HomeMy WebLinkAboutSB 444 Mobilehome Park111Y Of PRIM OESERi
73 5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DLSERT, CALIFORNIA 9226. 2578
TEL: 760 346-061 I
FAX:76i. 34( 5,4
cityliAlOci.palm dcscrt.La us
OFFIt E OF THE MAYOR
May 11, 2011
Honorable Bill Emmerson
Senator, 37th District
State Capitol, Room 4082
Sacramento, CA 95814
VIA MAIL AND FACSIMILE: (916)327-2187
RE — Senate Bill 444 (Evans)
Dear Senator Emmerson:
CITY COUNCILAC�ION
APPROVED ✓✓ DFNIE'Ili
RECEIVED OTHER
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File with City
On behalf of the City of Palm Desert and my fellow Council members, I strongly
support Senate Bill 444 (Evans) and urge you to vote yes on the bill. This bill
addresses issues that are of state-wide importance to every California City which
has a mobilehome park within its jurisdiction. As such, I write to urge your
support for SB 444.
This bill is of special importance to the City of Palm Desert. Our City is host to
numerous mobilehome parks with residents comprised of seniors, the disabled,
retirees, and low and median -income families. It contains seven parks with over
700 units. In fact, I personally reside in one of the City's parks. More parks are
situated in the neighboring cities of Palm Springs, Hemet, Banning, Beaumont,
Perris, Corona, Desert Hot Springs, El Cerrito, La Quinta, Moreno Valley,
Rancho Mirage, San Jacinto and Lake Elsinore. As such, the issues that this bill
addresses directly affect a large portion of your constituency.
As you will recall, SB 444 is a reiteration of two previous versions of this
legislation (AB 1452 and AB 566) which were both passed by the legislature but
vetoed by the Governor. Your previous support for AB 566 was critical to the
bill's passage, and is even more important to the passage of SB 444.
In fact, SB 444 is a more conservative version of this legislation than AB 566, as
it seeks only to clarify but not to change existing law. Simply put, SB 444:
gives cities like Palm Desert clear, much needed, direction regarding how
they may "consider" the resident "survey of support" that Government
Code § 66427.5 requires a conversion applicant to prepare; and
Office
• clarifies that conversion applications must not only satisfy the
requirements of Government Code § 66427.5, but must also comply with
other, co -equal provisions of state law that may apply to the park they are
converting (as is the case with all other land use and planning statutes).
However, today, the stakes are even higher. The passage of this bill is now more
important than ever for several reasons:
(1) SB 444 will out an end to mobilehome [)ark lawsuits that are pending up
and down the state of California and are costing California cities millions of
dollars in legal fees and costs. Currently, nearly every denial or conditional
approval of a conversion application by a local government is met with expensive
and protracted litigation. The City of Palm Desert has already invested
considerable dollars in a 2009 lawsuit involving the Indian Springs Mobilehome
Park (which is why our City urged your prior support for AB 566). Now,
neighboring municipalities facing these same issues have reached out to us to help
them through this same predicament. Currently, the cities of Carson, Los
Angeles, Chino, Sonoma County and Santa Cruz County have been confronted
with over $400 million dollars in damage lawsuits that have been filed against
them. This bill's retroactive application would stop all of these unnecessary and
expensive lawsuits.
(2) The clarification that SB444 will -provide has been directly requested by
the California Court of Appeals in a published opinion. In a recent published
opinion, Colony Cove, LLC v. City of Carson, the Second District Court of
Appeals held that the resident support survey must be considered by local
municipalities in deciding whether to approve, deny, or conditionally approve a
conversion application. The Court held:
"That subdivision requires applicants to obtain a survey of support of the
residents of the mobilehome park, conducted in accordance with specific
procedures, and to submit `[t]he results' to the entity or agency
`authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove the [subdivision] map.' This language alone suggests that
the contents of the survey, as opposed to its mere existence, are
relevant to the approval process. By thereafter specifically stating that
the results are `to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing
prescribed by subdivision (e),' the Legislature made that intention
explicit. Construing the statute to eliminate the power of local entities
and agencies to consider the results of the survey when processing a
conversion application would consign the `to be considered' language
of subdivision (d)(S) to surplusage."
CITY OF'O[(0 0 E S E R I
2
However, acknowledging that the statute does not give clear direction as to what
it means to "consider" the survey, the court directly requested clarification of this
issue by the legislature:
"The uncertainty derives from the statute itself, which requires local
agencies to consider resident survey results but provides no guidance
as to how the results may be used. It is our hope that the Legislature
will recognize the dilemma faced by local agencies ... and act to
clarify the scope of their authority and responsibilities "
SB 444 seeks guidance from the Legislature to finally lay these issues to rest. The
simple clarifications proposed by this bill will help municipalities comply with
the letter of the law (by clarifying what that law says) and will protect the
interests of thousands of property owners (manufactured -home owners who have
leasehold interests in the land they lease in mobilehome parks) in your
jurisdiction. As such, we urge you to once again support this important
legislation.
Bensofi
:)r, City of Palm Desert
CITY Of P 0 L M UE E R I
� � rnau. e. aaue nee
3