsection 17.59. 050 (I) then provides that a "non-resident homeowner" is not eligible for any relocation compensation other than for moving the actual home; * Only "home owners" are entitled to receive a rent differential on the basis of age or low income (subsection (H) ) ; and * Any notice to -a "mobile home owner or resident" required by the Ordinance is considered given so long as it is provided to "one such owner" in the case of multiple "owners. " It ignores "multiple residents" and implies that one notice to one "home owner" is sufficient regardless of the existence or number of "residents" . wwMra1e40 -5- SENT By: 1-20-98 ; 5:51PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEG R-. 7603400574;# 8/16 LAW OFFIc[8 OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Likewise, any compensation expense payable to a "mobile home owner" is deemed paid to all such "owners" when given in full to one "owner. " (Sec. 17.59. 010 (G) . ) Though not fatal, in many instances this lack of clarity leaves the Ordinance difficult to understand and implement correctly. By separately defining "non-resident home owner" , the term "home owner" is probably intended to be limited to "resident homeowners. "J However, even that distinction becomes clouded when considering who is a "registered owner" ; who is an "occupant" vs. a "resident" ; whether a "resident, " "occupant" or "homeowner" is also a "permanent resident"; and what to do with "residents" who are not also "home owners", regardless whether those "residents" are thereby "tenants" or mere "occupants. " There is also the use of the phrase "mobile home owners residing in their parks" in the section on notification of rights (sec. 17.59.090) , which negates an interpretation that "mobile home owner" automatically means "resident mobile home owner. "y' In adopting any ordinance for the City of Palm Desert, careful consideration must be given to developing clear definitions and an unambiguous description of the rights to notice and reimbursement of all such persons. B. THE ORDINANCE IMPERMISSIBLY RESTRICTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 411 Section 17.59.025 provides; "With the exception of the notices required by this ordinance and correspondence directly related to the preparation of the Conversion Impact Report (CIR) , the applicant shall not issue any arbitrary notices or letter to the residents concerning the intention to convert or close the Park. Such actions shall be considered arbitrary if no application for conversion is filed with the City within 30 calendar days thereafter. In the case of such arbitrary action, the City shall notify the applicant that a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. . . . " 1J See also City of Westminster Ordinance 2227 [establishing Mobilehome Commission] which defines, for that purpose, "mobile home tenant", "tenant" and "resident" to mean "any person entitled to occupy a mobile homc dwelling unit pursuant to ownership thereof or a rental or lease agreement with the owner thereof. (Sec. 2.61. 010 (D) . 51 See, e.g. , Civil Code sec. 798.11 [mobilehome residency law] defining "homeowner" as "prson who has a tenancy in a mobilehome park" ; and "resident" as , homeowner or other person who lawfully occupies a mobilehome."/ MPUVVPD1111.0 %" -6- 1J SSNIT BY 1-20-38 ; 5:52PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-' 7603400574;# 9/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP As noted, above, "applicant" means "person(s) , firm(s) , entity(ies) or corporation(e) applying for a conversion permit . " (Sec. 17.59.010 (A) . ) All "applicants" are prohibited from issuing any "notice or letter" that is "concerning the intention to convert or close the Park" unless they also actually file an application for conversion within 30 days. Violation results in the imposition of a daily fine of $200 per day. This is clearly an impermissible prior restraint upon the freedom of speech and would not survive a Constitutional challenge. Additionally, imposing such a restraint is unreasonably impractical. The restraint essentially means that a developer cannot investigate the willingness of park residents to permit conversion without objection; strips any applicant of the opportunity to investigate and attempt to address objections in advance of application; prohibits homeowner associations from canvassing the residents with respect to proposals for a buyout of the park owner and conversion to residential ownership; restricts the applicant's ability to obtain an informed estimate of the ultimate cost of conversion before beginning the application process; and essentially prohibits any advocation for or against conversion unless and until the filing of an application will be made within 30 days or never made. Thus, even if not Constitutionally invalid, the restriction impedes efforts to effect park conversion - including conversion to residential ownership - and could result in needless initiations of the permitting process eAN (and waste of City resources) by persons undecided as to conversion, but trying to avoid the running of the 30 days. When questioned regarding this "no speech" provision, the Deputy City Attorney for the City of. Westminster indicated that the provision was included to make clear exactly when the conversion application process began and to avoid creating the impression among residents that an application had been submitted. Apparently, there had been many "false alarms" in the community. However admirable Westminster's goals, we do not believe their solution withstands Constitutional scrutiny. Nor would altering the provision to require that any communications indicate whether an application has been filed likely be permissible. Instead, of either option, we recommend establishment of a clearly defined commencement indicator, such as the filing of a particular form. In that way, both the public and staff may readily ascertain whether an application has been commenced without impermissibly restraining the free speech rights of park owners or others who may wish to communicate with residents on the topic of conversion. While that may result in a few "false alarm" calls to City Hall, that is far less problematic than a constitutional challenge. (Nor is the problem likely to be as widespread as that encountered in Westminster, where mobilehome parks are apparently far more prevalent. ) Pwv1 m'otato -7- SEN BY: 1-20-98 ; 5:52PN ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-. 7603400574:#10/16 LAw °Freers Or BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP C. THE ORDINANCE LEAVES MATERIAL ISSUES UNADDRESSED. In addition to the definition/terminology inadequacies, the Westminster Ordinance does not specifically address issues and/or is otherwise problematic in the following respects: * Does not address situation where all existing fixed-term leases have expired and the applicant is seeking to convert an unoccupied mobilehome park; * Does not address the confidentiality and/or public . records accessibility of resident name/address information. (See, e.q. , Govt. C. sec. 7060.4 (notification to public entity of intent to withdraw accommodations subject to rent control, information respecting tenant names/addresses to remain confidential) ) ; * The relocation compensation does not include consideration of the value of lose of the leasehold (if you prefer to include it) ; * Where a home is determined to be "unmovable, " the applicant and/or park owner is required to compensate the home owner for the "appraised value" of the home. However, to the extent the Ordinance empowers the park owner to compel a premature end to the tenancy of a homeowner/resident with an unexpired, fixed-term lease, the city may be at risk of suit based upon allegations of actual or inverse condemnation. * The "daily living allowance" rates and the schedule for advance payment of expenses may be unreasonable. * The Ordinance requires park owners to give notice to all "mobile home owners residing" in the park - yet another use of undefined terminology that appears to conflict with, or mean something different than, "resident", "tenant", "homeowner, " etc. III. EXISTING STATE LAW REGULATION OF MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION. Under the Westminster Ordinance, a "conversion permit" must be obtained for any change of use or change in form of ownership for a mobilehome park - in addition to any other required "change of use" permits. (Sec. 17. 59 .020. ) The "change of use" includes conversion to vacant land (non-use) and conversion to commercial (non-residential) use. 'she Westminster Ordinance is probably valid to the extent it imposes a permitting requirement and imposes an obligation for payment of relocation compensation regardless of the financial circumstances of the persons being relocated (sec. 17.59.050) . 't,.\HPo184Q -8- SIN ( 5y: 1-20-98 ; 5:52PM ;REST, BEST,& KRIEGER- 7603400574;#11/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP However, its imposition of a one year waiting period (sec. 17. 59.045 (6) ) following a denied application probably violated the Ellis Act (discussed below. ) A. THE ELLIS ACT. Ordinarily, an owner of residential real property has a near absolute right to "go out of business" - that is, to discontinue offering the property for residential tenancy - free from local regulation designed to prohibit or restrict that right. (Govt . C. sec. 7060 et. seq. "Ellis Act" . ) The Ellis Act is preemptive in nature and was intended to address "the plight of the landlord. " (Civil C. sec. 7060; Los Angeles Lincoln Place Investors, Ltd, v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 53, 61 [legislative history of Act demonstrates purpose to allow landlords to go out of residential rental business by evicting tenants and withdrawing all units from market] . ) This right to "go out of business" applies even with respect to rent controlled units, most residential hotels, rental of historic landmarks, and local regulation designed to maintain affordable and/or available housing levels. (See, e.q. , First Presbyterian Church of Berkeley v. City of Berkeley 1997 WL 763210 (Cal .App. 1 Dist December 1997) ; Los Angeles Lincoln Place Investors,, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 54 Cal .App.4th 53; Bullock v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal .App. 3d 1072; Channinq Properties v. City of Berkeley (1992) 11 Cal .App.4th 88; Javidzad v. City of Santa Monica (1988) 204 Cal.App. 3d 524; and City of Santa Monica v. Yarmark (1988) 203 Ca1.App.3d 153 . ) However, the Ellis Act expressly states that it is not the intent of the legislature to "alter in any way either [Govt. C. ] section 65863 .7 [Planning and Zoning] relating to the withdrawal of /i accommodations which comprise a mobilehome park from rent or lease or [Civil Code sec. 798 .56 (g) ] relating to a change of use of a 401 • FIPLIMPD1eMO -9- SINE BY 1-20-98 ; 5:53PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-. 7603400574;#12/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP mobilehome park. "J [These statutes are together herein referred to as the "mobilehome conversion statutes" . ] The mobilehome conversion statutes, especially Civil C. sec. 798.56, are intended to protect mobilehome tenants from arbitrary eviction in recognition of the extreme cost and low practicality of relocating mobilehomes. Thus, while the Ellis Act is directed toward the plight of the landlord, the mobilehome conversion statutes focus upon the plight of the tenant. (See, Keh v, Walters (1997) 55 Cal .App.4th 1522, 1534. ) B. MOBILEHONE CONVERSION [Govt. C. sec. 65863.7, 65863.8] Section 65863 .7 is applicable to charter cities (sub. (h) ) and mandates that : " (a) . . . prior to closure of a mobilehome park or cessation of use of the land as a mobilehome park, the person or entity proposing the change in use shall file a report on the impact of the conversion. . . upon the displaced residents of the [park] . . . the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobilehome parks and relocation costs. " " (e) The legislative body, or its delegated advisory agency, shall review the report, prior to any change of use, and may require, as a condition of the change, the person or entity to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion. . . on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate housing in a mobilehome park. The steps required to be taken to mitigate shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. " [Emphasis added. ] 6/ Likewise, though preemptive to the extent it confers a right to go out of business, the Ellis Act leaves some leeway for loca] regulation: If property is subject to rent control, a public entity may provide by ordinance (or by resolution subject to voter referendum) that withdrawn accommodations later again offered for accommodation shall be subject to rates and controls as if never withdrawn and, if again offered within one year, subject to additional tenant compensation and/or punitive damages. (Civil Code sec. 7060.2) ; if property subject to rent control, public entity may require by ordinance (or by resolution subject to voter referendum) that the owner notify the entity of intention to withdraw accommodations (or intention to again offer) from rent or lease and may require that notice contain statements under penalty of perjury providing information on dumber, and names/addresses of persons being displaced and applicable level of rent. (Civil Code sec. 7060 .4 . ) IIPIB\IF018W -10- SENT BY 1-20-98 ; 5:53PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-. 7603400574;#13/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A public hearing concerning the impact report must be held if requested by either the applicant or a tenant or homeowner. (Sec. 65863.7 (d) . ) The local agency must provide the applicant, in writing, notice of the provisions of Civil Code sec. 798.56 and any local regulation affecting notices that must be given by the applicant to tenants and mobilehome owners. A hearing on the impact report may not be held until the applicant has submitted verification (in a form specified by the local agency) that the residents and mobilehome owners have been notified as required by law. (Sec. 65863.8. ) C. MOBILEBOHE RESIDENCY LAW [Civil C. sec. 798.56] Civil Code sec. 798.56 (g) is a portion of the Mobilehome Residency Law and addresses change of use or discontinuance of a mobilehome park via termination of tenancy. The Mobilehome Residency Law is preemptive and also applies to long term leases, which are exempt from local rent control regulation. (Civil C. sec. 798.17 (b) ; Lake Cadena v. City of Colton (1998) 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 472, 473 . ) Some portions of the Mobilehome Residency Law apply only to longterm leases. (See, e.q. , sec. 798.17 (b) ["rental agreements subject to this section . . . (1) shall be in excess of 12 months' duration. . . . "] . ) However, section 798.56 appears to apply to all types of "tenancies" in a mobilehome park, defined as "the right of a homeowner to the use of a site within the park. . . . " (Sec. 798.12. ) Section 798.56 (g) provides that a park owner may terminate or refuse to renew tenancy based upon planned change of use provided, inter alia, that : 1. Homeowners are given at least 15 days notice of public hearing requesting permits for change of use and provided a copy of the report required by Govt. C. sec. 65863.7 [relocation impact report] ; 2 . Homeowners are provided 6 months notice of termination of tenancy after all required permits are obtained for change of use; or 12 months notice if no local change of use regulation applicable; 3 . Notice of the proposed change (or of plans to apply for a change) are provided to proposed homeowners. In Keh v . Walters (199V) 55 Cai.App.4th 1522, 1535, the court held that Civil Code sec. 798.56 and Government Code sections 65863 .7 and 65863 . 8 "were clearly intended to function together as an integrated scheme . " Furthermore, the requirements of sec. 65863. 7 "were not made dependent upon the enactment of a local NPII\NP01540 -11- SEA BY: 1-20-98 ; 5:54PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-' 7603400574;#14/16 LAW OFFICES Or BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP ordinance and are not excused by the fact that the local ordinance did not describe a particular filing and review process. . . . " Regardless of the existence of an enabling ordinance, the person or entity proposing the change cannot proceed until the local agency has reviewed the impact report. (Id. at 1538 .) D. ABSENT FURTHER LEGISLATION OR COURT DECISION, THE RESTRICTIVE MOBILEHOME CONVERSION STATUTES PREVAIL OVER THE ELLIS ACT. In Yee v. Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1528 - 1529, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 1992 version of California' s various statutes governing mobilehome park rent increase and removal restrictions did not constitute a physical taking because "the decision to use property as mobilehome park in first instance was voluntary. " Commentators have maligned this conclusion, as well as California' s regulatory scheme, stating, for example, that: "changes in [mobilehome park] land use just don't happen in California. An elaborate zoning and regulatory process must be negotiated. . . [and] in effect, the [Mobilehome Residency Law] and rent control laws do not ' require' landowners to keep their land in the same use. They 'only' say that you must pay a prohibitive tariff to shift land use. " (R. Epstein, Yee v. City of Escondido: The Supreme Court Strikes Out Again (1992) 26 Loy.L.A.L.Rev. 3, 18. ) In Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley (1988) 11 Ca1.App.4th 88, 100, the court determined that requiring a landowner to pay relocation expenses for all displaced residential property tenants (in this case, $148, 500 for 33 units) regardless of the tenants' income status violated the Ellis Act by imposing "a prohibitive price on the exercise of the right under the Act. " The mobilehome conversion statutes likewise pose a high risk of imposing a "prohibitive tariff" upon discontinuance as a mobilehome park. However, Channinq did not involve a mobilehome park and few cases have expressly addressed the interplay between the Ellis Act (which is intended to favor the landlord) and the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil C. sec. 798.56) and mobilehome park conversion/zoning regulations (Govt. C. 65863 .7) , intended to favor tenants and to consider the high cost of relocating mobilehomes. According to Witkin: "Unless there is an express provision to the contrary, it must be conclusively presumed that the statute which is enacted last or has the highest chapter number prevails over a conflicting statute that was adopted earlier or has a lower chapter number. (Govt. C. sec. 9605; see In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Ca1.3d 727, 745, fn. 17 [highest NPnVnPo1e40 -12- SENT By: 1-20-98 ; 5:54PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER-, 7603400574:#15/16 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP chapter number rule manifests Legislature' s intent and must be followed] . ) Witkin, Summary of Calif. Law, Constitutional Law sec. 94 (c) ( ed. 199 . ) In this instance, the Ellis Act was enacted in 1985 via Senate Bill 505, Chapter 1509. The language in Govt . C. sec. 65863 .7 making it applicable to "closure of a mobilehome park or cessation of use of the land as a mobilehome park" was also enacted in 1985, but via Senate Bill 316, Chapter 1260 . Thus, by- virtue of the highest chapter number rule, ordinarily the Ellis Act would prevail over the mobilehome conversion statutes. However, as noted above, sec. 7060.7 (5) of the Ellis Act expressly provides that it is not intended "to alter in any way" either Govt. C. sec. 65863 .7 or Civil C. sec. 798.56 as they pertain to withdraw of mobilehome park accommodations and changes of use. Therefore, it cannot be "conclusively presumed" that the Ellis Act prevails over the conversion statutes. In June 1997, a California appellate court finally addressed (albeit briefly) the interplay between the Ellis Act and the mobilehome conversion statutes, concluding that the Ellis Act is not controlling based upon section 7060.7. (Keh v. Walters (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1533. In so doing, the court stated: *We agree with respondent that a park owner is entitled to convert property used as a mobilehome park to another use, or even to hold it as vacant land. And we are not unsympathetic to the plight of the mobilehome park owner, whose property rights are impacted by the various laws and regulations affecting mobilehome parks. Regardless of our views, however, our task as an intermediate court of appeal is limited to interpreting and applying existing law. " ( . at 1533 . ) In sum, therefore, the Ellis Act does not invalidate the (sometimes onerous) requirements of the mobilehome conversion statutes. However, that does not mean that the Ellis Act is wholly inapplicable. The one year waiting period imposed by the Westminster Ordinance upon denial of an application, for example, is probably still an impermissible prohibition/regulation by virtue of the Ellis Act. IV. CONSIDERATION OF THE WESTMINSTER ORDINANCE II+i LIGHT OF EXISTING STATE LAW. A. THE WORDING OF THE ORDINANCE RESPECTING PAYMENT OF RELOCATION EXPENSES SOMEWHAT IMPLIES AN AUTOMATIC OBLIGATION TO PAY. The Westminster Ordinance does properly state that ; "The Planning Commission shall require (as a condition of ANS approval of the proposed conversion) that the park owner MPLIB rotaao -13- SENT BY: 1-20-98 ; 5:54PM ;BEST, RFST,& KRIEGER-' 7603400574;#16/16 LAW OFFICES Or BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP and/or applicant shall take all reasonable measures to mitigate the adverse effects created by the change in use. These measures shall be based on the ability of the displaced home owners to find adequate replacement space in another comparable mobile home park. [P] The mitigation measures shall be limited to the payment of relocation compensation as established herein. . . . " (Sec. 17.59 .50 . ) This language tracks the requirements of Govt. C. sec. 65863 . 7 and, upon careful reading, is probably adequate. Nevertheless, it is our opinion that the Ordinance lacks clarity in that, due to its length and the overwhelming procedural detail contained in therein, if a similar ordinance is adopted then Lhis section should be amended to add an unequivocal statement making clear that entitlement to reimbursement compensation is not automatic and that the reason for the public hearing will be for the review of the impact statement and the determination of precisely who will be entitled to what amount. B. DOES THE CITY OF PALM DESERT "NERD' A MOBILEBOME CONVERSION ORDINANCE? Yea. The City must enact an enabling ordinance to carry out the requirements of Govt. C. section 65863 .7 and 65863 .8 (review of relocation impact report) . The City may also wish to include a requirement for obtaining a "conversion permit" (similar to the Westminster approach) . If the park owner/developer does not need to obtain any "local governmental permits" for a change of use of the park, then Civil C. sec. 798.56 requires that the converting party provide tenant/residents 12 months notice in advance of the conversion. If local government permits are required, the notice period is shortened to 6 months but begins to run after all required permits have been approved. Without a conversion permitting requirement, some conversions may not require an additional permit under current City ordinances . (Discontinuance of the park for mobilehome residency and reversion to vacant land, for example. ) i 'urn roteto -14-