HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-26 STAFF REPORTS 1C L.qw OFFICES
GILCH-PJST &- F2UTTER
PROITLS93ONA-L CORPORATION
WILSHIRE FA ISAQEZ DUILOING TELEFHONC(010)3031000
1298 OGEAN AVENUL,SMITE BOO FACSIMILE 1310)39� 00
SANTA MONICA.CALIFORNIA 90401-1 000 E-MAIL.iel0000�11ct�Lilvi[u�.ea rn
July 21, 2006
VIA FEDERALExrRrss
Mayor Ronald Oden
Ginny Foat,Mayor Pro Tom
Councilmember Mike McCulloch
Councilmember Chris Mills
Councilmember Steve Poupet
City of Palm Springs
City Council
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1691 Prohibiting Mobile Home Park Conversions
City Council Hearing, July 26, 2006
Dear Mayor Oden, Mayor Pro Tom Foat, and Councilmembers McCulloch, Mills, and Pougnet:
This office represents Palm Springs View Estates Mobile Home Park ("Palm Springs
View") in its pending conversion to resident ownership in the City Of Palm Springs ("the City").
It has come to our attention that on Wednesday,July 26, 2006, the Palm Springs City Council
will vote whether to extend Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1691 ("No. 1691 i1). As you are
undoubtedly aware,No. 1691, which the City Council passed on June 21, 2006,imposes a 45-
day moratorium on mobile home park conversions within the City of Pahn Springs.
No. 1691 is not supported by the requisite legislative findings pursuant to Government
Code scezion 65858 and is an improper use of the City Council's authority to pass interim
urgency measures. An extension of NO. 1691 also is not supported by adequate findings and
would compound the City Council's errors and serve only to worsen the abuse of power. We
therefore urge you not to extend No. 1691.
We also note that a local agency cannot enact a moratorium on the processing of
subdivision applications. See Building lndusrey Legal Defense Found. v. Superior Court, 72 Cal-
App. 4' 1410, 1420 (1999). Accordingly, an extension of No. 1691 will have no affect on the
processing of Palm Springs View's pending tentative tract map application to convert the Park
from a rental Facility to a resident-owned mobile home park.
D 71ZG 196010
zr EX, i. e .
LRH OFFICES
GXLCBIUST&Rr7'RIER
nxo(m.:.'SCON.u.co[+Poytn�yoN
Mayor Ronald Odea
Ginny Foat,Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Mike McCulloch
Councilmember Chris Mills
Councilmember Steve Pougnet
July 21, 2006
Page 2
Finally,we caution you that a delay in approval of Palm Springs View's conversion
application will correspondingly delay Palm Springs View's ability to sell units,thereby causing
Palm Springs View to suffer damages. Palm Springs View will hold the City liable for these
damages and will pursue all available remedies in litigation against the City.
I. No. 1691 Is Not Supported By Factual Findings Constituting An Ureencv
It is well-established that unless the ordinance "recites facts that constitute the urgency
and those facts may reasonably be held to constitute an urgency,"an interim urgency ordinance
will be held invalid. 216 Sutter Bay Assoc. v. County of Sutter, 58 Cal.App. 0 860, 868 (1997).
The City Council may not use its power to pass interim urgency measures to further public
policy goals where there is no finding of"a current and immediate threat." Gov't Code §
65858(c).
No, 1691 clearly does not contain the requisite findings of"a current and immediate
threat." Rather, No. 1691 merely makes conclusions without providing any factual support:
"The conversion of mobile home parks to other uses or the subdivision of
mobile home parks and the concomitant change of a `for rent or lease' space to a
'for sale' lot within the City presents an immediate threat to the public health,
safety, and welfare in that the City currently has limited supply of mobile home
units,which are one of the most affordable forms of housing in the City.
Converting this type of housing to alternate uses or to subdivided `for sale' lots
will eliminate a significant source of affordable housing in the City and may
result in the creation of lots that will be sold to seasonal residents rather than full
time residents who are employed year round in the community and would
eliminate a form of housing for which there is a high demand by City households
earning lower incomes. . . The City intends to study the economic and market
impacts of converting mobile home parks to other uses and the subdivision of
existing mobile home parks, converting individual spaces into individual lots of
record for sale and to propose amendments to the City's municipal code to
address these impacts. The City must prohibit the conversion of its scarce supply
of mobile home parks to other uses or subdivision lots while staff completes its
land use studies and its economic analysis on the impacts of such conversions.
The issuance or approval or any general plan amendment, specific plan,
zone change,building permit, conditional use permit,variance,precise plan of
design, subdivision map, or parcel map, or other land use entitlement for the
WW OFPcGe
GmcC TRIsT&RUTTFR
PROF'Ij.:ZUNK CORPOR =QN
Mayor Ronald Oden
Ginny Foat,Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember Mike McCulloch
Councihnember Chris Mills
Councilmember Steve Pougiet
July 21, 2006
Page 3
conversion of a mobile home park would result in a threat to public health, safety
and welfare in that there are insufficient standards or regulations in the City's
municipal code that are unique to the City and comprehensively address mobile
home park conversions. The City does not currently have a mechanism to ensure
that the conversion of mobile home parks complies with all federal, state, and
local laws or with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, especially the
goals and policies pertaining to the provision of affordable housing."
Nowhere in these findings is there any support for the purported "immediate threat"to
public health, safety and welfare. The findings state that the City has a"limited supply of mobile
home units,"but do not say what that supply is or whether it is likely to be depleted any time in
the near future. The findings also do not consider the availability of other affordable forms of
housing in the City, only that mobile home units are among those affordable housing forms. Nor
do the findings address the fact that mobile home park residents may continue to rent their units
even after conversion to resident-ownership, thus calling into question whether any threat exists
at all, let alone the immediacy of any alleged threat.
To the contrary,the couclusory statements contained in No. 1691 have been made in total
disregard for the elaborate state legislative scheme that is designed to both encourage
conversions and protect affordable housing. The Subdivision Map Act, and in particular
Government Code section 66427.5,provide a comprehensive structure for mobile home
conversions while also providing mitigation measures. The findings in No. 1691 state that there
are "insufficient standards or regulations in the City's municipal code that are unique to the City
and comprehensively address mobile home park conversions." But it is settled law that section
66427.5 establishes a uniform statewide approach for converting mobile home parks to resident-
owned facilities. See El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City ofPahn Springs, 96 Cal.App. 4th
1153, 1168-69 (2002). In short, the City has no authority, let alone legal,rounds, upon which it
may "comprehensively address mobile home park conversions,"which result in a change of
ownership method.
Thus,the legislative findings set forth in No. 1691 fall far short of showing a"current and
immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare." Gov't Code § 65858(c). The City
Council failed to make the requisite findings when it first passed No. 1691. An extension of No.
1691 will only worsen the City Council's improper me of its authority_
uW OFFICeS
GILCHRIST &RII'S'TER
Mayor Ronald Oden
Giany Foat,Mayor Pro Tem
Councilm ember Mike McCulloch
Councilmember Chris Mills
Councilmember Steve Pougnet
July 21, 2006
Page 4
M No. 1691 Does Not Affect The Processing Of Palm Springs View's Conversion
Application
Based upon antidotal information in the public domain, the moratorium does not affect
the Palm Springs View application to convert Palm Springs View to a resident owned park.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City imposed No. 1691 with the aim of halting Palm
Springs View's conversion process,then the City is mistaken as to the law. A moratorium on
processing applications is prohibited. See Building Indusihy Legal Defense Found v. Superior
Court, 72 Cal. App, 4`h 1410, 1420 (1999).
"[S]ection 65858 is clear. It authorizes a city to prohibit any uses which may be
in conflict with a general plan being studied so long as the city makes a finding
the approval of additional subdivisions and other entitlements of use would result
in a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Nothing
in that section permits a city to prohibit the formal processing of
development applications,such as a tentative subdivision map."
Id. (emphasis supplied.)
The Subdivision Map Act establishes the procedure for processing development
applications:
"Given that the Map Act has established a comprehensive procedure for
processing development applications, and nothing in it allows a city to prolubit
the processing of a tentative subdivision map that is complete, a city cannot use
an interim ordinance as a backdoor method to modify the rules"
Id. at 1417 (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted).
Palm Springs View filed its conversion application prior to the 45-day conversion
moratorium imposed by No. 1691. Accordingly, City must continue to process Palm Springs
View's conversion application.
III. Palm Springs View Will Seek Damages Against The Citv For A Delay In The
Approval Of Its Conversion Application
The Court of Appeal's holding in El Dorado and decisions by other courts have made
very clear that local governments are pre-empted from attempting to legislate in the area of
mobile home parlc conversions. Because the holding of El Dorado makes very clear that the City
LaW OFFICHe
G-ILCHRIST&FLUTTER
eeot7:u.^,lon.tz cD[ti'oitlTioly
Mayor Ronald Oden
Gunny Foat,Mayor Pro Tem
Councihmember Mike McCulloch
Couucihnember Chris Mills
Councilmember Steve Pougnet
July 21, 2006
Page 5
does not have the authority to enact the sort of ordinance envisioned in No. 1691. The City is
imposing the moratorium for the purposes of delay of the conversion of Palm Springs View.
Palm Springs View hopes that the City Council will refrain from extending No. 1691 or
specifically exempt Palm Spring View in the resolution extending No. 1691. But if the City
Council chooses to extend that ordinance and not specifically exempt Pahn Springs View,
thereby delaying the conversion of Palm Springs View,Palm Springs View will seek all
available remedies,monetary and otherwise, in litigation against the City.
Very truly yours,
C, SIRLST &RUTTER
P �Gorporation
r /f jj
i j Vr
Richard H. Close
Of the Firm
cc: Douglas C. Holland, Esq. (Via FedEx)
James Thompson, City Clerk(Via FedEx)
JEL:=p/133234_I.DOCl072006
W 51.002
0'f-26-O6 04:54pm From- T-253 P.00Z/1102 F-T04
Staff Reports
The Desert Sun
June 24, 2006
Mobile home park submits application to convert lots
The owners of the Palm Springs View Estates mobile home park have submitted an application to convert
some lots into resident owned parcels.
The application was submitted June 5 to Start the process of converting the 178 lots. Property attorneys
have said residents at the 55-and-older mobile home park at 6300 Bolero Road will not be forced to buy
their lots_
The city is studying the application before sending it to the Planning Commission and City Council for
review.
On Wednesday,the Palm Springs City Council voted 4-0 to approve an interim urgency ordinance that
places a temporary moratorium on any mobile home park conversions.
However, because the Palm Springs View Estates application was filed before the council's vote,it is
exempt from the moratorium, Planning Director Craig Ewing said Thursday.
The ordinance is not meant to block mobile home park conversions but to make sure applications are fled
appropriately and that improvements are made to the parks when they are converted,City Attomey Doug
Holland said Thursday_
d 7/.7li�i�Pb�
Slob and Helga Slagle
155 Vista de la Montana, Palm Springs, CA
(760) 898-121 1 Email: bobslagle@earthlink.net
July 26, 2006
City of Palm Springs
Mayor, City Council and Members of Staff
P,O. Box 2743 (3200 E, Tahquitz Canyon Way)
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
Subject: Presentation to Palm Springs City Council at Meeting of July 26, 2006,
Agenda Item 1.C. Interim Urgency Ordinance Extending Ordinance No. 1691
Introduction: Bob Slagle, resident of Palm Springs View Estates Mobile Home
Park(PSVE MHP) and would like to address the council on Agenda Item 1C.
1. The Main Issue Is Rent Control. We are aware of mobile home park owners' long
history of legal efforts to eliminate rent control. They often cite impingement on their
property rights, and are brought about by lawsuits stating violations of the 5th
Amendment to the Constitution defined as a "taking" of their property rights.
Rejections by the courts do not stop the park owners; they are steadfast in their efforts
as they continue the fight. Many other actions have and are being undertaken with the
same purpose.
For those people that are staunch advocates of property rights, free markets and free
enterprise, it should be pointed out that mobile home residents do not have the freedom
to simply pick up and move like renters of residential properties when confronted with
increased rents or other negative impacts. They would have to physically move their
homes along with their belongings. Thus, rent control has a special purpose in this
case, and park owners are fully aware of it when they create or purchase a mobile
home park.
In seeking other more creative methods of dealing with rent control, park owners and
investors have been successful in converting parks to condominium ownership, which,
of course, eliminates rent control.
In response to court recommendations in a previous conversion case here in Palm
Springs, ordinances were adopted by the city council to prevent "sham" conversions
designed to avoid rent control laws. The slate also responded with modifications to the
applicable state codes for the same reason.
One provision in the city ordinances requires 51 percent of the residents to be in favor
of the conversion. Based on two surveys of the PSVE MHP residents, this clearly is not
the case. This should make it loud and clear that the proposed conversion is not in the
best interest of the residents in contrast to statements made by conversion proponents.
Apparently, the PSVE MHP park owners/investors have completely ignored these city
provisions in their conversion application, which, by the laws on the books, renders their
application incomplete, even though we understand it continues to be processed.
Also, we have been told of a current case in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area that has
impact on the Palm Springs ordinances involving the conversion of our park.
These issues identify at least two good reasons for delaying conversions and giving the
city a period of time to evaluate the current legal climate.
Our sincere wish is the city finds sufficient resolve to uphold the ordinances now on the
books.
2. Why Change A Good Investment? In comparing alternatives for investment, such
as office buildings, shopping centers and apartments, senior citizen mobile home parks
on rent control offer very low-risk, solid-gold opportunities. They have literally no
vacancy factors, the renters are locked in, since it is not economically feasible to move
their residences, the renters maintain their own units, rental income is automatically
increased yearly by law to keep up with inflation, and hardship rent increases are
available to offset unforeseen expenses.
So, why are the park owners/investors trying to give up a solid-gold investment?
Well, there is that sometimes incredible benefit of price appreciation when demand
exceeds supply, clearly evidenced by the recent real estate boom, and what is better
than having your tenants pay your expenses, plus a secure profit, during the property
holding period; and then the same tenants are allowed to purchase at new market
prices. "Truly a captured market." And there's still more: For low-income residents,
government subsidies are available to either purchase their lots, or rent at low rates,
which means taxpayers are helping the investors maximize their profits. Is this too good
to be true?
Probably not. However, the quest for excessive profits sometimes promotes disaster.
If, for instance, a good number of residents feel the lots are too pricey, or they simply
cannot afford to purchase, the motivation to maintain their homes in good condition
diminishes as does the motivation for the park owner to properly maintain the park. A
domino effect can occur. A deteriorating park will turn away potential buyers and cause
values to decrease.
Driving through a recently converted park in Palm Springs where there is a number of
abandoned lots scattered about with old concrete driveways bordering sandy pits where
the mobile homes once stood gives the impression this could happen.
2
3. Affordable Housing
The conversion of mobile home parks to condominium ownership tends to reduce the
supply of low-to-moderate-income housing in the community. There are 12 mobile
home parks in the City of Palm Springs listed under the jurisdiction of the California
Housing and Community Development Agency, with a total of 2,539 home sites,
accommodating 4,000 to 5,000 residents. With affordable housing almost impossible
to replace today, the entire community looses a valuable asset each time a mobile
home park is converted.
4. The Agony
The threat of a senior citizen park conversion tends to disrupt the residents and cause a
great deal of anxiety and even some remorse. Many feel that their retirement plans and
their very lifestyle are up for grabs. "Who do we believe? What are our options? What
will we do with so many unknowns?" It is particularly scary for residents with incomes
just over the low-income subsidy level, which is our case could be about 70 percent of
the residents according to the park owners/investors' official survey-
s. Summary
With the refusal of the PSVE MHP owner/investors to comply with our city ordinances in
the submission of their conversion application, and with the possible impact of a recent
court decision on this subject, it is obvious the city needs time to study the entire issue.
Without an extension of the emergency ordinance, we can expect a legal nightmare.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Slagle
Cc' Mayor, City Council and Staff Members
3
PALM SPRINGS VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
122 Via de Azulejos
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Phone: (760) 202-2389
Email: chackler@dc.rr.com
July 26, 2006
City of Palm Springs
Mayor, City Council and Members of Staff
P.O. Box 2743 (3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way)
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
Subject: Presentation to Palm Springs City Council at Meeting of July 26, 2006,
regarding moratorium on mobile home park conversions
Introduction: I am Cal Hackler, President of the Palm Springs View Estates
Homeowners' Association, and would like to speak on behalf of the residents of
our park on "Agenda Item 1C, INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE."
Our park was developed in the1970's and is located along the Palm Canyon
Wash in Palm Springs near the Cathedral City border. It consists of 184 mobile
homes, which are now often referred to as manufactured homes. Nearly all are
double-wide units of approximately 1500 square feet that provide comfortable
and safe housing for approximately 300 senior citizens.
In November 2005, the owners of our park, apparently composed of a newly
formed investment group, filed an application to the city for conversion to a
resident-owned park pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66427.5
and 66428.1-
Although our park is included in the subject moratorium, the park owners'
conversion application continues to be processed through the city departments
and associated agencies. We have many concerns with the details involved in
the conversion process, from the condition of the park's basic infrastructure, to
flood control issues, to aircraft noise, but here we wish to register our desire that
the conversion process be stopped for lack of conformance to the city's
ordinances.
Apparently, the owners' submittal was designed to comply with the new state
requirements for conversions, but not to comply with important provisions in our
city rent control ordinance. These provisions were adopted by the City of Palm
Springs, as were the new state codes, as the result of a court decision in the El
Dorado Mobile Home Park conversion to protect park residents from future
"sham" conversions designed to avoid rent control.
a
The new city requirements have more protection than those of the state and an
important provision requires a majority vote of the residents in order to convert
the park to "resident ownership."
The Tenant Impact Report survey required by the government codes to be
submitted with the owner's application was conducted by the owners'
representative and clearly shows that an overwhelming majority of the residents
do not favor conversion to a Resident-Owned Park. This report was included in
the owners' official submittal package to the city and shows that out of 116
respondents (63% of 184 total surveys mailed): 8% were in favor, 66% were not
in favor, and 26% declined to respond at this time.
A second survey conducted by the residents further confirms that even a larger
percentage of residents object to the proposed conversion.
By not complying with city codes of law, officially identified as "Rent Control
Ordinance Chapter 4.08.136, Rent adjustments following conversion of rental
mobile home park to resident ownership." the park owners have not submitted a
complete application and it should not be processed until it is complete. The
review process should be stopped either by the terms of the moratorium, or by
administrative action.
These laws were adopted in good faith by the city council on July 23, 2003 to
protect Palm Springs mobile home residents, many of whom are lower income
seniors on fixed incomes, and we believe they should be enforced immediately.
In other words, stop the conversion process until the application conforms to
existing city codes.
Thank you for your consideration.
PALM SPRINGS VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
Cal Hackler
President
Cc: Mayor, City Council and Staff Members
�i ON"au
MO OJ
oi
SIVI t] Divn
00 ' l N31l
. ,
PROOF OF PUB LICA'fION ,,,- ,i 'This in space foi County Clerks piling Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P) 22H .I(,AL 20 Al ! 3: CID No, 2347 NOTICE of PUBLIC NEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE -
J L.J it J:_r r I- MOBILE HOME PARR CONVERSIONS
CI T f Adapting mtonm Uryt•ncy TpaNbamr) ii
home park conversions wltlnn the Crry of '
I aprinys and Notice of Exemption from the
California Envlronmontal quality Act
APPllcint: City of Palm Sprinys
STATE Or CALIFORNIA NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY Council
Canal of Riverside of the City or Palm Springs, California will hold a
Y Public Hearing at Its noctrng of Julyy 26, 2DOE
The Oily Council mG�hnqq beglc;• at 6:00 p m. in
the Council Ch•imber at L'ty Ball SPOO East Tah-
qultz Canyon Way, papa Springs.
inn purpose of the Hear'Ingg ` to consider the ex-
torsion,for 10 month,= •in d 15 day.^, of the Inter..
inn Urgency Ordln3nca adCtu1g interim urg,.ncy
regulations prohibiting mobs a home parK conver-
sons within the Cry of Palm Springs pending
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of completion of a stu,y of the enacts of the con-
voeman of trial home p]riu to other uses or
the County aforesaid;I am Over the age Of eighteen — subdivLnon lots as may bo needed to alleviate a
current and actual threat to the ppublc I'roalth,
Years,and not a party to or interested in the ••dory, and welfare. The current Intenrrl Urgency
above-entitled matter. I am the principal cleric of a Ordinance expires on August S 2005
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING Pursuant to Government Code Sectlon 05858(3)
and IL• yuthorlry ovor maaters of local concert,-,a
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, a charter clry, the City Council finds me conver-
sion of nnobllc home parks to other uses or the
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, subdivision of moicile home pads and IN, can-
Count of Riverside,and which newspaper has been comitant change of a "for rent or lease space to
ya 'for soli,' lot within the Ciry ppresents an Imme.
a newspaper
adjudged a of general Circulation b the dialu threat to Iho public ne'aith, safery, ]rid weI-i
P P Y fare In that the Clry currentiy has Ilm lud supply Of
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of mobne home units,which are one of the most Of.
laical forms of houslng in the CITY. Convert!
n
California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case this type of rlagsinl TO alternate uses or to subd�
vide 'for cote" Io will eliminate a significant
Number 191236;that the notice,Of which the source of avoid 1I housing in the City and may
annexed is a COPY set in type not smaller result In me climmatlon of a form of housing for
p PY( yP which thvo is a hlyll demand by City households
than non pariel,has been published in each regular eirmnn lower Incomes.
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any For The punod of tnl; Or lmance 1110 City of Palm
Su lement thereof on the following dates,to wit: %ings shall mt issue or approve any gcnaral
pp g pplan amendment spedfio plan zone ,change,
building permit, conditional use permit, vadancq
n planned development permit, proase plan of de-
duly 15 ',200E sign,oI ppyyl4r land use Cnhllcrri lot the conver-
sion
_.._..— nor shall t7icCnl4ohome
I allm S rmo any
other use
tentatm, rollminai or final subpprove any
map su,laredln y, �vuion or Parcel
9 :Any mcblle, home parK on any
property wuhin the City of Palm Sormns during
---"----`—.....-`—'.....-`— the tllni, that this Int,,nm ordinanc; Is m effect,
All in the year 200E
The Ciry of Palm Spring,, in its capvattyy ll me
lead ]Benny for lair pmleat under the Calld the
Enwmnmenral rimenY Act (GEQA), evaiu prod the
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the ppursua l an Sectient1 imppacts of me Ordinance.
Parce it to Sectlon from
E 01 cir ihls view
foregoing is true and correct. nonce is exempt from aorlZes th'.un review
whereas the Ordinance ruthorizes thy.undertakingg
of feasibwTy and y OCing straw; and any interim
Dated at Palm Springs,California this---17n',---day �tand rds will noiybe OUI pored unto the mplete
pof The ropl q d proiptc
environmental evaiu+lion of the proposed protect
hat Occurred.
6i-- my- --------,200E REVIEW OF INFCM4ATION: The ecaff mNp and
outer suppglTing documents regarding ihla matter
pro avallabh for public review at CITY Hall be-
tween the hours of ti u.m,and 5.00 p.m. Mon-
day Il1rou h Friday. Please con{act the Off1ce of
-----� the City Clerk;it ((60) 323-8204 if you would like
to schedule vI appolntmcnt iq remr.w those doc-
( umenw. COMMkNT ON THIS ORDINANCE Rc-
Sign. oreponse to this notice may be made vernally at the
Public Ht,i and/or In wnting before the I
Ing.Written comments may be made to the Palm
Springs City Council In willing (marled far hand
delivered) la:
Jame•Thompson City Clerk
3200 E. Tahgwtz canyon Wry
Palm St CA 9]a52
If any group challenges Ille ac kin In court, issues
raised may be limited to onlyy thou issues raised
m at the Public He, n, deserfbed in this notice ar
n written corruspon fence,at, or prior lo, the Ciry
in
1-loarinp An opportunity will be given it
said Hearing nor all mtteeeted person,, to be
heard. CIu,,,,ucns regarding this case may be di-
rected to Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Sor-
viCcs, at 760-3p3.82Ab.
SI mCussita ayudi con esta cirt'a, perfavor IUme
la Ciudad do Palm Spring-:y puede hubiar con
Nadlnc FlCger teietouo 7GO-323-3245
J9Maa nomp^on, Ci ClerkC lerk
Published:7/15/2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE — MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS
Adopting Interim Urgency prohibiting mobile home park conversions within the City of Palm Springs
and Notice of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act
Applicant: City of Palm Springs
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a Public
Hearing at its meeting of July 26, 2006. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m- in the Council Chamber
at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of the Hearing is to consider the extension, for 10 months and 15 days, of the Interim Urgency
Ordinance adopting interim urgency regulations prohibiting mobile home park conversions within the City of
Palm Springs pending completion of a study of the effects of the conversion of mobile home parks to other
uses or subdivision lots as may be needed to alleviate a current and actual threat to the public health, safety,
and welfare. The current Interim Urgency Ordinance expires on August 5, 2006.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a) and its authority over matters of local concern as a charter
city, the City Council finds the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses or the subdivision of mobile
home parks and the concomitant change of a "for rent or lease" space to a "for sale" lot within the City
presents an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the City currently has limited
supply of mobile home units, which are one of the most affordable forms of housing in the City. Converting this
type of housing to alternate uses or to subdivide "for sale" lots will eliminate a significant source of affordable
housing in the City and may result in the elimination of a form of housing for which there is a high demand by
City households earning lower incomes.
For the period of this Ordinance the City of Palm Springs shall not issue or approve any general plan
amendment, specific plan, zone change, building permit, conditional use permit, variance, planned
development permit, precise plan of design, or other land use entitlement for the conversion of any mobile
home park to any other use nor shall the City of Palm Springs approve any tentative, preliminary, or final
subdivision or parcel map subdividing any mobile home park on any property within the City of Palm Springs
during the time that this interim ordinance is in effect.
The City of Palm Springs, in its capacity as the lead agency for this project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the Ordinance. Pursuant to Section
15262 or CEQA, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review whereas the Ordinance authorizes the
undertaking of feasibility and planning studies and any development which may occur pursuant to the interim
standards will not be approved until a complete environmental evaluation of the proposed project has
occurred.
REVIEW OF INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this matter are
available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8.00 a-m. and 5:00 p-m., Monday through Friday.
Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to
review these documents.
COMMENT ON THIS ORDINANCE: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing
and/or in writing before the hearing- Written comments may be made to the Palm Springs City Council in
writing (mailed for hand delivered) to:
James Thompson, City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the
Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the City Cotin�il_ Hearing.
An opportunity will be given at said Hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding-this
case may be directed to Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, at 760-323-8245. ,
Si necessity ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine
Fieger telefono 760-323-8245-
es Thompson, City Clerk